Rick Wrote:So a neighbourhood is a nice place, then some black people move in. The white people move out, it all turns to garbage and... it's not the fault of those that remain?

I'm not sure where you're trying to go with this point.

(at least I saved some of your post)

Raul Wrote:It's not the fault of those that remain. It is their fault that they do remain however. Although we did get Harlem from this nice process.

The Great One Wrote:Yes because they can totally afford to move out.

Raul Wrote:And there we have it. Proof, if we didn't already have it, that you haven't taken in a single thing that's been said by anyone else in this thread.

The Great One Wrote:Yes because they can totally afford to move out.

The Great One Wrote:Proof that your a moron yes. I really didn't think it needed to be said the people living in these inner cities are poor they can't just pack up and leave. If that was the case we wouldn't be here talking about this issue because it wouldn't exist.

Raul Wrote:I consider myself not racist. I'm not one of those people on /b/ who insists that black people are genetically inferior to white people. What I am saying is that the cultural standpoint of majority black culture is "get rich quick, party hard, die young. If that doesn't happen, I must be oppressed," which is a rather unrealistic viewpoint.

CrazyForDex Wrote:Uh, it might just be me, but saying that seems kind of racist, whether or not you know of some people who are like this...

Stereo Wrote:The problem is, the longer you're on welfare, the harder the circumstances get. It may be hard to get employment with 5%+ unemployment rates, but it's even harder to get it if your job history ends several years ago. Companies go with the proven option, which is people who have recent prior employment.

There are obviously work placement programs that combat this - but, if they prefer people from unfortunate circumstances, ie. ghettos, ie predominantly black, it gets called affirmative action. So how do you win?



It's a fallacy that someone who's unemployed is not contributing to society. It's a necessary part of the system that not everyone be employed. This can't change unless the system changes.

I find it quite ridiculous that on the one hand we're finding ways to eliminate menial jobs, and on the other hand abusing people for not being able to find those very jobs that were just eliminated. You invent a machine that can dig a foundation for a few bucks of gasoline, then complain that 10 workers with shovels are asking for handouts. The machine isn't the problem - the workers aren't the problem - the false idea that those workers should have jobs is the problem. The food to feed them doesn't stop existing because they're laid off. The housing to shelter them doesn't stop existing because they're laid off. The only actual difference is that they are no longer working, and thus no longer worthy to take their share of the resources.

America's wealthy enough to support every citizen - to educate them, keep them healthy, and well fed - that this doesn't happen is not because people are 'lazy', or are abusing the welfare system. It's because the people who already have a lot want a little more, and they don't care who loses. They don't think about who goes hungry to pay for their third home, or their private yacht, because the American dream means that it's these peoples' own fault that they're increasingly not necessary to run the country.

I imagine many of you have seen this cartoon before, but given the direction of this argument I feel like it bears repeating.

There's nothing wrong with celebrating the successes of the people who do drag their way out of poverty - but by definition not everybody can become the upper 50%. To make more people 'successful', the bar needs to be lowered - provide enough that 70% of the population is living comfortably, then 80%, 90%, and 100%. Don't say they should all pull themselves up into the upper 50%. That's ridiculous. The system of wealth distribution needs to change so there is no starvation circumstance, or people will starve.

OED Wrote:racism
Pronunciation: /ˈrāˌsizəm/

noun
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

FrozNlite Wrote:And Raul, stop claiming you're not racist, as every comment you've made since stepping foot in this thread has been just that. Take a look at the Oxford English Dictionary definition of racism:



This doesn't just apply to Raul - most of you have exhibited some strain of racism in this thread already. Be conscientious about what you say and don't look solely to a person's race or upbringing as an explanation for their current status.

Raul Wrote:As cliche as this is, my best friend for 4 years is from Kenya.

Rick Wrote:No, no, and no. This has never been, nor will it ever be, an acceptable argument.

FrozNlite Wrote:If you haven't already you all need to read this. Stereo's post explains the entire situation in this country beautifully.


This doesn't just apply to Raul - most of you have exhibited some strain of racism in this thread already. Be conscientious about what you say and don't look solely to a person's race or upbringing as an explanation for their current status.

KhainiWest Wrote:Should we refer to the oxford dictionary definition for hypocrite considering you were criticizing everyone against minorities as rich white people? lol.

Rick Wrote:If that's the definition, everyone's racist to an extent.

Stereo Wrote:Yo I'm not Mr. Ti but extent matters. Be good to other people. Don't fight just because you're afraid to lose face.