Racism in America.... Is it worse now after the 2016 election?

[TD_washingtonredskins]

16 minutes ago, NoCalMike said:

Sometimes it is possible for people to be both jerks & racist. 

 

Yes. 

 

But it's also possible for racists to be nice and jerks not to be racist. 

 

If a black dude is preying on black people with loan programs that will line his pockets, I'd be willing to bet his motives aren't driven by his hatred of blacks. It's more likely he just likes money. 

Edited August 31, 2018 by TD_washingtonredskins

[Destino]

40 minutes ago, JSSkinz said:

Can you give me an example, now if you were a broker I understand you probably have seen lots of fraud as brokers back then were pretty dirty and with new licensing requirements, the dirty brokers have been removed from the industry.

 

To keep anyone regardless of color from getting financing you would have to finagle the income or credit, how exactly would someone do that?

I spent time as a broker, correspondent lender, and working for a major bank (that’s still around).  Never as a subprime lender of any sort.  The correspondent lender displayed the strongest ethics.  There was little difference between brokers and major banks in my opinion.  It may not have been as evident in their conventional shops, but they had subprime operations back then.  People were given loans with worse terms than they should have, often subprime products when they would have qualified for better.  That shouldn’t be surprising because major financial houses have largely needed to be forced to play fair, and even have a presence at all, in minority areas.  Higher risk lenders are the opposite, they concentrate on those same areas.  So when the lending market went crazy, the sharks were well positioned.  

 

The game many were playing then was definitely not denying anyone financing.  It was steering them into the products that made the loan officer (and their employer) the most money.  Not everyone was doing this of course, a lot of people know that your reputation is worth more than a better short term earning.  I’ve heard they’ve fixed things now, but I’ve heard that before... and Wells Fargo has been caught repeatedly creating fraudulent accounts, signing people up for unwanted insurance, and charging unjust mortgage fees.  This happened after the mortgage crisis.  

[Bozo the kKklown]

20 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

You have to realize that people who think like that are wholly indifferent to this stuff. To the point that they tell people that their injury is not real and is imagined.

 

23 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

I really hope many of you wake up and start paying attention and fight it instead of telling the injured that they are not injured.

Said this earlier today and we now have posters doing just that.

Edited September 1, 2018 by BenningRoadSkin

[JSSkinz]

3 minutes ago, Destino said:

 People were given loans with worse terms than they should have

So this is where I think working internally for a bank is different than being a broker or correspondent lender.

 

Anything written by the bank I worked for had to be run through a proprietary software program, that software tried to qualify the client for every prime and level approval that Fannie and Freddie offered (everything excluding subprime).  If you didn't send your file to underwriting with the results from that program being run it wouldn't be viewed by underwriting and if you received an uplift message (better program than the one sold) you had to give them the better product, absolutely no exceptions were ever made.

 

The biggest problem I ran into was all the loans we purchased from Freemont Investment, Ameriquest, Accredited. and many others.

 

I would see 2 older folks on social security having their income stated at $10k a month (not possible), also many properties were written as SFR's but they were mobile or manufactured so once leveraged under a 2 year arm they come back to refi and find out the max LTV was 70% and they were already at 85% or 90%.

 

All those broker originated loans we purchased was the death of the bank I worked for.

 

 

[Renegade7]

39 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

Yes. 

 

But it's also possible for racists to be nice and jerks not to be racist. 

 

If a black dude is preying on black people with loan programs that will line his pockets, I'd be willing to bet his motives aren't driven by his hatred of blacks. It's more likely he just likes money. 

 

Maybe, but just so we're all on same page, people can totally be racist towards their own race.

[TD_washingtonredskins]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

 

Maybe, but just so we're all on same page, people can totally be racist towards their own race.

 

I agree, but also don't think RACISM against our own race is very common. I think that's when we crossover into stereotypes and prejudices...not a HATRED toward a race. 

[Renegade7]

10 minutes ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I agree, but also don't think RACISM against our own race is very common. I think that's when we crossover into stereotypes and prejudices...not a HATRED toward a race. 

Racism doesn't always mean hatred, some people are racist and don't even know (or in denial).  There are more blacks racist against whites then anyone really wants to count

[TD_washingtonredskins]

23 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

Racism doesn't always mean hatred, some people are racist and don't even know (or in denial).  There are more blacks racist against whites then anyone really wants to count

 

I agree with the second part. I guess where I have trouble believing there are more than a handful of same-race racist actions is due to the definition itself:

 

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

 

I don't doubt for a second that same-race people can discriminate or stereotype...but it can't be for the reason in the definition of racism itself unless there's some identity issues going on. By definition, it seems that racism can't exist between two people of the same race. 

[Jumbo]

kinda fun to read some of the dialogue that came after my earlier post 

 

i was gonna post back then that discussion of complex and charged topics are often impeded by which words are used, how, and then understood by the reader, with one reason being that often important terms are used either in ignorance of, or lack of adherence to, their actual definitions...it's just a common occurrence everywhere and it's pretty standard fare in most discussions re: bias/prejudice/bigotry/racism

 

it's just a common way people often talk past each other or otherwise make it more difficult to understand each other, or to hate each other with increased clarity

 

so as someone just did, i like to get definitions out there early in discusion sometimes...but here the standard definition is just a beginning...

 

i hesitate posting the excerpt below, published by a young student (not of mine---ya don't need to critique the essay's details) and is not to be taken as credentialed "expertise",  but it's just something i have handy for other reason...and it touches on this aspect of things so i'll use it fwiw...... there's some depth beyond the terms "racist/racism" to the systemic oppression/repression involved that it covers...there's plenty of more authoritative and in-depth material available...and it's always good just to review definitions of all those terms used in such matters imo...

 

Quote

 

Racism as an ideology originated from European scientists in the 17th Century during the Atlantic slave trade. They invented it in order to differentiate themselves from those with different skin colors and darker features, creating a racial hierarchy that continues to this day. It would simply be incorrect to deny that the history of racism has been (and continues to be) one of white supremacy as the label “white” has always been an indication of superiority.

 

However, many of us were taught when we were little that racism is simply disliking someone based on the color of their skin. We were taught that it is a two-way street and that it can happen to anyone. We were taught that racism is simply prejudice toward any race.

 

This is clearly evident in the defense tactic many people use when defending racism.

 

As someone with a large online social justice platform, a day does not go by without someone sending me a screenshot of the “definition of racism”, followed up with a paragraph about how I am the real racist for critiquing white supremacy.

 

For many white people, the “definition of racism” offers them a safeguard so that they no longer feel the need to check their privilege. It acts as a last resort when backed into a corner by logic and reason. It is their final safety measure to ensure that they still win the conversation, even though this is not the type of conversation to be won.

 

It is for those white people that I have listed below some of the many reasons why the “definition of racism” is wrong.

Dictionaries provide a simplistic view of words.

 

While dictionaries are a great reference for people who have no prior knowledge on a word, concept or idea, they are not the best for conducting and controlling discussion. Racism is such a complex idea that it would be impossible to describe every aspect of it in a basic 101 way. Dictionaries should instead be used as a starting point for learning, leading to more thorough research and investigation, rather than being a final and definitive argument as to why white people can experience racism.

 

Dictionaries are written and edited by white men.

 

The majority of writers for popular and academic dictionaries have been white men. In the western world, as there are systems in place which privilege white people, it is not surprizing to see that the definition of racism put forward by white men is inaccurate. They are socialized to believe that the racism people of color experience is in any way comparable to the “racism” white people experience (i.e. being called out for perpetrating and upholding white supremacy). There is simply no credibility in white people defining racism.

 

Racism is systemic.

 

If we look at the word, ‘racism’, we see that it is made up of ‘race’ and the suffix ‘-ism’. This suffix is used to denote a system which, at least in the western world, is a system of white supremacy.

 

This clearly differentiates racism from prejudice. Anyone can be prejudiced toward anyone else, regardless of their race. People of color can certainly be prejudiced toward white people. However it is not racism because there is no larger system in place which oppresses white people.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[tshile]

I’m not allowed to help define a word because of the color of my skin

 

but I’m the racist

 

got it

[Jumbo]

 

that just  reads to me like another sad-ass post from you in here tshile...of course that's not the point i spotlighted....and went out of my way to preempt that kind of fatuous reply if you read...comprehension is more than your friend here...

 

 

 

 

 

and don't reply to this 

 

 

[Renegade7]

1 hour ago, TD_washingtonredskins said:

 

I agree with the second part. I guess where I have trouble believing there are more than a handful of same-race racist actions is due to the definition itself:

 

"prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior."

 

I don't doubt for a second that same-race people can discriminate or stereotype...but it can't be for the reason in the definition of racism itself unless there's some identity issues going on. By definition, it seems that racism can't exist between two people of the same race. 

 

Two things, people that are black that don't want to be black, and the dark skin vs light skin thing.  Our race was trained to dislike and distrust each other for different reasons for centuries and we still seeing effects up to today.  Some black people they find out you mixed they turn on you, even if you darker then them (been through that before).  Race involves physical characteristics, which is different then culture or even ethnicity.

 

Slow down, your jumping ahead, race is not that simple.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Renegade7

[Destino]

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

So this is where I think working internally for a bank is different than being a broker or correspondent lender.

I worked internally for a bank as well.  

 

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

Anything written by the bank I worked for had to be run through a proprietary software program, that software tried to qualify the client for every prime and level approval that Fannie and Freddie offered (everything excluding subprime).  If you didn't send your file to underwriting with the results from that program being run it wouldn't be viewed by underwriting and if you received an uplift message (better program than the one sold) you had to give them the better product, absolutely no exceptions were ever made.

Brokers had to use a version of those as well.  Each lender provided an access point to their own approval system which had to be completed in order to generate an approval letter, and then submitted with your loan package to underwriting.  None of them safeguarded anything in the era of Stated Everything loans.  

 

I never used any subprime systems, but i never heard of overqualified borrowers being rejected by their in house systems.  Nothing made their loan officers tell their clients to take their business elsewhere.  People got bad loans they shouldn’t have.  I know because I refinanced a bunch out of those loans.  Some were truly awful.  

 

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

The biggest problem I ran into was all the loans we purchased from Freemont Investment, Ameriquest, Accredited. and many others.

There was garbage everywhere.  Countrywide comes immediately that mind.  

 

1 hour ago, JSSkinz said:

I would see 2 older folks on social security having their income stated at $10k a month (not possible), also many properties were written as SFR's but they were mobile or manufactured so once leveraged under a 2 year arm they come back to refi and find out the max LTV was 70% and they were already at 85% or 90%.

 

All those broker originated loans we purchased was the death of the bank I worked for.

Whatever bank you worked for approved those loans though right?  Brokers had to get some level of approval from whoever was going to fund and service (for however brief a period) the loan, prior to issuing an approval letter.  Everyone knew those were bad ideas but no one cared because so long as home values increased the risk to lenders was minimal.  Worst case scenario in their eyes was foreclosing on a property worth more than they loaned.  Incredibly shortsighted, but true nonetheless.  

[Destino]

55 minutes ago, Jumbo said:

I hesitate posting the excerpt below, published by a young student (not of mine---ya don't need to critique the essay's details) and is not to be taken as credentialed "expertise",  but it's just something i have handy for other reason...and it touches on this aspect of things so i'll use it fwiw...... there's some depth beyond the terms "racist/racism" to the systemic oppression/repression involved that it covers...there's plenty of more authoritative and in-depth material available...and it's always good just to review definitions of all those terms used in such matters imo...

 

You don’t find those definitions to be wildly Eurocentric simply at face value?  Never mind that they completed disregard how racism is actuall experienced on an individual level all around the world, and that power dynamics in a room or region can be radically different than larger national realities.  But I mean just at face value that doesn’t immediately strike you as absurdly dismissive of the rest of the world?  

[Jumbo]

2 hours ago, Destino said:

 

You don’t find those definitions to be wildly Eurocentric simply at face value?  Never mind that they completed disregard how racism is actuall experienced on an individual level all around the world, and that power dynamics in a room or region can be radically different than larger national realities.  But I mean just at face value that doesn’t immediately strike you as absurdly dismissive of the rest of the world?  

 

sure---though it's hard to go wrong being absurdly dismissive of the rest of the world

 

my own text as to what i was focusing on---how use of the term 'racism' and how it's defined can be problematic---seems to be getting overlooked

 

the parts where i put many qualifiers on the excerpt i used---and how it should not be used---and the only part of it i tried to emphasize  seems to be getting overlooked....my hesitation in using it appears well-founded and it seems a gen-u-wine error on my part to have gone ahead despite my trying to be clear...bad call...my only other comment on all this is i agree with those who think racism is bad....

 

p.s. i wish someone had told me you were also a race before making you a moderator. this is not an affirmative action deal. pure merit only.

 

 

[Renegade7]

Once upon a time white people in this country were racist towards Germans.  Then they were racist against the Irish.  Then they were racist against Italians, calling them WOPs. Jus in case anyone forgot.

[brandymac27]

10 hours ago, mistertim said:

 

Gotta be honest here...while I certainly believe you, we all know that anecdotal evidence isn't reliable when you're talking about trying to get an actual scientific measure of something.

 

 

I think this is a good point. The racism (institutional, policy, and individual) of today is, generally, much less overt than it was in the past. But that doesn't necessarily mean that there are less people or institutions that are racist, or that the goal of many policies isn't as racist as in the past...just that the racism has been made more "palatable" and is couched in linguistic trickery and dog whistles (though now they're more like dog bullhorns). It changed from "Stop letting coloreds vote" to "Why are you talking about race? We just want to preserve the integrity of the voting process <trollface>". And there are plenty of other examples. It sort of reminds me of the creationist vs. intelligent design thing; they basically just repackaged it, but they're selling the same ****. 

 

IMO another consequence of this is that there are probably quite a number of people who have racist views, support racist policies, racist candidates etc but who believe they aren't actually racists because they use those dog whistles and their own internal excuse processes as a balm. That alone would make it really hard to get any sort of true scientific measure of how much of the US population is actually racist or whether racism is "worse" now than it was x number of years ago. I'm sure there are some who may look at that and conclude that this means the racism isn't as bad as in years past but I think that's a distinction without a difference as the underlying goals and beliefs are the same.

I think this was a great reply. You really summed up whats really going on IMO. I think the most dangerous part of this are those people you describe who really don't think they're racist because they don't use the n word, or make excuses for themselves. They support policy and behavior that's racist, but because of the denial they're in, they'll never see that what they're doing or believe in is morally wrong. How do we fix ignorance?

[Jumbo]

 

pardon the brief interrupt---housekeeping

 

@tshile upon review, i think i went too harsh in my original reply to you

 

 

here's how it should have been done, given the context:

 

 

Quote

 

of course that's not the point i spotlighted....thought i went out of my way to preempt that kind of reply if you read...comprehension is your friend here...

 

 

 

 

and that should have done it, out of what i originally posted

 

i was to going to go edit all the horrible things i said about you----truth be damned---but instead will leave my transgression up for all to see---but i will delete those embarrassing pics of your...unfortunate situation....

 

 

 

[grego]

54 minutes ago, brandymac27 said:

I think this was a great reply. You really summed up whats really going on IMO. I think the most dangerous part of this are those people you describe who really don't think they're racist because they don't use the n word, or make excuses for themselves. They support policy and behavior that's racist, but because of the denial they're in, they'll never see that what they're doing or believe in is morally wrong. How do we fix ignorance?

 

I think some headway could be made here. What policies or behaviors that people are engaging in would you say are racist? There have been a number of reasons I've seen that some give for believing people are racists-questioning black protests or groups, questioning the benefits and pitfalls of affirmative action, just white people being inherently racist, etc. 

 

I'm thinking this may tie into the definition of racism that I'm thinking is confusing to some. I don't have an issue with the "ideology plus power" definition, but it helps conversation immensely if that definition is said that it is what is meant as opposed to the dictionary definition. 

[brandymac27]

41 minutes ago, grego said:

 

I think some headway could be made here. What policies or behaviors that people are engaging in would you say are racist? There have been a number of reasons I've seen that some give for believing people are racists-questioning black protests or groups, questioning the benefits and pitfalls of affirmative action, just white people being inherently racist, etc. 

 

I'm thinking this may tie into the definition of racism that I'm thinking is confusing to some. I don't have an issue with the "ideology plus power" definition, but it helps conversation immensely if that definition is said that it is what is meant as opposed to the dictionary definition. 

I guess in my world I define racism as any thought, idea, or action that either knowingly or unknowingly (maybe subconsciously) harms a person that's of a different race as yourself along with thinking your own race is superior to others. I know that's a simple definition, but it really is how I feel. 

 

I feel like anytime people do things like protest with Confederate flags wearing swastika t-shirts, callings cops on minorities for BBQing, Permit Patty, gerrymandering, supporting illegal immigrant children being taken from their parents, Charlottesville protests, etc, --- all of that displays some form of racism for one reason or another.

 

But because people may not be literally dying while things I mentioned above take place, except in Charlottesville, supporters of these things make up asinine excuses for their behavior, or they really don't know their being racist. Now I'm excluding the idiots who know their racist in this discussion. They know, and just don't give a ****.

 

I wanna know how you fix the other people? Is it even possible?

Edited September 1, 2018 by brandymac27

[Renegade7]

16 hours ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

Said this earlier today and we now have posters telling doing just that.

We need some type of mandatory exposure trips in grade school.  Like kids in a country grade school should at least a couple times in a metropolitan area school, just to see what that's like, like a drivers ed along PE thing.  I was watching the 4th of July Fireworks in NOVA looking at DC and in front of me was a family with two women fully covered and a teenager wearing what ever it is teenagers wear these days.  All celebrating having the right to chose and nobody care, we got used to that in grade school.

Edited September 1, 2018 by Renegade7

[grego]

9 hours ago, brandymac27 said:

I guess in my world I define racism as any thought, idea, or action that either knowingly or unknowingly (maybe subconsciously) harms a person that's of a different race as yourself along with thinking your own race is superior to others. I know that's a simple definition, but it really is how I feel. 

 

I feel like anytime people do things like protest with Confederate flags wearing swastika t-shirts, callings cops on minorities for BBQing, Permit Patty, gerrymandering, supporting illegal immigrant children being taken from their parents, Charlottesville protests, etc, --- all of that displays some form of racism for one reason or another.

 

But because people may not be literally dying while things I mentioned above take place, except in Charlottesville, supporters of these things make up asinine excuses for their behavior, or they really don't know their being racist. Now I'm excluding the idiots who know their racist in this discussion. They know, and just don't give a ****.

 

I wanna know how you fix the other people? Is it even possible?

 

thanks, brandy. I agree with alot of that. swastikas are pretty clear. there arent alot of people walking around using it as the good luck symbol it was, i'm guessing. confederate flag, i know there is some nuance there, but if you were at charlottesville with a confederate flat and known white supremacists, you are one of them. associating with bad actors is something that should be called out, and i'm critical of repubs and dems on this. 

 

i will say that when it came to charlottesville last year, it was obviously a lightning rod. some people saw good (antifa) vs bad (white supremacists). others saw bad vs bad. but there was a reason for that. about 2 years ago, i started following some people (these are people who are on the left or center/left politically) who cover the news, as far as what they report and how they report it. there has always been a difference between fox and cnn, etc, but it may have gotten worse in recent years.

 

i preface this, again, with a mention that i'm not a conservative or a fox news fan so this doesnt get minunderstood. fox had been covering antifa for awhile, so if you watched fox, you saw the videos where there were fights, etc, and some seem to be instigated by antifa. obviously, with the 'punch a nazi' richard spencer thing, nobody, understandably, was sympathetic with a nazi getting punched. so, antifa was 'good' in many eyes because of this. 

 

around that time, vox ran a story that was sympathetic to antifa, 'dont fall for the antifa trap', https://www.vox.com/strikethrough/2017/10/3/16409530/strikethrough-antifa-trap-violent-protest and made a video painting antifa in a positive light- after all, they fight nazis, whats not to like? fast forward a year later, and vox, just a week or so ago, ran this story, https://www.vox.com/identities/2018/8/12/17681986/antifa-leftist-violence-clashes-protests-charlottesville-dc-unite-the-right . fox had shown the 'bad' side of antifa fighting people who were not actual nazis, so this was not news if you had seen that coverage. the left covered antifa very sympathetically, choosing not to run stories or videos of them behaving badly, even though they were out there. the right, and fox, focused on antifa behaving badly while basically ignoring any negative trump coverage. 

 

while this is related to race, its also a reflection of how we feel about hot button, emotional issues and how the news we consume shapes our beliefs. if we only read or saw fox, we would have one view, if we only saw or read the root, we would have a very different view of reality. this is reflected in police behavior and what i mentioned earlier. because black lives matter and this issue is so emotionally divisive, the media run with a story when it is a black man, preferably unarmed, shot by a cop, preferably white. when that happens, its all over the place. last year, unarmed black men accounted for 20 of the 987 fatal shootings by police. this does not account for the race of the cop or whether the cop was in a physical confrontation with the cop. more than half of those are likely to be 'justified' shootings (i know this is a point of disagreement, but legally when a cop is in a physical confrontation with someone, he or she is likely legally justified to use lethal force because there is a gun in play. all cops are aware of a number of shootings where a cops gun was taken from them during a struggle, and they were killed with it), even though it is a tragedy when someone loses their life. statistically, this is an incredibly rare event, but the coverage doesnt make it sound that way, and that is because of social media playing on emotions for dollars.

 

i want to emphasize that last point- it is a tragedy when someone dies when shot by cops (obviously some people are bad, trying to murder other people, etc, but generally speaking). when i point out the statistics, my motivation isnt to minimize anything. ONE person shot by the police in the way some of these people have is too many. there is just no question about that. talking about statistics is about putting it in perspective and pointing out the disparity in how events are pushed in the media which serves to divide people. i think a conversation can be had where it is recognized that bad shootings and bad cops exist, and exist too much, while recognizing the actual numbers. 

 

back to things you mentioned, gerrymandering is more likely to be something like what we were talking about with banks than a racism thing, although it is undoubtedly race based. republicans know that 90% ish of blacks will vote democrat, so of course if they have a chance to gerrymander a district to minimize that effect, they will do it. 

 

separating families at the borders is another hot button issue. while is funny that at least one of the pics circulated of families being separated was from obamas administration, there is no question that trump zero tolerance policy has ramped it up. the problem here is what to do with the kids when the parents (sometimes not parents) come across illegally as opposed to legal ports of entry. i am an immigrant and not unsympathetic to people wanting a better life here. i think the solution is to find a way to detain people while not separating them. but i dont see this as a race issue. the people crossing illegally are breaking the law and putting their kids in that situation to begin with- that can be a true statement while simultaneously working to find ways to keep families together. 

 

heres where illegal immigration gets dicey- white nationalists are anti immigration at least as far as other races are concerned. but its also a reasonable position to be pro legal, vetted immigration and anti illegal immigration. this puts you in a position close to white nationalists, even though its a reasonable position that does not make one a racist. (its worth looking into old quotes from politicians on illegal immigration who would never say those things now because of this fact).

 

sorry for the essay. ? if you got through all of that, hopefully it serves to build bridges and open communication. some of this is just my perspective, but i think its pretty common. i cant speak for these other nazis in here

Edited September 1, 2018 by grego

[youngestson]

13 hours ago, Renegade7 said:

Once upon a time white people in this country were racist towards Germans.  Then they were racist against the Irish.  Then they were racist against Italians, calling them WOPs. Jus in case anyone forgot.

I think that would be prejudice rather than racist.  

[Renegade7]

1 minute ago, youngestson said:

I think that would be prejudice rather than racist. 

No, because they thought they were inferior.  Watch something like Gangs of New York if you haven't already 

[twa]

2 minutes ago, Renegade7 said:

No, because they thought they were inferior.  Watch something like Gangs of New York if you haven't already 

 

 inferior,defective,even inherently evil.

 

racism is just a flavor of prejudice,one race here was enslaved while others got disparate treatment(including genocide).

I think enslavement had much to do with their starting points.