Google Chrome's Racism Extension


#21

Well, at least your not an insane regressive. If i accused of such in the past (which i think i have) , i retract the claim.


#22

I think this might be relevant to that,
https://www.city-journal.org/sites/cj/files/old/assets/images/25_3-kh.jpg


#23

Well no because in colonising the world coloniser invented ideologies that justified their own supremacy in racial terms.


#24

i was expecting Skynet.


#25

Key word is justified , it was not the reason for the objective, they would have found any other reason if they needed one, in europe this usually was down to religion.


#26

you realize why this is the case right?
black people were poor in the 60s, they were generally second class citizens, subjected to multitude of things. then nixon’s war on drugs hit, then Reagan’s then in the 90s Bill Clinton had his 3 strikes you’re out laws. not to mention in the 80s, drug offenders were getting time in double digits.
the administrations were highly against black people well into the 90s.

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.” - Lee Atwater, explaining the southern strategy. Adviser to Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Head of the RNC.


#27

Yes. Was this supposed to change what I said or…


#28

Most explanations I have encountered blamed feminism and social democracy , ie replacing the black father with the state, [quote=“notspish, post:26, topic:110262”]
black people were poor in the 60s, they were generally second class citizens, subjected to multitude of things.
[/quote]

Why were their families stable under this?

But collapse rapidly under this?


#29

Look at that uptick in the 80s, right around the time crack was being introduced to the poor, IIRC

Btw, criminal possession of crack was much more severe than cocaine.


#30

What does this mean?

That seems to have been following the trend from the 1960s-70s, before crack.
ohhh, that uptick (edit)

True, however I dont think that would leave over half the black population without a stable relationship/fatherl, the number of people who consume crack (need to double check this) isnt nearly close enough to being over half the population of the demographic. Its one factor , that would be a contributor, but definitely not enough to be an overall cause.


#31

1 ounce of crack = 100 ounces of cocaine, in terms of jail time.

“stable” but insanely poor, second class citizens. they were basically cast aside.

because poor communities have vices, and those vices are drugs.
look at the prohibition. when the government decides to fuck poor people, they go after drugs. poor people happen to be black, because of the situations that were going on 100 years before.
all while Reagan was cutting taxes to welfare, hurting the poor, and in turn, the blacks, even more. so while people are getting put away fro 20~ years, the families are losing funding and all support.
it’s a vicious cycle.


#32

My point was that, in the words of Rand Paul, the war on drugs has served as “the new Jim Crowe”


#33

…it seems i got my ass handed to me today,


#34

well, it isn’t just crack. it’s all of the drugs that get harsh penalties. so while you have families that are losing their breadwinner (this is in the 80s~) you have kids are growing up in poverty, and being able to escape poverty is a tough thing to do. and in poor communities (in the US) of all races, the father leaves.

like i said, look at the Lee Atwater quote, this person was powerful, and made decisions in the 80s, and he was absolutely against black people. and that was just him explaining how to work with the southern politicians to convert them to republicans, basically.


#35

That doesn’t make the title any less racist.

If I made a thread on here called “Kill all the N!ggers” but it was about the British colonial invasion of West Africa, that wouldn’t make the title any less racist with or without the context.

And it doesn’t take a moron to see how the title is racist and how many of the others are directly racist or would be perceived as racist by those that are “trying to tackle racism”.

>literally spent more time total on Buzzfeed than ageofshitlords

How dare someone pick a part an article and analyse it, it’s cowardly! Cowardly!


#36

And as we’ve established, that’s due to the break down of the nuclear family, not racism.


#37

Maybe read the rest of the conversation and you’d know I never attributed the problems we discussed to blind racism; but as @notspish also pointed out, racism was also a factor.


#38

It’s barely a factor in black child poverty, that’s almost entirely due to the break down of the nuclear family in black communities.

My bad


#39

I think he was talking about black incarceration rates and their problems on a larger scale. The breakdown of the nuclear family can be linked to incarceration of blacks largely applying to men, for instance.


#40

the breakdown of the nuclear family has multiple reasons within the black community. you have the high incarceration rates, systemic racism, decades of being second class citizens.

you can’t say it’s due to the breakdown of the nuclear family without mentioning all of the things that put them in that position. you’ll see similar things within poor white communities too. it’s a mixture of attacking the poor, and also attacking the blacks as a race.