All things Racist...USA edition (4 Viewers)

Bigdaddysaints said:

Paul, everyone here admits racism will never go away. But the fact that you think because it will always be here we just ignore, not talk about it, etc is appalling. I tell my children all the time not to ignore it, call people out and don't let them get away with it being ok. When i see a racist being racist, i usually try to shame them as much as possible.

I do warehouse work, i (used to) deal with a lot of delivery drivers. So many times i had to tell drivers i am not like that, please do not use that language in this office. they will crawfish, get quiet or try real hard to change the subject. They assume because I look white (with my safety glasses and hardhat on), i must be racists like them. I have no shame in embarrassing them. F them. I am saddened by how many over the years.

Click to expand...

I hear you and I believe it is correct to point of racism. However, if done to an extreme it may actually engendered more racism among people that may otherwise be sort of neutral or not actively practicing racism. I propose surgical precise selectivity when denouncing racism.

What I propose is simple and I wish it was a national strategy. All people should be treated as individuals and not as members of a group. This is not color blindness, this is just ethics. When a person is judged as an individual racism cannot happen. Racism needs the "stereotype" of the group to be racism. An individual does not have a stereotype.

I also believe in a single unifying culture that oversees the underlying different cultures. Sports and music used to be the unifying factors. The French do a much better job than we do with this regard. IN France everybody is labeled French and they do not use ethnicity or religion to classify people into different groups. I am not saying there is no racism in France, but French minorities feel included . Many black Americans like Paris because they feel more at ease in a system that does not catalogue people.

Paul said:

I do know the top tax rate was 70% and that the tax revenue went up after cutting taxes.

Click to expand...

Nope.

The income tax cuts at a federal level have never led to increased revenue*. This is another canard foisted upon the world by the right and those who believe in lower taxes for the rich. Revenue fell after all three of those tax cuts, and in some cases took years to get back to where they were before the cuts.

* I'm talking of most of the Republican major tax cuts for mostly the higher earners -- Reagan, W Bush, Trump tax cuts for example. Cutting certain taxes on lower income people can lead to increased revenue *if* the people receiving the tax cut spend the vast majority of their increased income/tax savings.

Paul said:

It is tempting to attack the messenger when you hear a message that you do not like. It is much harder to try to debunk the message.

Click to expand...

Paul said:

I am going to assume you dislike Reagan.
Your stingers are cute, but could be better. I refrain from using stingers because I do not want to offend.

Click to expand...

I think you don't realize your own style. You have used "stingers" and attacked the people you are replying to numerous times in this thread alone. For example, you asked if everyone was naive or living under a rock about the Catholic Church "protecting" gay men. I could find other such examples but rest assured, you are not as pure as you think you are.

V Chip said:

I think you don't realize your own style. You have used "stingers" and attacked the people you are replying to numerous times in this thread alone. For example, you asked if everyone was naive or living under a rock about the Catholic Church "protecting" gay men. I could find other such examples but rest assured, you are not as pure as you think you are.

Click to expand...

OK, but as stingers go that is quite mild and not a personal attack on a specific individual. I was a bit frustrated because I thought it was widely known. I still think it is best to attack the issue and not the poster.

V Chip said:

Nope.

The income tax cuts at a federal level have never led to increased revenue*. This is another canard foisted upon the world by the right and those who believe in lower taxes for the rich. Revenue fell after all three of those tax cuts, and in some cases took years to get back to where they were before the cuts.

* I'm talking of most of the Republican major tax cuts for mostly the higher earners -- Reagan, W Bush, Trump tax cuts for example. Cutting certain taxes on lower income people can lead to increased revenue *if* the people receiving the tax cut spend the vast majority of their increased income/tax savings.

Click to expand...

You are correct, initially the tax revenue dropped, but later it went back up over the baseline. This would not work today because the taxes are already low.


In any event the best way to collect more taxes is to have a great economy.

Paul said:

You are correct, initially the tax revenue dropped, but later it went back up over the baseline.

Click to expand...

Eventually it went up over what it was -- but that will happen no matter what -- as the economy grows (and it rarely actually contracts), revenues should increase.

Saying (as that image does) that cutting taxes raised revenue is like saying adding some ice cubes to a pot of water on a low stove setting made the water hotter because eventually the water all boiled out. It doesn't make the water hotter, and in fact it prevents it from being as hot as it would be if you had left it alone.

Paul said:

I hear you and I believe it is correct to point of racism. However, if done to an extreme it may actually engendered more racism among people that may otherwise be sort of neutral or not actively practicing racism. I propose surgical precise selectivity when denouncing racism.

What I propose is simple and I wish it was a national strategy. All people should be treated as individuals and not as members of a group. This is not color blindness, this is just ethics. When a person is judged as an individual racism cannot happen. Racism needs the "stereotype" of the group to be racism. An individual does not have a stereotype.

I also believe in a single unifying culture that oversees the underlying different cultures. Sports and music used to be the unifying factors. The French do a much better job than we do with this regard. IN France everybody is labeled French and they do not use ethnicity or religion to classify people into different groups. I am not saying there is no racism in France, but French minorities feel included . Many black Americans like Paris because they feel more at ease in a system that does not catalogue people.

Click to expand...

Glad you are still here despite debating multiple people. I don’t know that France is the model. Their 2010 hajib ban, lack of racial data tracking, weak laws on workplace discrimination, etc. make it seem they chose a different route, but I’m not sure it’s better than the US.

Paul said:

You are correct, initially the tax revenue dropped, but later it went back up over the baseline. This would not work today because the taxes are already low.

Reagan Showed it Can Be Done: Lower the Top Rate to 28 Percent and Raise More Revenue

To put it mildly, many in the press and in the public remain unconvinced that Romney can lower tax rates without lowering revenue. Ruth Marcus at the Washington Post writes that Romney’s plan: “hinges on the faith-based assertion that this revenue neutrality can be achieved through the ensuing...

taxfoundation.org

In any event the best way to collect more taxes is to have a great economy.

Click to expand...

You are ignoring all the tax increases that generated that revenue.

Paul said:

Can you explain it using your own words. I never heard the term.

Click to expand...

Yes, I can. However, it is better to learn on your own. It isn't a trick. You are the one with a bone to pick about a common economic phrase used in the last 40 years.

Paul said:

I hear you and I believe it is correct to point of racism. However, if done to an extreme it may actually engendered more racism among people that may otherwise be sort of neutral or not actively practicing racism. I propose surgical precise selectivity when denouncing racism.

What I propose is simple and I wish it was a national strategy. All people should be treated as individuals and not as members of a group. This is not color blindness, this is just ethics. When a person is judged as an individual racism cannot happen. Racism needs the "stereotype" of the group to be racism. An individual does not have a stereotype.

I also believe in a single unifying culture that oversees the underlying different cultures. Sports and music used to be the unifying factors. The French do a much better job than we do with this regard. IN France everybody is labeled French and they do not use ethnicity or religion to classify people into different groups. I am not saying there is no racism in France, but French minorities feel included . Many black Americans like Paris because they feel more at ease in a system that does not catalogue people.

Click to expand...

ok. let's say we go the France route.
Do you know what France did to accomplish this? will you be ok with all the new laws we'd have to pass? here is the short version.

French leaders have also dealt with the challenges of racial and ethnic pluralism through anti-racist laws and policies. The law of 1972 continues to form the foundation of France’s national institutions. I contains four principal elements. First, it bans hate speech, making racial defamation and provocation to racial hatred or violence punishable by criminal law. Second, it outlaws discrimination in employment and in provision of goods and services by public or private actors, also making these criminal offences. Third, it establishes provisions that allow the state to ban groups that seek to promote racism. Fourth, it institutionalized the legal role of non-governmental anti-racist associations as partners in fighting racism, permitting them to instigate and to take part in court cases of racism as “civil parties”—an official status that confers rights on associations-even when they have not been directly harmed.

Click to expand...

In 1990, France extended its anti-racist institutions in three new ways through a major piece of legislation known as the Gayssot law, named for its sponsor in the National Assembly. France incorporated a ban on Holocaust denial into its hate speech provisions. It is now illegal in France to claim that the Holocaust did not take place. Second, the legislation permits judges—at their discretion—to impose an additional penalty on parties convicted of racist crimes, depriving them of some of their civil rights (notably the right to run for and to be elected to public office). Finally, the 1990 law institutionalized a high-profile discussion of racism by mandating an annual report on the topic, published by the National Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH). Although some of the steps taken were controversial at the time the legislation was passed—notably the ban on Holocaust denial and the power to deprive individuals of their civil rights—on the whole these institutions have been widely accepted in French political circles and by French society

Click to expand...

@Paul which way do you think the racists will act more harshly to?
Half of the Republican party would not be able to run for office again..

Bigdaddysaints said:

ok. let's say we go the France route.
Do you know what France did to accomplish this? will you be ok with all the new laws we'd have to pass? here is the short version.


@Paul which way do you think the racists will act more harshly to?
Half of the Republican party would not be able to run for office again..

Race Policy in France | Brookings

Race Policy in France, Erik Bleich

www.brookings.edu

Click to expand...

I am not expert on France, but I have spent considerable time in Paris as my daughter used to live there. My wife and I also had a close friendship with a French couple here in the USA. Yes there is racism in France, but I think they handle it better than we do and they avoid group ID politics. That is my opinion. European nations are more liberal than America and they strive very hard to avoid racism.

The idea of everybody being French causes people to forget their ethnic roots as they embrace being French. I personally think it works better for minorities and for all. In this video an American is shocked at how French POC view themselves. He cannot understand why they do not follow the USA model.

B4YOU said:

Glad you are still here despite debating multiple people. I don’t know that France is the model. Their 2010 hajib ban, lack of racial data tracking, weak laws on workplace discrimination, etc. make it seem they chose a different route, but I’m not sure it’s better than the US.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/15/a-fascinating-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-racially-tolerant-countries/

Race Policy in France

Race Policy in France, Erik Bleich

www.google.com

You are ignoring all the tax increases that generated that revenue.

The Mostly Forgotten Tax Increases of 1982-1993

Something had to make up for the financial hole created by Reagan's famous cuts.

www.bloomberg.com

Click to expand...

Thank you for you post. Yes, I learned today that Reagan raised other taxes. I also found out that when Reagan took office there was a pretty bad economic recession. And you are correct, some data suggest that federal tax revenues are mostly related to personal income tax.

On this note, Trump actually raised my taxes. The State and Local Tax Deduction Cap was 10K which in my case was pretty bad since I was deducting nearly 30k of my taxes. Despite a modest reduction in the tax rate the inability to deduct 20k raised my taxes. I believe the Democrats want to get rid of this, that would be awesome.

Lastly tax revenues in 2019 before Covid were the highest in history. But, then again Trump spent more money than anyone else, they all do.

IN any event I think tax revenues go up with a good economy, not because taxes are higher.

Paul said:

I am not expert on France, but I have spent considerable time in Paris as my daughter used to live there. My wife and I also had a close friendship with a French couple here in the USA. Yes there is racism in France, but I think they handle it better than we do and they avoid group ID politics. That is my opinion. European nations are more liberal than America and they strive very hard to avoid racism.

The idea of everybody being French causes people to forget their ethnic roots as they embrace being French. I personally think it works better for minorities and for all. In this video an American is shocked at how French POC view themselves. He cannot understand why they do not follow the USA model.

Click to expand...

but you didn't answer the question. should we pass strict racism laws like France? if you want those kind of changes, that's what needs to be done. would you be on board?
I betting no.
again, you just keep throwing out the "just don't talk about it" line. that will never will happen.
You are no expert on France, but you brought it up, then realised, oops, that backfired.

Bigdaddysaints said:

but you didn't answer the question. should we pass strict racism laws like France? if you want those kind of changes, that's what needs to be done. would you be on board?
I betting no.
again, you just keep throwing out the "just don't talk about it" line. that will never will happen.
You are no expert on France, but you brought it up, then realised, oops, that backfired.

Click to expand...

I am no expert in France, I am not French. I just like the concept of not classifying people according to ethnicity. Over there there is only one classification and that is French.
What kind of laws you want the USA to pass?

did you not read my above post about France's racism laws? go back and read it. and after you do, answer my question.
(post #712)

Bigdaddysaints said:

you brought it up, then realised, oops, that backfired.

Click to expand...

Seems to be a recurring theme.

Bigdaddysaints said:

did you not read my above post about France's racism laws? go back and read it. and after you do, answer my question.
(post #712)

Click to expand...

OK, here is your question:

Do you know what France did to accomplish this? will you be ok with all the new laws we'd have to pass?

Click to expand...

This is what you pasted:

First, it bans hate speech, making racial defamation and provocation to racial hatred or violence punishable by criminal law.

Click to expand...

The key here is the definition of hate speech. What specific words or phrases are forbidden? Does the list of forbidden words changes with time? What is the legal punishment for speaking such words? Let me ask you what is hate speech? The laws forbid any communication which is intended to incite discrimination against, hatred of, or harm to, anyone because of his belonging or not belonging, in fact or in fancy, to an ethnicity, a nation, a race, a religion, a sex, a sexual orientation, or a gender identity, or because he or she has a handicap. This is not very specific. Do you think that limiting speech in America would cause racism to go down? Would someone like Trump go to prison because of what he has said?

Second, it outlaws discrimination in employment and in provision of goods and services by public or private actors, also making these criminal offences.

Click to expand...

I do not have a disagreement here.

Third, it establishes provisions that allow the state to ban groups that seek to promote racism.

Click to expand...

Do you mean banning the KKK, the NAZI party? That would be fine by me. Or do you mean banning the Republican Party? Who determines what activity promotes racism?

Fourth, it institutionalized the legal role of non-governmental anti-racist associations as partners in fighting racism, permitting them to instigate and to take part in court cases of racism as “civil parties”—an official status that confers rights on associations-even when they have not been directly harmed.

Click to expand...

Partnering of the government with antiracists groups? We sort of have this here in many areas of the country. We saw congress men take a knee and so forth.

The French have a much stronger anti-racism bias than America despite the fact that they do not promote race ID politics.

You pasted:

In 1990, France extended its anti-racist institutions in three new ways through a major piece of legislation known as the Gayssot law, named for its sponsor in the National Assembly. France incorporated a ban on Holocaust denial into its hate speech provisions. It is now illegal in France to claim that the Holocaust did not take place. Second, the legislation permits judges—at their discretion—to impose an additional penalty on parties convicted of racist crimes, depriving them of some of their civil rights (notably the right to run for and to be elected to public office). Finally, the 1990 law institutionalized a high-profile discussion of racism by mandating an annual report on the topic, published by the National Commission on Human Rights (CNCDH). Although some of the steps taken were controversial at the time the legislation was passed—notably the ban on Holocaust denial and the power to deprive individuals of their civil rights—on the whole these institutions have been widely accepted in French political circles and by French society

Click to expand...

The have also installed laws of compelled speech. It sounds a bit like 1984. The question that begs an answer is: How tightly to they enforce these laws?

America is much more rooted in freedom than France. I would not have issues with all the laws, but I am not certain the American courts would uphold these laws based on the Constitution. The United States does not have hate speech laws, since the U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that laws criminalizing hate speech violate the guarantee to freedom of speech contained in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Are you OK with the French laws?

Paul said:

I am no expert in France, I am not French. I just like the concept of not classifying people according to ethnicity. Over there there is only one classification and that is French.
What kind of laws you want the USA to pass?

Click to expand...

I am not an expert either, but you should probably learn a bit more about France before you throw it around as if it was some sort of ethnic utopia because they have no legal classifications regarding ethnicity.

It wasn't that long ago that the French blamed "the blacks" for France not qualifying for a World Cup. There is a reason FIFA started its anti-racism campaign there.

They have a term for people born of immigrant parents, second-generation immigrants, unlike the U.S., where they are called first-generation Americans, racial classifications and all.

Did you know why there were such large protests in France after the George Floyd murder? I learned about Adama Traoré from a Mexican news piece, whose image was displayed right next to Floyd's during the protests. You may want to learn about him too, and the "relation" between the French police and minorities.

Even their anti-racism slogan, "black, blanc, beur, unie!" has the curiosity of using a non-French word and a pejorative to define non-whites.

And, one side effect of not having legal ethnic classifications is that it makes it just about impossible to track systemic racism and discrimination.

So, yeah, France, not so cool.