Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[iNow]

10 minutes ago, MigL said:

nothing to do with being 'hard', INow; get your mind out of the gutter

The only thing here that’s hard is convincing otherwise extremely intelligent individuals that merely stopping the recurrence of new injuries isn’t generally enough to heal injuries and wounds already previously caused.  

[zapatos]

14 minutes ago, MigL said:

'That's right. It's all my fault. You were right all along and I just wanted to make it personal, while you and others were simply trying to discuss the topic. I'm so ashamed.'

Sound familiar ( and condescending ) ?
I thought it was obvious.
( nothing to do with being 'hard', INow; get your mind out of the gutter )

I hate to repeat myself, but will you please leave me the fuck alone?

[Jez]

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

I'm sorry, but I think that's a horrible misuse of the term "neutrality". 

I clarified exactly what I meant, 3 pages ago. I don't think you were reading what I actually wrote, but rather were looking for fault because I was being contrarian to your opinion.

4 hours ago, iNow said:

Indeed. I’m genuinely happy to have FINALLY convinced you and to have moved your commentary thankfully AWAY from your previously heels dug far more foolish unrespectable espoused position of:

I replied to you on the very first post back that I accepted everyone had biases.

Then I get asked over and over if I think that.

Just read what I wrote, it's all there. Everyone with eyes can look, but did you 'see'? I have answered all of your questions before you asked them, again.

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Please thank your friend for marching in  solidarity with the BLM movement even though they aren't black.  

Honestly, I never actually realised racism was going to be so difficult to fix in the USA. Now I get it!

What you see as 'compassion' I see as busy-body interference.

It seems to me that the reason you, as a country, went to war over this issue and it STILL didn't solve the problem is that you have two white groups,

i) those that see themselves as superior to blacks and can therefore discriminate against blacks accordingly,

ii) those that see themselves as superior to blacks because they have the power to solve their problems for them and seek solutions for them accordingly.

8 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If you aren't black, you can't give a shit about what happens to black people?

That's not remotely what I said.

I said I would be very cautious over butting in on stuff that's not my concern. (Imagine a march of 'Women who fear men' over abuse by men, and a group of men go and plant themselves in the middle of the group without being invited. Nice!!!)

I said did they ask to be invited.

I said, if they ask for assistance then give it.

America, you need to start listening to people from countries that were abolishing slavery when you were writing new ones. You had a civil war over the issue, FFS, which was extremely destructive and still largely ineffective. Maybe start listening to the 'neutral' viewpoint of others that have not been immersed in this senselessness and don't believe it likely that America will be able to find all the answers for itself any time soon, as evidenced by these serial failures.

..... because if you keep going on with that patronising attitude, that you can't even see because you are so immersed in your middle-class liberal American culture, then you can expect ongoing civil violence.

You need to STOP SEEING PEOPLE AS BLACK!!!!! It is AN IMAGINARY CONCEPT that you have been brought up to see. Stop patronising them. You follow your social conditioning as instinctively as 'another' social white group in America which looks down on them.

That is what the OP was all about. You see blackboards and whiteboards, you are conditioned to see it and you cannot separate your American social upbringing that's conditioned you to from that perception, whether it is to discriminate or patronise, one way or the other.

I see "writing boards". Some writing boards are mean to other writing boards, and we put those ones in the basement.

[Intoscience]

19 hours ago, dimreepr said:

No it's not, it depends on your culture.

In some cultures it's an imperative to share, whatever you have, with a stranger in need; it's quite telling that those culture's tend to be poor

So there is no inherent mechanism for personal survival in humans, it depends on your culture? And so even if your priority is towards the survival and prosperity of others do you not think that there is some self preservation built into that also? If a person priority is the survival and prosperity of their society then being part of that society by default means they are also taking care of themselves. 

In fact this is the whole point of the argument!  Survival and prosperity of a society as a whole is far more beneficial (in general) than as an individual. Simply because this will help to ensure the welfare of your future descendants. 

However your argument seems to be - lets rob Peter to pay Paul then a while later we will rob back from Paul to pay Peter. Then it gets muddy cause - hang on a minute we robbed Patrick to pay Peter, But Patrick's forefathers where robbed by Paul's forefathers, who where robbed by Pete'rs forefathers, who where robbed by Patrick's ancestors. But Paul's ancestors are related to Peter's ancestors and the ancestors of Patrick's ancestors were related to Paul's ancestors, who robbed Peter's ancestors ancestor's... 

48 minutes ago, Jez said:

You need to STOP SEEING PEOPLE AS BLACK!!!!! It is AN IMAGINARY CONCEPT that you have been brought up to see. Stop patronising them. You follow your social conditioning as instinctively as 'another' social white group in America which looks down on them

This is a good point. 

My partner (who is "black") agrees with this. Her argument is that using skin tone as a mechanism for group distinction should be left in the past.  That all transgressions, discrimination both negative & positive made against any people due to their skin tone should be eliminated now across all cultures and nations. Retribution for those currently directly affected may be reasonably straightforward since there should be some form of measurement to work with to arable some form of compensation. But for those indirectly affected, well where do you start and where does it end? 

Am I a potential indirect victim of racial abuse that was conducted towards my partner? (just to be clear she hasn't experienced any). After all If that abuse meant that my partner was victim to negative discrimination then this would definitely indirectly affect me.   

Edited June 9, 2023 by Intoscience
spelling

[dimreepr]

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

So there is no inherent mechanism for personal survival in humans, it depends on your culture?

That's not what I said.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

And so even if your priority is towards the survival and prosperity of others do you not think that there is some self preservation built into that also? If a person priority is the survival and prosperity of their society then being part of that society by default means they are also taking care of themselves.

It's the difference between an excuse and a reason, the good Samaritan nailed it, that's why their name went down in history. 😉 

If your culture is bias towards helping others, then any imagined fear is relegated to the realm of the excuse, because there is no reason, not to help.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

That all transgressions, discrimination both negative & positive made against any people due to their skin tone should be eliminated now across all cultures and nations. Retribution for those currently directly affected may be reasonably straightforward since there should be some form of measurement to work with to arable some form of compensation. But for those indirectly affected, well where do you start and where does it end?

Indeed, that's what makes it so difficult to predict the weather, but we manage that and with a good deal of accuracy.

3 hours ago, Intoscience said:

Am I a potential indirect victim of racial abuse that was conducted towards my partner? (just to be clear she hasn't experienced any). After all If that abuse meant that my partner was victim to negative discrimination then this would definitely indirectly affect me. 

Sounds to me, like you're both indirect victims of a culture that rates profit above people, racism just correlates. 

4 hours ago, Jez said:

You need to STOP SEEING PEOPLE AS BLACK!!!!! It is AN IMAGINARY CONCEPT that you have been brought up to see. Stop patronising them.

This is just another semantic attempt to justify your excuses, how can it be imaginary, it's there in black and white; it's like Alf Garnett saying "how can I be racist, my best friend is black 🙄, well I say best friend... but I do know/employ him".

"Stop patronising them." I don't want to get all semantically, but that's an interesting choice of word...  

[Jez]

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

This is just another semantic attempt to justify your excuses, how can it be imaginary, it's there in black and white

I gave my example in my first post.

How can you possibly say that the shape of one's intertragic notch makes no difference to one's opportunities and how one is treated?

How could you be so blind?

My point is that, yes, of course 'that difference' is a biological reality, but you probably don't even know what that is until I point it out to you and MAKE it a difference. The difference 'itself' is what is imaginary. There is no difference. You are choosing to MAKE it a difference.

I choose to make the shape of people's intertragic notch a difference and then show you evidence of how people with one shape are statistically treated differently. Am I now 'imagining' that statistical relationship or not?

Yes, of course people are discriminating black people, but that is the issue of the discriminator who has 'imagined' a difference where there is none. They have made it an issue. Deal with them.

1 hour ago, dimreepr said:

"Stop patronising them." I don't want to get all semantically, but that's an interesting choice of word...  

Heh, ok, sure but I wasn't singling 'them' out, you were.

I'll rephrase, stop patronising ANYONE from a different background to yours. Treat them the same as your brother.

[Phi for All]

6 hours ago, Jez said:

I clarified exactly what I meant, 3 pages ago. I don't think you were reading what I actually wrote, but rather were looking for fault because I was being contrarian to your opinion.

I read what you actually wrote, and yes, I was looking for fault because I do that with EVERYTHING people say, it's part of a very successful methodology. But I wasn't looking for fault "because [you were] being contrarian to [my] opinion". I found much of your neutrality definition troublesome. When I read, "I might argue that I have a better view, precisely because I am a neutral outside observer and not overly influenced by a lifetime of social influences that I can't tease apart from logical thought", it seemed clear you think your lack of experience in racial issues somehow makes you a better judge of them. Can you see how that makes little sense? If I want an impartial umpire for the baseball game, I should get someone who's never played the game?

 

6 hours ago, Jez said:

Honestly, I never actually realised racism was going to be so difficult to fix in the USA. Now I get it!

What you see as 'compassion' I see as busy-body interference.

Except we're talking about injustices perpetrated by our government against an ethnic group. Unless people other than the affected group (you know them as "busy-bodies") care enough to "interfere", the injustice continues. Btw, I don't think  very highly of your definition of "compassion" either, FWIW.

6 hours ago, Jez said:

That's not remotely what I said.

I said I would be very cautious over butting in on stuff that's not my concern.

But we were talking about MY government disenfranchising an ethnic group. I very much feel that's my concern, since it affects my fellow citizens. I don't think holding my government accountable for their actions is "butting in". I don't understand your position at all, to be honest. I think it weakens the best parts of a society.

 

[MigL]

10 hours ago, iNow said:

is convincing otherwise extremely intelligent individuals that merely stopping the recurrence of new injuries isn’t generally enough to heal injuries and wounds already previously caused.  

Who said 'merely stopping' ?
But it should be the first step, as was explained to Phi yesterday.
If you have a problem in your house, such as a water leak in the basement, that ruined your rug by making it moldy and stinky, is your first step to replace the rug so that it matches the rest of the nice decor, or do you fix the root problem first; the water leak  that caused the 'injustice' to your rug ?
You see, there's that intelligence at work ...

 

10 hours ago, zapatos said:

I hate to repeat myself, but will you please leave me the fuck alone?

Yeah, that's not going to happen.
If you sling mud at others, then complain when it occasionally gets lobbed back your way, you should grow thicker skin.
Last I checked, this was my OP, and I have the right to respond to anyone posting in this thread.
If you want to be left alone, you can choose not to participate.
( I would much prefer you grow up, take some responsibility, and continue posting )

Edited June 9, 2023 by MigL

[Jez]

17 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

But we were talking about MY government disenfranchising an ethnic group.

OK, let's just deal with objective facts for a moment.

What is your Government doing to disenfranchise "black" people?

(Please make sure you do not include any that also disenfranchise others, else that's then just an opinion again that it is directed to "blacks".)

[MigL]

2 hours ago, dimreepr said:

6 hours ago, Jez said:

You need to STOP SEEING PEOPLE AS BLACK!!!!! 

This is just another semantic attempt to justify your excuses, how can it be imaginary, it's there in black and white;

Yet if I said there's only males nd females, where the differences are much more pronounced, you, and others would be all over me.
And it has happened.

Do you  have a clue about consistent arguments, or do you just throw 'stuff' at the wall and see what sticks ?

[zapatos]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

( I would much prefer you grow up, take some responsibility, and continue posting )

I'm not going to interact with you as long as the personal attacks continue. It's not pleasant.

[Phi for All]

54 minutes ago, Jez said:

OK, let's just deal with objective facts for a moment.

What is your Government doing to disenfranchise "black" people?

(Please make sure you do not include any that also disenfranchise others, else that's then just an opinion again that it is directed to "blacks".)

Just to repeat myself, the incident we've been discussing for a few pages is the redlining practices that the FHA implemented. If you're ignorant on the subject, here's some knowledge:

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Now let's be clear. These practices were inflicted on people of color other than blacks with the same negative results in mortgage loans, student loans, credit cards, banking, and insurance. Are you going to ignore my evidence just because you think it's only my opinion that this negatively affected black people? This is me cringing in anticipation, because I don't think you're actually going to read either of my links. My prediction is that you're going to waffle because redlining affected Latinx and other ethnic groups as well. 

[Jez]

4 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Just to repeat myself, the incident we've been discussing for a few pages is the redlining practices that the FHA implemented. If you're ignorant on the subject, here's some knowledge:

https://www.npr.org/2017/05/03/526655831/a-forgotten-history-of-how-the-u-s-government-segregated-america

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Redlining

Now let's be clear. These practices were inflicted on people of color other than blacks with the same negative results in mortgage loans, student loans, credit cards, banking, and insurance. Are you going to ignore my evidence just because you think it's only my opinion that this negatively affected black people? This is me cringing in anticipation, because I don't think you're actually going to read either of my links. My prediction is that you're going to waffle because redlining affected Latinx and other ethnic groups as well. 

I took a 'present/future tense' as the meaning of your last post.

"But we were talking about MY government disenfranchising an ethnic group."

OK, so is it the general proposition now, here, there is no current "government disenfranchising an ethnic group"? Because that seems to have been left vague.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

( I would much prefer you grow up, take some responsibility, and continue posting )

Stuff like this tells me you've run out of reason, and you're lashing out in frustration. This doesn't sound like it's about your OP.

[Jez]

FWIW, we have very significant segregations of ethic groups in many of our UK cities. It's entirely at the occupants' own volition (they are house owners and bought the houses there next to their friends and relatives), our ethnic groups generally prefer to form communities of their own cultural equals.

I mean, if you mixed them all up, Governments would probably THEN get blamed for trying to deliberately water down community values.

Edited June 9, 2023 by Jez

[Phi for All]

2 minutes ago, Jez said:

I took a 'present/future tense' as the meaning of your last post.

"But we were talking about MY government disenfranchising an ethnic group."

OK, so is it the general proposition now, here, there is no current "government disenfranchising an ethnic group"? Because that seems to have been left vague.

I wasn't talking about "current" violations. Specifically, I've been referencing the FHA redlining practices which crippled a few generations of black Americans. Current transgressions seem to have been left vague because I wasn't talking about them.

[Jez]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

I wasn't talking about "current" violations. Specifically, I've been referencing the FHA redlining practices which crippled a few generations of black Americans. Current transgressions seem to have been left vague because I wasn't talking about them.

Can you please clarify how this redlining is a FHA practice?

I don't think your Government lent mortgages, so what's the connection?

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, Jez said:

FWIW, we have very significant segregations of ethic groups in many of our UK cities. It's entirely at the occupants' own volition (they are house owners and bought the houses there next to their friends and relatives), our ethnic groups generally prefer to form communities of their own cultural equals.

I mean, if you mixed them all up, Governments would probably THEN get blamed for trying to deliberately water down community values.

In the US, we have a history of demanding segregation, but when black communities began to prosper, they were burned or flooded out. Part of NYC's Central Park used to be the thriving black community of Seneca Village until they were run off by NYC police.

 

9 minutes ago, Jez said:

Can you please clarify how this redlining is a FHA practice?

I don't think your Government lent mortgages, so what's the connection?

I knew you wouldn't read the links. Here are some excerpts:

Quote

With the National Housing Act of 1934 the federal government began to be involved in the practice and the concurrent establishment of the Federal Housing Administration (FHA).^[16] The FHA's formalized redlining process was developed by their Chief Land Economist, Homer Hoyt, as part of an initiative to develop the first underwriting criteria for mortgages.^[17][18] The implementation of this federal policy accelerated the decay and isolation of minority inner-city neighborhoods through withholding of mortgage capital, making it even more difficult for neighborhoods to attract and retain families able to purchase homes.^[19] The discriminatory assumptions in redlining exacerbated residential racial segregation and urban decay in the United States.

Quote

It was in something called the Underwriting Manual of the Federal Housing Administration, which said that "incompatible racial groups should not be permitted to live in the same communities." Meaning that loans to African-Americans could not be insured.

Please read this. It's in English, and it's not very long.

[Jez]

Oh, I did read your links and could see ZERO connection between the liabilities created and Government, as you appear to have falsely asserted, as far as I can tell.

I've done a check on this 'redlining' thing which is the issue you are looking to fix.

It seems there have already been hundreds of legal cases already to settle those particular damaged.

Thus, three things to note;

i) the remedies are already being argued in court, finalised, and the amounts disbursed,

ii) the totals are already in excess of $2bn. Are you thinking you need to press 'someone' for more than that?

iii) None are from US Government, because it wasn't them that were liable for the outcomes, so what do you want US Government to do about it now?

 

Here are some cases already;

1. Wells Fargo - $175 million (2012)
2. Bank of America - $335 million (2011)
3. JPMorgan Chase - $55 million (2017)
4. Countrywide Financial (acquired by Bank of America) - $335 million (2011)
5. Citigroup - $7.9 million (2002)
6. SunTrust Mortgage - $21 million (2011)
7. HSBC - $28 million (2012)
8. Hudson City Savings Bank (acquired by M&T Bank) - $33 million (2015)
9. First Tennessee Bank (now part of First Horizon Bank) - $1.9 million (2016)
10. BancorpSouth - $10.6 million (2016)
11. PNC Financial Services - $35 million (2013)
12. US Bancorp - $32 million (2012)
13. Fifth Third Bank - $25 million (2015)
14. Ally Financial (formerly GMAC Mortgage) - $80 million (2013)
15. Regions Financial Corporation - $52 million (2012)
16. M&T Bank - $64 million (2017)
17. Citizens Financial Group - $9.9 million (2017)
18. Union Bank (now part of MUFG Union Bank) - $15 million (2011)
19. BB&T Corporation (now Truist Financial Corporation) - $83 million (2012)
20. PHH Mortgage - $92 million (2017)
21. KeyBank - Unknown
22. Santander Bank - Unknown
23. Discover Financial Services - Unknown
24. Flagstar Bank - Unknown
25. Comerica Bank - Unknown
26. BBVA Compass - Unknown
27. City National Bank (now part of Royal Bank of Canada) - Unknown
28. Capital One Financial Corporation - Unknown
29. Zions Bancorporation - Unknown
30. Synovus Financial Corporation - Unknown
31. TD Bank, N.A. - Unknown
32. EverBank (now TIAA Bank) - Unknown
33. Webster Bank - Unknown
34. First Citizens Bank - Unknown
35. Huntington Bancshares - Unknown
36. Popular, Inc. - Unknown
37. U.S. Bank - Unknown
38. Citizens Bank - Unknown
39. Wilmington Trust (now part of M&T Bank) - Unknown
40. BBVA USA - Unknown
41.  

 

 

Why do you think there is anything for US Government to do about this?

What is it you are after?

More money?

New laws came in in 1968 to stop the practice.

What more do you want to see done?

Some angry jumping-up-and-down?

[zapatos]

3 minutes ago, Jez said:

Oh, I did read your links and could see ZERO connection between the liabilities created and Government, as you appear to have falsely asserted, as far as I can tell.

 

Seventh paragraph...

Quote

The term "redlining" ... comes from the development by the New Deal, by the federal government of maps of every metropolitan area in the country. And those maps were color-coded by first the Home Owners Loan Corp. and then the Federal Housing Administration and then adopted by the Veterans Administration, and these color codes were designed to indicate where it was safe to insure mortgages. And anywhere where African-Americans lived, anywhere where African-Americans lived nearby were colored red to indicate to appraisers that these neighborhoods were too risky to insure mortgages.

 

 

 

[Jez]

 

 

Here are some more cases, actually I think it's more than $4bn.

41. SunTrust Banks - $968 million (2020)
42. Regions Bank - $1 billion (2018)
43. Zions Bancorporation - $8 million (2018)
44. Cadence Bank - $2 million (2019)
45. Associated Bank - $200 million (2015)
46. Bank of the West - $16.3 million (2017)
47. Sterling Bancorp - $8 million (2018)
48. East West Bank - $3.3 million (2019)
49. Umpqua Holdings Corporation - $1.1 million (2019)
50. Trustmark Corporation - $3 million (2019)
51. Cathay Bank - $10 million (2019)
52. Iberiabank Corporation (now part of First Horizon Bank) - $11.7 million (2019)
53. Simmons Bank - $2 million (2019)
54. FirstBank (formerly FBOP Corporation) - $10.9 million (2018)
55. First Interstate BancSystem - $1.3 million (2019)
56. BankUnited - $7 million (2019)
57. First Midwest Bancorp - $1.7 million (2019)
58. United Bankshares - $2.85 million (2019)
59. BMO Harris Bank - $16 million (2020)
60. TCF Financial Corporation (now part of Huntington Bancshares) - $5 million (2021)

Is that enough?

Clearly, there exists a route to take this particular issue to court and win remedies.

So, now we've cleared that one up, what's next on the agenda to fix?

2 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Seventh paragraph...

 

And?

Why does that make US Gov liable for it?

Please explain, in language that 'someone rational' can understand, this is about mortgage lenders holding back mortgages, and US Government isn't a mortgage lender. What is the link? Where is the liability?

What more do you want them to do?

People are getting paid for their losses and the law has been changed.

Do you want to dig up the corpses of the now dead people responsible, put them in stocks and throw vegetables at them?

What do you WANT!?!

[MigL]

30 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Stuff like this tells me you've run out of reason, and you're lashing out in frustration. This doesn't sound like it's about your OP.

Before you take sides, look back at the interactions we have had in the last couple of pages.
It wasn't me that started it with the patronizing attitude and arguing in bad faith.
And no, I haven't run out of arguments; I'm still posting, and realize that a hot topic that people are passionate about, is bound to ruffle some feathers.

If he chooses to 'take his ball and go home', that's on him; he's run out of arguments.

[zapatos]

4 minutes ago, Jez said:

Why does that make US Gov liable for it?

 

Because the US gov said they will not insure your loans if you make them to anyone in the redlined area. Therefore the lends did not make loans to people in the redlined areas. It is a direct connection. 

6 minutes ago, Jez said:

People are getting paid for their losses and the law has been changed.

 

You did not provide a link to your list so I cannot check, so this is only a guess, but I suspect that you are referring to cases of redlining after the Fair Housing Act of 1968. At that point the government went from saying "redlining is legal" to saying "redlining is illegal", so anyone redlining after 1968 was no longer doing so under the protection of the US government.

12 minutes ago, Jez said:

What more do you want them to do?

 

Take responsibility for redlining practices prior to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and make whole the people they financially harmed.

 

11 minutes ago, Jez said:

Do you want to dig up the corpses of the now dead people responsible, put them in stocks and throw vegetables at them?

 

Please stop. This is unnecessary. 

[Jez]

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

Because the US gov said they will not insure your loans if you make them to anyone in the redlined area. Therefore the lends did not make loans to people in the redlined areas. It is a direct connection. 

OK, I accept that connection you are making.

So, why are these companies paying out and not saying 'we're not liable it's the US gov what did it'?

 

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

You did not provide a link to your list so I cannot check, so this is only a guess, but I suspect that you are referring to cases of redlining after the Fair Housing Act of 1968. At that point the government went from saying "redlining is legal" to saying "redlining is illegal", so anyone redlining after 1968 was no longer doing so under the protection of the US government.

Chat GPT gave me those figures after I asked for a list of cases settled for redlining.

Go argue with Chat GPT if you are declining to accept that list of data, but maybe YOU need to find your data first before accusing these companies of not fulfilling their liabilities already?

9 minutes ago, zapatos said:

 

Take responsibility for redlining practices prior to the Fair Housing Act of 1968 and make whole the people they financially harmed.

It seems that this 'black group' have gone and done exactly what I said they'd done here in UK.

While the 'Very-offended-of-white-middle-class-America' has been wringing its hands and saying that they will do something, the 'black group' have got fed up with you waffling on about it and gone and sorted it out for themselves.

Name a black person who has not received their compensation from these legal cases, and we can move on to discuss 'that' and what to do next.

In the absence of you being able to name someone 'from the black group' that is asking for any recompense for redlining, can we at least for now put that aside and move on to some next injustice that you want to address?

 

Is that it? Anything else?

Edited June 9, 2023 by Jez

[zapatos]

2 minutes ago, Jez said:

Go argue with Chat GPT if you are declining to accept that list of data, but maybe YOU need to find your data first before accusing these companies of not fulfilling their liabilities already?

11 minutes ago, zapatos said:

I'm not declining to accept your list of data. I am asking if the list covers redlining done before the Fair Housing Act of 1968. Prior to 1968 redlining was legal, and the government is responsible, not the companies that legally redlined during that time. 

Companies should (and are) being sued for redlining after 1968. The government should (and is not) taking responsibility for compensating the people they harmed through redlining prior to 1968.

8 minutes ago, Jez said:

Is that it? Anything else?

I'm tired of the attitude around here. It's getting old.