https://www.history.com/news/the-birth-of-illegal-immigration

Systemic Racism at your service.

 

Diversion. Can't address the topic.

 

Will anyone that cares please line up on the left. The rest of you f..k off then.

 

So, anon.
Couple of thoughts on your post.

First, if you read the article, you learned that America had no immigration laws until 1924, some 150 years AFTER America was founded. So, while it could be true that America was "founded in racism" (the hell does that mean, really?) your article is nowhere near the proof of that, nor does it support your assertion.

Second, it is impossible to call a system that welcomes literally MILLIONS of people to come to America, to bring their culture, their language, their food, their customs, and mix it in with what is already here, racist.

You see, the definition of a racist is;

"having, reflecting, or fostering the belief that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race"​

So, before you can call someone or something racist, you have to have a race that you consider to be inferior to your own. And, if you read the article, you learned that not only did America allow people from literally every country and race on the planet, we encouraged it.
In fact, we still encourage it.
America encourages immigration.
The racism, you know, when the Irish were coming here, and chinese were here to build the railroads? That wasn't AMERICAN racism, that was peoples racism. Except for California, you know, where they banned all sorts of Chinese things. Which you know if, you know, you read the article. But AMERICA, the country, the government, it isn't racist. You do know that, right? Cause calling it "systemic racism" seems to be saying that AMERICA is racist. Which America is not. You know, racist.

Now, there is one thing that is correct; there was no ILLEGAL immigration until 1924, you know, when America put an immigration system in place. Before that, there were no immigration laws to break, and it was not ILLEGAL to just come here.

See, that's how it works. When we create a law, we create law breakers.

 

You obviously didn't read the same article I did. And yes I know this doesn't go back to the founding of the country, but slavery kind of implies a little bit of racism... 3/5 of a person?

My reason for posting this was to get people to read and think rather than just makes silly rhetorical assumptions about what they think really happened.

 

Really Enon are you some sort of jerk off?

 

You always come back with...''I'm always the smartest in the room'' tactics.

I'm rather confident that shootersa read the very article that you submitted for your inane thread...

And apparently being the smartest in the room as you are, you would certainly understand where the 3/5 clause came from and why....which had nothing to do with racism you ding-dong.

 

Yes I believe it’s true America was founded on racism. Anyone who would debate that is a fool obviously but I think it’s important to note that the struggle that was born along side the birth of this nation has changed the course of history. And just as systemic racism is so prevalent. Thanks to those fighting the good fight so isn’t systemic change. The real problem with racism systemic or otherwise is that the ideals are fundamentally flawed. It’s a house of cards and all it takes is for one person to refuse to go to the back of the bus and the whole thing comes tumbling down.

 

It's been more than 50 years since Rosa refused to go to the back of the bus, but here we are still having a discussion about racism and its effects on the country. It hasn't come tumbling down.

 

The only reason this Country is having this discussion today, is because the hack fuck leftist politicians keep the horseshit alive for purposes of division and creating a victim-hood status for political power and control over the 'minority'....and you know that.

 

The War on Poverty: 50 years of failure, by Robert Rector

Sep 23rd, 2014

This year marks the 50th anniversary of President Lyndon B. Johnson's launch of the War on Poverty. In January 1964, Johnson declared "unconditional war on poverty in America." Since then, the taxpayers have spent $22 trillion on Johnson's war. Adjusted for inflation, that's three times the cost of all military wars since the American Revolution.

-----------

Money spent on War on Poverty Programs was disproportionately taxed from whites and disproportionately spent on blacks. Because of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 blacks are no longer discriminated against. They are discriminated in favor of with of affirmative action programs. Nevertheless, anon_de_plume continues to blame whites for black problems. What more do blacks and their white allies want? What more can whites do?

Those are serious questions, @anon_de_plume. I would like serious answers, that rise above ad hominem insults and name calling.

Please study the following pyramid, @anon_de_plume. Let's keep this discussion at the top of the pyramid.




How to Disagree, by Paul Graham, March 2008

The web is turning writing into a conversation. Twenty years ago, writers wrote and readers read. The web lets readers respond, and increasingly they do—in comment threads, on forums, and in their own blog posts.

Many who respond to something disagree with it. That's to be expected. Agreeing tends to motivate people less than disagreeing. And when you agree there's less to say. You could expand on something the author said, but he has probably already explored the most interesting implications. When you disagree you're entering territory he may not have explored.

The result is there's a lot more disagreeing going on, especially measured by the word. That doesn't mean people are getting angrier. The structural change in the way we communicate is enough to account for it. But though it's not anger that's driving the increase in disagreement, there's a danger that the increase in disagreement will make people angrier. Particularly online, where it's easy to say things you'd never say face to face.

If we're all going to be disagreeing more, we should be careful to do it well. What does it mean to disagree well? Most readers can tell the difference between mere name-calling and a carefully reasoned refutation, but I think it would help to put names on the intermediate stages. So here's an attempt at a disagreement hierarchy:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment likeThe author is a self-important dilettante.is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

DH1. Ad Hominem.

An ad hominem attack is not quite as weak as mere name-calling. It might actually carry some weight. For example, if a senator wrote an article saying senators' salaries should be increased, one could respond:Of course he would say that. He's a senator.This wouldn't refute the author's argument, but it may at least be relevant to the case. It's still a very weak form of disagreement, though. If there's something wrong with the senator's argument, you should say what it is; and if there isn't, what difference does it make that he's a senator?

Saying that an author lacks the authority to write about a topic is a variant of ad hominem—and a particularly useless sort, because good ideas often come from outsiders. The question is whether the author is correct or not. If his lack of authority caused him to make mistakes, point those out. And if it didn't, it's not a problem.

DH2. Responding to Tone.

The next level up we start to see responses to the writing, rather than the writer. The lowest form of these is to disagree with the author's tone. E.g.I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion.Though better than attacking the author, this is still a weak form of disagreement. It matters much more whether the author is wrong or right than what his tone is. Especially since tone is so hard to judge. Someone who has a chip on their shoulder about some topic might be offended by a tone that to other readers seemed neutral.

So if the worst thing you can say about something is to criticize its tone, you're not saying much. Is the author flippant, but correct? Better that than grave and wrong. And if the author is incorrect somewhere, say where.

DH3. Contradiction.

In this stage we finally get responses to what was said, rather than how or by whom. The lowest form of response to an argument is simply to state the opposing case, with little or no supporting evidence.

This is often combined with DH2 statements, as in:I can't believe the author dismisses intelligent design in such a cavalier fashion. Intelligent design is a legitimate scientific theory.Contradiction can sometimes have some weight. Sometimes merely seeing the opposing case stated explicitly is enough to see that it's right. But usually evidence will help.

DH4. Counterargument.

At level 4 we reach the first form of convincing disagreement: counterargument. Forms up to this point can usually be ignored as proving nothing. Counterargument might prove something. The problem is, it's hard to say exactly what.

Counterargument is contradiction plus reasoning and/or evidence. When aimed squarely at the original argument, it can be convincing. But unfortunately it's common for counterarguments to be aimed at something slightly different. More often than not, two people arguing passionately about something are actually arguing about two different things. Sometimes they even agree with one another, but are so caught up in their squabble they don't realize it.

There could be a legitimate reason for arguing against something slightly different from what the original author said: when you feel they missed the heart of the matter. But when you do that, you should say explicitly you're doing it.

DH5. Refutation.

The most convincing form of disagreement is refutation. It's also the rarest, because it's the most work. Indeed, the disagreement hierarchy forms a kind of pyramid, in the sense that the higher you go the fewer instances you find.

To refute someone you probably have to quote them. You have to find a "smoking gun," a passage in whatever you disagree with that you feel is mistaken, and then explain why it's mistaken. If you can't find an actual quote to disagree with, you may be arguing with a straw man.

While refutation generally entails quoting, quoting doesn't necessarily imply refutation. Some writers quote parts of things they disagree with to give the appearance of legitimate refutation, then follow with a response as low as DH3 or even DH0.

DH6. Refuting the Central Point.

The force of a refutation depends on what you refute. The most powerful form of disagreement is to refute someone's central point.

Even as high as DH5 we still sometimes see deliberate dishonesty, as when someone picks out minor points of an argument and refutes those. Sometimes the spirit in which this is done makes it more of a sophisticated form of ad hominem than actual refutation. For example, correcting someone's grammar, or harping on minor mistakes in names or numbers. Unless the opposing argument actually depends on such things, the only purpose of correcting them is to discredit one's opponent.

Truly refuting something requires one to refute its central point, or at least one of them. And that means one has to commit explicitly to what the central point is. So a truly effective refutation would look like:The author's main point seems to be x. As he says:<quotation>But this is wrong for the following reasons...The quotation you point out as mistaken need not be the actual statement of the author's main point. It's enough to refute something it depends upon.

What It Means

Now we have a way of classifying forms of disagreement. What good is it? One thing the disagreement hierarchy doesn't give us is a way of picking a winner. DH levels merely describe the form of a statement, not whether it's correct. A DH6 response could still be completely mistaken.

But while DH levels don't set a lower bound on the convincingness of a reply, they do set an upper bound. A DH6 response might be unconvincing, but a DH2 or lower response is always unconvincing.

The most obvious advantage of classifying the forms of disagreement is that it will help people to evaluate what they read. In particular, it will help them to see through intellectually dishonest arguments. An eloquent speaker or writer can give the impression of vanquishing an opponent merely by using forceful words. In fact that is probably the defining quality of a demagogue. By giving names to the different forms of disagreement, we give critical readers a pin for popping such balloons.

Such labels may help writers too. Most intellectual dishonesty is unintentional. Someone arguing against the tone of something he disagrees with may believe he's really saying something. Zooming out and seeing his current position on the disagreement hierarchy may inspire him to try moving up to counterargument or refutation.

But the greatest benefit of disagreeing well is not just that it will make conversations better, but that it will make the people who have them happier. If you study conversations, you find there is a lot more meanness down in DH1 than up in DH6. You don't have to be mean when you have a real point to make. In fact, you don't want to. If you have something real to say, being mean just gets in the way.

If moving up the disagreement hierarchy makes people less mean, that will make most of them happier. Most people don't really enjoy being mean; they do it because they can't help it.


*not_secure_link*www.paulgraham.com/disagree.html

 

So which is it poverty or race? There are far more whites in poverty than there are blacks. Just saying that they spend more money on blacks is just a lie. Poor whites make up a larger percentage of the population than blacks.

You're being disingenuous.

 

If you had read my comment with good reading comprehension you would have noticed that I used the word "disproportionately." A higher percentage of whites paid for the War on Poverty in taxes. A higher percentage of blacks got welfare checks paid for by those taxes.

 

That sounds like this:

DH0. Name-calling.

This is the lowest form of disagreement, and probably also the most common. We've all seen comments like this:u r a fag!!!!!!!!!!But it's important to realize that more articulate name-calling has just as little weight. A comment likeThe author is a self-important dilettante.is really nothing more than a pretentious version of "u r a fag."

 

https://www.businessinsider.com/wel...largely-leaving-black-americans-behind-2020-8

Jesus you need a thicker skin! I said you were BEING disingenuous!

Fucking learn English!

Also, you might want to review your data on blacks...

 

This is some of my data on blacks.



--------

U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs Bureau of Justice Statistics November 2011,

Based on available data from 1980 to 2008—  Blacks were disproportionately represented as both homicide victims and offenders. The victimization rate for blacks (27.8 per 100,000) was 6 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000). The offending rate for blacks (34.4 per 100,000) was almost 8 times higher than the rate for whites (4.5 per 100,000)
https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

--------

Center for Equal Opportunity, FEBRUARY 26, 2020

Late last year, the final data for 2018 were published here (the key is Table 9 on page 25), and here’s what we learn: For all racial and ethnic groups combined, 39.6 percent of births in the United States were out-of-wedlock (incidentally, isn’t that appalling?). And there was as always a tremendous range among groups. For blacks, the number is 69.4 percent; for American Indians/Alaska Natives, 68.2 percent (Native Hawaiians/Other Pacific Islanders were at 50.4 percent); for Hispanics, 51.8 percent; for whites, 28.2 percent; and for Asian Americans, a paltry 11.7 percent.
https://www.ceousa.org/2020/02/26/percentage-of-births-to-unmarried-women/

National Vital Statistics Reports Volume 68, Number 13 November 27, 2019 Births: Final Data for 2018

Table 9. Births and percentage of births to unmarried women, by age and race and Hispanic origin of mother: United States, 2018

All ages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . [all races]: 39.6 [whites]: 28.2 [blacks]: 69.4 68.2 11.7 50.4 51.8
https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr68/nvsr68_13-508.pdf

 

Intellectual dishonesty. IQ has nothing to do with welfare.

Find numbers that support your original assertion.

 

Characteristics and Financial Circumstances of TANF Recipients Fiscal Year (FY) 2017

TANF Recipients by Race/Ethnicity: FY2017 Race/Ethnicity (percent) Total State Recipients Hispanic* White Black AIAN* Asian NHOPI* Multi-Racial U.S. Total 2,508,441 37.4[white]: 28.0 [black]: 28.4 1.2 2.1 0.7 2.2
https://www.acf.hhs.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ofa/fy17_characteristics.pdf

Because the percentage of whites in the United States is much higher than the percentage of blacks, a much higher percentage of blacks receive Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) than the percentage of whites who perceive TANF.