Physical Revue says "Whiteboards are Racist"

[Jez]

What's the negative click for?

 

Have I given misinformation, or used bad language at someone, or been illogical?

1 minute 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.

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

That would be for you to tell me. If you think there is an issue but you don't know if these cases do or do not address it, I'd say that is your lack of research, not mine.

Clearly, something has been going on to remedy this sort of thing.

I'm asking who is complaining.

'People from black groups'?

Or is it just 'people from white groups' complaining on behalf of 'people from black groups'?

Does it become tiring when we get down to discussing real things, rather than 'feelings'? Sorry about that, but reality is what it is. 

It's easier to discuss ideas and feelings, isn't it? No-one can really challenge you about it?

Funny, that, that's exactly the subject matter of the link in the OP, that APS refused to accept a 'scientific' comment about the paper in question because they argued the paper itself, the subject matter in discussion, wasn't scientific! Heh. That's full circle on this thread, then?

[zapatos]

8 minutes ago, Jez said:

Does it become tiring when we get down to discussing real things, rather than 'feelings'? Sorry about that, but reality is what it is. 

 

I don't know why you've taken this attitude with me. I don't care to continue. 

[CharonY]

 

21 minutes ago, Jez said:

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?

Also, Chat GPT is a language model, it is not source for data or information, especially as it is prone to make things up (aka hallucinations).

 

But in other words, folks not only consider it possible but also acceptable to have companies and governments pay up for past regressions. And if so, it then means that we can continue to examine what other elements have led to systematically disadvantage folks and compensate them, right?

[Jez]

3 minutes ago, CharonY said:

 

Also, Chat GPT is a language model, it is not source for data or information, especially as it is prone to make things up (aka hallucinations).

 

But in other words, folks not only consider it possible but also acceptable to have companies and governments pay up for past regressions. And if so, it then means that we can continue to examine what other elements have led to systematically disadvantage folks and compensate them, right?

OK, just to cover this again;

i) US Government did not lend anything, so any failure to lend can at best be a '3rd party issue'

ii) I accept the observation above (at face value) that US Government caused the lenders not to lend by declining underwriting the loans (I'll assume that is true for now), in which case law is very clear, the companies get sued and pay up, then the companies sue US Government. The victims do not get paid twice from the lenders and the US Government. They get paid once. It is for the lenders to pursue such cases if they are minded to.

iii) US Government did change the law so that would stop.

 

So my question to you, given that there is a legal route of redress which has been in progress and clearly delivers remedies, and US Government has changed the law...

.. what do you want done now? Why is this not enough? Surely recompense and a change of law covers it? What more are you after?

 

Are you content that this covers redlining now? Or not, if so why not? You want more money, or more laws, or what?

 

Now, on to the next issue .. which is...?

[Phi for All]

15 minutes ago, Jez said:

I'm asking who is complaining.

'People from black groups'?

Or is it just 'people from white groups' complaining on behalf of 'people from black groups'?

This is such a ridiculous premise that I no longer feel you're arguing in good faith. It's pretty easy to look up black groups that are petitioning for reparations for redlining practices, so I feel that you're just making me post more links you won't read. 

But this is MigL's thread about a specific instance, and I've helped blow it up into a full discussion about racism. If someone would like to discuss the subject in good faith, I'll happily join that discussion, but this one has suddenly become about something else. Enjoy.

[CharonY]

19 hours ago, MigL said:

The first step, before redress of any prior injustices, is ending racism, Phi.

That won't ever happen. Look, polls going back well into the Jim Crow era have shown that the majority of folks on all side of the issue are against racism or have at least a negative attitude towards it. Yet those laws were enacted. Why? Because folks did not consider their own attitude as racist or harmful. This is the whole issue with racism. It is not the attitude itself that does the harm per se, but the creation (and insufficient dismantling) of a system that creates harm.

We we right now everyone on Earth decides to be non-racist and eliminates all racial references in all laws on the book, we still will have racial sorting of outcomes. It is not because that mentioning of race being the issue, it is because laws, even if not specific with racial discrimination in mind (though again, there are still examples of those, such as the voter suppression tactics that specifically target minorities without mentioning them) won't be equitable (i.e. affect or benefit racial groups similarly), because the system already have them in different boxes. By simply not ignoring them, we will have the same system as we have before and the same inequity that is going with all the demonstrable harm it has (including life expectancy).

And realistically, this is the same argument that has been made by the public against the civil rights act and to some degree why Martin Luther King was disappointed with what he called the white moderate.

It has been much said here that folks are in general agreement that people should have the same opportunities. Yet the assumptions seems to be that we are already there and can now proceed in a color-blind fashion. Yet, data clearly shows that outcomes are heavily racialized. Now, there is also the discussion about equal opportunity vs. equal outcome. But here I want to ask something: What do you think leads to these different racialized outcome if opportunities are actually the same?

Even 20 years back there were rather clear opinions on why this is the case, I am curious to see what explanations folks have now.

[Jez]

2 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

This is such a ridiculous premise that I no longer feel you're arguing in good faith. It's pretty easy to look up black groups that are petitioning for reparations for redlining practices, so I feel that you're just making me post more links you won't read. 

But this is MigL's thread about a specific instance, and I've helped blow it up into a full discussion about racism. If someone would like to discuss the subject in good faith, I'll happily join that discussion, but this one has suddenly become about something else. Enjoy.

You misunderstand my proposition.

Or maybe you do understand it?

• There is a route of redress through the courts, and this has been actively producing $billions in compensation.
• There is even a route of petition direct to US Government (1st Amendment right).
• The laws have been changed in response.

I'm just asking what more you want?

You all want to clear off out of the discussion, now?

Now that everything you 'think' you are asking for is available?

I am not suggesting it has been yet delivered in its entirety, but you all seem to want to stop contributing now that someone has pointed out that what you thought you were asking for is already happening?

It's a very simple question; what more do you want to see done to resolve the redlining issue, than isn't being done already? Of course, we all have concerns those processes are not yet complete, and all wish they will resolve soon. But what else are you asking for?

[swansont]

35 minutes ago, Jez said:

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

!

Moderator Note

Chat GPT is known to give inaccurate information. It gives plausible-sounding results, not accurate results. 

It should never be used in this fashion. It is not a credible source.

 

[Jez]

Just now, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Chat GPT is known to give inaccurate information. It gives plausible-sounding results, not accurate results. 

It should never be used in this fashion. It is not a credible source.

 

That is accepted, and I assumed it was the case, but even the wiki page gave a few cases that were being solved.

The argument here seems to be that these cases haven't been happening. Prima facie that doesn't seem correct.

The proposition is simple, and Chat GPT does not need to be accurate for this to be demonstrated;

• is there a legal route forward to resolve losses from redlining, or
• is there no legal route.

Even the wiki page alone (that someone else linked to) confirms there IS a legal route.

I believe my question is pure, and reasonable; what do people want done about this, given the legal route to remedy is open and the law is already changed?

[CharonY]

15 minutes ago, Jez said:

i) US Government did not lend anything, so any failure to lend can at best be a '3rd party issue'

Well, I guess you just don't know much about this part US history, which is fine. But the US government has a long history of providing funds for housing and education- but often only white folks were eligible. Also an important part of redlining was to refusal to insure mortgages in and near black neighborhoods, plus subsidizing home-building, but again only for white folks. This is potentially a bigger reason why whole areas in the US are underdeveloped and folks living are not only of a certain skin color, but also suffer worse overall outcomes in many measures. So that particular premise is demonstrably wrong.

[Jez]

Just now, CharonY said:

Well, I guess you just don't know much about the US history, which is fine. But the US government has a long history of providing funds for housing and education- but often only white folks were eligible. 

Is that a new matter to consider? We were discussing redlining.

[swansont]

1 minute ago, Jez said:

Chat GPT does not need to be accurate for this to be demonstrated

!

Moderator Note

Simple solution: don’t cite it, or any other unreliable source. It distracts from the conversation.

 

[Jez]

Just now, swansont said:

!

Moderator Note

Simple solution: don’t cite it, or any other unreliable source. It distracts from the conversation.

 

OK, understood.

[CharonY]

Also, it is interesting to note that redlining lawsuits were successful by looking things from a racialized view. I.e. if one tried to omit race from the whole thing, there were no issues. Most mortgages were granted based on the financial situation. Only if you investigate it based on racial outcomes, then there was a case.

I.e. it is not that folks had a simple way to get compensated and much of it went into a fund that subsidizes general funds that are specific for residents of black and Hispanic neighborhoods (though one could argue that it is a racialized distribution that some folks here migth again object to).

20 minutes ago, Jez said:

Is that a new matter to consider? We were discussing redlining.

That is a key mechanism of redlining. The government not only supported it, but created specific mechanisms that would encourage targeted lending by the banks. I.e. it is not just banks doing shady things. It was policy and part of the governmental system.

As folks in this thread has mentioned, it is not just a single act of sorts. It is a systemic issue on many, often interacting levels. I am sure there are easily digestible articles out there, but I can dig one out when I got a couple of minutes.

[Jez]

29 minutes ago, CharonY said:

That is a key mechanism of redlining. The government not only supported it, but created specific mechanisms that would encourage targeted lending by the banks

OK, I get that, and could have guessed to be honest, but that's missing my question.

There appears to be a legal route to remedy. 

So either

1. this particular issue has a solution so it's not necessary to keep digging here, or
2. you (others) don't feel this legal route is satisfactory?

If 1, then 'stop' #job done! (if not stop then why not), or

if 2, state why you don't feel these court cases/due compensations are satisfactory.

I trust that within the answer to 'why', we'll see a means to take some next step, either measure it and/or deal with it.

[MigL]

1 hour ago, CharonY said:

That won't ever happen.

Going back to the example I gave INow 3 hours ago, about the water leak in the basement making your rug have a worse outcome than the rest of your house furnishings, you seem to want to replace the rug with a new one, so it is just as nice as the rest of the furnishings, without first fixing the water leak.

Racism is the water leak that produced the bad outcome for the rug, who are black people.( don't 'read ' anything into my analogy choices )

What prevents the same thing from happening again ?
Or to anothe piece of furniture ( other group of people ) ?

I gave a partial list of suggestions to Phi, which would immediately make things 90% mor fair, and approach Canada and Europe.
But all I hear is
"It's too hard"
"It's bound to fail"
So you've given up even trying ...
 

Edited June 9, 2023 by MigL

[CharonY]

1 hour ago, MigL said:

Going back to the example I gave INow 3 hours ago, about the water leak in the basement making your rug have a worse outcome than the rest of your house furnishings, you seem to want to replace the rug with a new one, so it is just as nice as the rest of the furnishings, without first fixing the water leak.

I feel the analogy does not really capture the systemic issue and it conflates fundamental with the proximate causes. 

Racism does not cause the leak, it is at least once (or more removed). To work with you analogy, racism would be more something ephemeral, like for example architectural thoughts on how houses are supposed to be built. Then derived from those more nebulous thoughts are specific building codes. For most those are fine. However, let's assume that due to water quality for a particular subset of homes the code facilitates or allows installations that are prone to leaking. So having a better building philosophy that ensures that everything works out would be great, but may not be very actionable.

Fixing the building code would be a more obvious longer-term solution. But in the short term, providing folks with means to fix the leak rather than waiting for the code to be fixed would be the immediate band-aid.

[Jez]

38 minutes ago, CharonY said:

I feel the analogy does not really capture the systemic issue and it conflates fundamental with the proximate causes. 

Racism does not cause the leak, it is at least once (or more removed). To work with you analogy, racism would be more something ephemeral, like for example architectural thoughts on how houses are supposed to be built. Then derived from those more nebulous thoughts are specific building codes. For most those are fine. However, let's assume that due to water quality for a particular subset of homes the code facilitates or allows installations that are prone to leaking. So having a better building philosophy that ensures that everything works out would be great, but may not be very actionable.

Fixing the building code would be a more obvious longer-term solution. But in the short term, providing folks with means to fix the leak rather than waiting for the code to be fixed would be the immediate band-aid.

I like your analogy to building codes, but I think you've overcomplicated the analogy you have drawn with racism.

I feel a better proposition would be this;

• Builder 1; "The code says we have to install electrical sockets made of plastic. I bought some here, let's fit these."
• Builder 2; "No, no, this is wrong. What you have bought is urea formaldehyde, which is a thermoset, it is not a thermoplastic."
• Builder 1; "Really, it makes no difference, the code just says 'plastic' and this is plastic, right?"
• Builder 2; "Nope, THAT is a thermosetting resin, you need to go buy ABS electrical sockets, ABS is a thermoplastic."
• Builder 1; "There's really no issue, you don't have to overthink this. A plastic plug is a plastic plug!"
• Builder 2; "I agree, and THAT urea formaldehyde is NOT a plastic, it is a thermoset."

So, the analogy here is that in this situation I would be builder 2 because I have grown up around polymer science and my attention is finely tuned to the difference between different plastics. It is in my upbringing and formative experiences that I see a difference between urea formaldehyde electrical parts and ABS parts, which are the two common materials for electrical parts.

I can tell the difference between the two plastics looking at a part on a shelf at 2 metres! Whether it has moulding texture or smooth, whether it is a very bright white or slightly duller white, etc.. If you did not have my formative experience, you would be builder 1 without a clue what I am talking about and what the hell difference does it make, get on with the job and stop causing trouble!

The question is whether Builder 1 or Builder 2 is right. Does the code just mean 'something plasticy' in the lay person's understanding, or the fine-tuned recognition of someone brought up to see the difference?

One is pragmatic and wants to get on with the job, sees the other as making trouble for no good reason.

The other believes things need to be done right and to the letter, and whether or not it makes any difference at all by ignoring what plastic type the plug is, the rules that they have been brought up with say those two materials are different and only one is a plastic.

You American guys are builder 2 in terms of race, for sure it is a real difference but it is your choice whether to go out of your way to spot the difference and to decide to react to it.

Which builder is right? The job is to get on and build the house so everything gets done and everyone's happy. Or is it to fret about whether you have the "right sort" of sockets?

[CharonY]

2 minutes ago, Jez said:

• Builder 1; "The code says we have to install electrical sockets made of plastic. I bought some here, let's fit these."
• Builder 2; "No, no, this is wrong. What you have bought is urea formaldehyde, which is a thermoset, it is not a thermoplastic."
• Builder 1; "Really, it makes no difference, the code just says 'plastic' and this is plastic, right?"
• Builder 2; "Nope, THAT is a thermosetting resin, you need to go buy ABS electrical sockets, ABS is a thermoplastic."
• Builder 1; "There's really no issue, you don't have to overthink this. A plastic plug is a plastic plug!"
• Builder 2; "I agree, and THAT urea formaldehyde is NOT a plastic, it is a thermoset."

Is your argument that the issue is one of semantics without real life impact? If so, I feel you may have missed the point of the discussion. We have the discussion because the house is on fire/flooded (i.e. we see the impact) and it is about figuring out what to do about. Whatever we want to call the issue is mostly secondary.

[Jez]

11 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Is your argument that the issue is one of semantics without real life impact? If so, I feel you may have missed the point of the discussion. We have the discussion because the house is on fire/flooded (i.e. we see the impact) and it is about figuring out what to do about. Whatever we want to call the issue is mostly secondary.

My argument is that the issue is one of semantics that has been allowed to have a real life impact.

The house is on fire and builder 2 says to builder 1 'I shouldn't have let you install those ABS sockets, should I? Urea formaldehyde is tougher and would have resisted' and builder 1 says 'it might not be anything to do with that, maybe it would have happened anyway, maybe it was your wiring and you are just looking for something to blame'?.

[CharonY]

You are decoupling the effect (fire) with the cause and create a strawman scenario where folks are fighting about semantics. While it is very on-brand about how we often talk about racism and its ongoing impact, it is not very helpful.

Essentially the argument appears to be that talking about racism is the real issue, as it causes all the problems, therefore the only reasonable thing is to do what we do nothing and obfuscate matters.

[Jez]

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

You are decoupling the effect (fire) with the cause and create a strawman scenario where folks are fighting about semantics. While it is very on-brand about how we often talk about racism and its ongoing impact, it is not very helpful.

I don't agree that is what I am doing.

 

9 minutes ago, CharonY said:

Essentially the argument appears to be that talking about racism is the real issue, as it causes all the problems, therefore the only reasonable thing is to do what we do nothing and obfuscate matters.

I cannot agree with this, it is a false dichotomy and a fallacy

This false-dichotomy technique seems to be a chosen method here, I've seen it several times already, to me and others. Please don't do that, it's like listening to some salesman from the 1950's.

Talking about racism IS the real issue, yes, not because "it causes the problems" but that you guys have been talking about it all your lives and it programmes people to think about race. I've discussed that before. 

"therefore the only reasonable thing is to..." where did that come from? There are a hundred other things you could do after that. Whether someone has ever talked about a thing or not, doesn't stop them being an arse. If you are about to raise the subject, don't. If someone else raises the subject, don't engage. If someone victimises another, seek to have them punished and if you can help the victim to receive restorative justice then do so.

Not sure what's so confusing about that proposition.

[FRAGMASTER2023]

how,? there are black boards also. id say pretty balanced

[MigL]

I give up !
You guys take an analogy meant to simplify things and ease understanding, and make it more complicated than the reality of the situation.

Its really not that complicated.
Racism exists.
The longer it is allowed to go on unchecked, the more people will suffer injustices  for which they will need reparations.
If you first stop the injustices from happening, you only have to worry about reparations for past injustices.
If you first compensate for past injustices, you still have to worry about on-going and future injustices, because you haven't attempted to 'fix' the root cause.

[iNow]

4 hours ago, Jez said:

Talking about racism IS the real issue, yes,

Perhaps for you from your pompous privileged perch, but not for others… Others whose family persistently and pervasively suffered from a shoe store full of jack booted oppression.

Never mind the machinery of the state being used by white male land owners in government legislatures and courts and various related positions of authority to redirect opportunity and hyperpunish microaggressions.

Never mind the way authority was wielded like a weapon against communities and families based solely on the color of their skin, and how despite being less overt and less appalling those same things still occur essentially everyday even today.  

Across economic sectors and across generations… across regions and across financial classes and casts… different treatment across the entire system enacted by the very government proclaiming loudly to be there as representatives of their best interests. 

But sure… the REAL victims are those who voluntarily and with positive intent “talk” about it.

Okay, yeah. You’re not arguing in bad faith at all… You poor soul… have you had to engage in intensive psychotherapy for all of the trauma that’s been foisted upon you? Shall I share the number for the suicide hotline just in case? I see you. 

Now… cue the off-topic barbs and distractions and focus on… look, SQUIRREL!!!