By:
Advanced search…

Welcome to Detroit Sports Forum!

By joining our community, you'll be able to connect with fellow fans that live and breathe Detroit sports just like you!

Get Started
  • If you are no longer able to access your account since our recent switch from vBulletin to XenForo, you may need to reset your password via email. If you no longer have access to the email attached to your account, please fill out our contact form and we will assist you ASAP. Thanks for your continued support of DSF.

Racial Bias

Gulo Blue said:
Would that matter? The fact is that this undesirable condition overwhelmingly disproportionally affects blacks. No matter what the initial motivation was, this is one more thing, similar to the others in this thread, that contributes to the higher levels of poverty of black Americans, which leads to countless other problems.
Click to expand...

You said "It would be more accurate to call it institutional racial discrimination, when half of the people of one race don't get to be led by their elected leaders"

My point was that they were able to be led by their elected leaders...but the leaders that they elected failed them. What would you propose...just let the elected leaders continue to fail?
 
tomdalton22 said:
You said "It would be more accurate to call it institutional racial discrimination, when half of the people of one race don't get to be led by their elected leaders"

My point was that they were able to be led by their elected leaders...but the leaders that they elected failed them. What would you propose...just let the elected leaders continue to fail?
Click to expand...


I don't know how to fix every broke city's problems, but continuing with elected leaders sure would have been better in Flint's case.



Not knowing how to fix the problems does not change the fact that this policy impacted races very differently. It racially discriminates. It may or may not be racist depending on whether or not the people that made the decision made their decisions any differently because they knew it would impact races unequally. Whether or not it was racist depends on the motivation. Whether or not it racially discriminates does not. It definitely racially discriminates. There are not 50 times more poor black Michiganders than white Michiganders.



Discrimination, contrary to how some people use the term, does not involve motivation. One of the more common uses for the word 'discriminator' is for a type of circuit that accepts or rejects signals based on some characteristic. It's coincidental that when people accuse digital cameras that can't detect dark faces of discrimination, they are absolutely technically correct.
 
How would continuing under the elected leaders have been better in Flint's case? Didn't the emergemncy manager implement what the elected leaders were going to do already? as I recall, the switch to the bad water source was a decision that was underway before the emergency manager took over and he simply gave the go ahead based on the studies already completed and the recommendations of the would-be decision makers (town council) were on track to make if he weren't appointed. Is that not correct?

Do you think it would have been better because the city council would have admitted their error sooner and not kept the fact that people were drinking poison a secret for so long? That doesn't seem very likely.

The difference between racism and discrimination is a lot bigger than what you've described. Racism is a belief or way of thinking - like MC thinking black people can't compete with white people so they should be held to a different standard - that's the soft bigotry of low expectations. Discrimination is prejudiced treatment (favoring one or a set of groups at the expense of another or others) based on certain characteristics - like MC backing racist discriminatory policies like affirmative action that arbitrarily grant benefits to one group while penalizing others.
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
How would continuing under the elected leaders have been better in Flint's case? Didn't the emergemncy manager implement what the elected leaders were going to do already? as I recall, the switch to the bad water source was a decision that was underway before the emergency manager took over and he simply gave the go ahead based on the studies already completed and the recommendations of the would-be decision makers (town council) were on track to make if he weren't appointed. Is that not correct?
Click to expand...


No. Short answer is the 2nd emergency manager was in charge at the time of the vote people talk about, but that's not even a good description of what that vote was about and it wouldn't have included the decision to not add anti-corrosion treatment even if it was the vote as originally described.


https://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/michigan_truth_squad_who_appro.html


Do you think it would have been better because the city council would have admitted their error sooner and not kept the fact that people were drinking poison a secret for so long? That doesn't seem very likely.

The difference between racism and discrimination is a lot bigger than what you've described. Racism is a belief or way of thinking - like MC thinking black people can't compete with white people so they should be held to a different standard - that's the soft bigotry of low expectations. Discrimination is prejudiced treatment (favoring one or a set of groups at the expense of another or others) based on certain characteristics - like MC backing racist discriminatory policies like affirmative action that arbitrarily grant benefits to one black students while penalizing others.
Click to expand...


The rest of this doesn't feel like it's really directed at me or any point I've made.
 
Gulo Blue said:
No. Short answer is the 2nd emergency manager was in charge at the time of the vote people talk about, but that's not even a good description of what that vote was about and it wouldn't have included the decision to not add anti-corrosion treatment even if it was the vote as originally described.


https://www.mlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2016/01/michigan_truth_squad_who_appro.html





The rest of this doesn't feel like it's really directed at me or any point I've made.
Click to expand...

I'll have to go back and reread the pieces posted in here because that's different from what I remember reading/posting at the time.

It should feel like it's directed at you because you seem to be making the distinction that racism is discrimination with motivation. I agree discrimination can be intentional (motivated by racism or some other form of bigotry) and unintentional (like the camera example). Racism itself is a belief or doctrine that can exist without any discrimination. Some people argue that minorities or at least certain minorities can't be racist because they lack the power to discriminate - that's nonsense, discrimination isn't required for someone to be racist.
 
Last edited:
Spartanmack said:
I'll have to go back and reread the pieces posted in here because that's different from what I remember reading/posting at the time.

It should feel like it's directed at you because you seem to be making the distinction that racism is discrimination with motivation. I agree discrimination can be intentional (motivated by racism or some other form of bigotry) and unintentional (like the camera example). Racism itself is a belief or doctrine that can exist without any discrimination. Some people argue that minorities or at least certain minorities can't be racist because they lack the power to discriminate - that's nonsense, discrimination isn't required for someone to be racist.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say discrimination + belief = racism. Racism is a belief. Discrimination is an action. They are different domains. They can go together or either can exist without the other.



Some people may argue that minorities can't be racist, but I don't, and nothing I said implies it. I'm not sure what it is that I said that you disagree with, or what I left out that is so important that it paints an incorrect image, or what it is your are unsatisfied with with what I said.
 
https://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/22/business/us-settlement-reported-on-countrywide-lending.html


Bank of America had agreed to pay $335 million to settle allegations that its Countrywide Financial unit discriminated against black and Hispanic borrowers during the housing boom.


A department investigation concluded that Countrywide loan officers and brokers charged higher fees and rates to more than 200,000 minority borrowers across the country than to white borrowers who posed the same credit risk.
 
I thought the blacks and hispanics were responsible for the housing crash in 2008?

Remember? the big city liberals passed a housing law in 1978 that prohibited banks from discriminating against minority borrowers, and then, thirty years later all those minority borrowers showed up demanding home loans, and against the poor bankers' better judgment, their banks were forced to hand them money.

Then they immediately trashed all those houses and moved out, and Tea Party Republicans had their taxes raised to bailout the banks.

And now yer tryin' to tell me the banks actually screwed the minorities over?

Get outta heeeeeeeeeeeeer!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
michchamp said:
I thought the blacks and hispanics were responsible for the housing crash in 2008?

Remember? the big city liberals passed a housing law in 1978 that prohibited banks from discriminating against minority borrowers, and then, thirty years later all those minority borrowers showed up demanding home loans, and against the poor bankers' better judgment, their banks were forced to hand them money.

Then they immediately trashed all those houses and moved out, and Tea Party Republicans had their taxes raised to bailout the banks.

And now yer tryin' to tell me the banks actually screwed the minorities over?

Get outta heeeeeeeeeeeeer!
Click to expand...

look everyone, mc just debunked yet another argument no one ever made.
 
tomdalton22 said:
they are saving them opioid addiction.
Click to expand...

ah, the lighter side of racism.

"You may be suffering a painful death, but at least we're reducing the risk you'll get addicted to opioids because we are unable to empathize with you as a fellow human being due to our neat little racial biases.

BTW... If you do survive, make sure to pay the $20,000 medical bill we're going to send you for this 15 minutes of medical attention. Best healthcare on the planet. By best, we mean most profitable for those providing it."
 
Gulo Blue said:
Bumping this EPIC thread
Click to expand...

I just got an email from company HR that they've added a course on "Becoming Aware of Unconscious Bias" and I thought it would be right up your alley.

Everyone at the company needs to take it.
 
michchamp said:
I just got an email from company HR that they've added a course on "Becoming Aware of Unconscious Bias" and I thought it would be right up your alley.

Everyone at the company needs to take it.
Click to expand...

Everyone should take it. It's costing people money. Publicly traded companies have a fiduciary duty to their stockholders.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

About Us

Founded in 2011, Detroit Sports Forum is a community of fanatics dedicated to teams like the Lions, Tigers, Pistons, Red Wings, Wolverines, and more. We live and breathe Detroit sports!

Stay Connected

Forum statistics

Threads
34,759
Messages
1,128,923
Members
977
Latest member
businesstalkmag

Affiliates

    Discussion Hub
Back
Top