This fucking bitch is the sort of person who enables the far right to sell their "both sides are the same" bullshit. Writing fake news to criticize Trump with gives his propagandists an example to point to when they tell his support base that all of the very real problems are just fake news too.
!remindme in 72 hours when I'm unmuted from IAmA, because the moderators muted me for asking why I was banned for pointing out that the premise of that AMA is a lie.
I'm surprised they're downvoted. I'd have thought that just saying you've seen hundreds of evidences no really guys would be enough to convince most redditors
At Reveal’s request, forensic psychiatrist Mark. J. Mills assessed materials from 420 pages of children’s medical records and statements filed in California federal court this April.
This is the same group who tried to prove redlining was still a problem, and that black people got denied home loans 5x as much or something - but they didn't account for credit score, which is the primary means of determining loan eligibility 🤔🤔
so youre saying the financial opportunities available to people correlate with historical redlining practices, but it doesnt matter because now those people are just generationally poor? good thing we're living in the first year of history, or else that sure would look like a failure of our institutions to actually do anything to make up for decades of financial discrimination!
You do realize that credit score doesn't actually list your race, right? Unless, of course, your argument is that black people are worse at managing money?
even with the sarcasm my argument was perfectly to anyone who isnt deeply invested in pretending the past has no influence on the present, but please continue to believe racism is only happening when a guy sees "black" on a form and throws it in the trash
I mean, that's just dumb. Of course racism doesn't only happen when someone sees "black" on a form.
It also happens when someone sees "D'shiniqua Cartier Jackson" next to a credit score of 350. Obviously the name is the only reason you would deny that person a mortgage.
So tell me, if there's no indication that someone is black on their credit report and they have an acceptable credit score, how do banks know to only deny black people loans?
I don't doubt that black people are generationally poor, but what is the bank supposed to do about that? If black people with the same amount of money and credit score etc. get the same loans as other races, but there just aren't as many of them, then as far as the bank is concerned they are being fair
yes, and this is one of the profound failings of attempting to enact a "meritocratic" system in a society built upon massive historical inequalities, you just end up reifying those inequalities. "the bank" as a generalized construct could do quite a bit about this, but youre right that any single banking office, or even any single chain of banks, can do about as much about it as a cog can do something about the functioning of the machine it's in. the whole machine needs to be redesigned (or even better smashed, because the idea of people dying in the streets sexually excites me) to really fix the issue
it is absolutely within the power of "the bank" as a collective blob entity (rather than a physical place you go and do banking) to give loans with friendly enough repayment schemes that anyone short of a homeless crackhead could pay them off. it could also give out loans and then just not seek to collect if a certain level of impoverishment could be proven. it's a choice not to do these things, there is no god forcing their hand. my point isnt that it these things should be done, they could actually be counterproductive outside a larger reformist program and, more importantly, are pie-in-the-sky absurdities materially speaking, just that economics is not natural law, and that the inequalities our existing system perpetuates are perpetuated by choice.
i realize i'm being very abstract, and it's because i don't disagree with your specific arguments, i just disagree with your meta-level assumption that because this is how it is, we must accept it as such and adhere to its ideological boundaries when discussing it. i think american banks' loaning practices are racist, but i agree with you that there is no change in policy banks could reasonably be expected to make to address the issue (to do so would represent a minor impedance global capital flows, and as such is unthinkable) unless theres a generalized leftward political pivot that puts massive pressure on them. our divergence is that i include the possibility of that pivot in the conversation at all.
think american banks' loaning practices are racist, but i agree with you that there is no change in policy banks could reasonably be expected to make to address the issue
If the policy is racist, then that implies the banks are culpable. If there is nothing the banks can do, then how are they racist?
I also think you fail to realize just how bad of an idea it is to give people home loans who can't afford it. This was the cause of the 2008 crisis. If banks have to be "racist" to avoid another economic crisis then I guess I support racism.
there are things that can be done, but they would require stepping outside the ideological framework the financial industry is highly invested in presenting as the entire range of possibility, thus making them "unreasonable." like, not that i support this, but you would agree that simply ceasing to give out any loans whatsoever would deal with any issues of racism in loan granting, right? it would radically redefine the boundaries of what a bank does and be disastrous for a capitalist economy, but it could be done, it would just be unreasonable. my position is that "passively" maintaining a status quo which is built upon racial discrimination, as a bank does when it practices lending policies which reify redlining, is a racist act. my position is also that it's basically impossible to do anything about this under neoliberalism (or whatever you want to call the currently empowered economic ideology), which i find rather amusingly ironic.
also the 2008 crisis had a lot more to do with utterly batshit stock market speculation involving inscrutable financial products built out of those loans than the loans themselves. thats why i said any steps taken by "the bank" on its own could be counterproductive, because the rest of the economy would pounce like jackals on a humanistic weakness like trying to help people out of generational poverty and things would probably end up worse than they were before. thats why i said the machine as a whole would need restructuring, the parts cant do it on their own.
im beginning to suspect your gambit from the beginning was just to see how long you could keep me writing walls of text, but i had fun writing them so whos the REAL winner here?
it is absolutely within the power of "the bank" as a collective blob entity (rather than a physical place you go and do banking) to give loans with friendly enough repayment schemes that anyone short of a homeless crackhead could pay them off.
You should start this charity - sounds right up your alley.
" I’m an immigrant woman of color. I’m also an investigative reporter for reveal and the ONLY reporter who has talked to a child who was at Shiloh. We broke this story with the Texas Tribune. As this story goes viral, I’d appreciate it if fellow reporters credited us for our work. "
Lol, she leads with her status on the hierarchy and only after "I'm also" mentions her story. Is this a real person? Seems almost too cliche.
53 comments
1 SnapshillBot 2018-06-22
Your condescending, contradictory bullshit isn't attractive to anyone except your frothing, basement-dwelling, virgin army.
Snapshots:
I am a bot. (Info / Contact)
1 TotesMessenger 2018-06-22
I'm a bot, bleep, bloop. Someone has linked to this thread from another place on reddit:
If you follow any of the above links, please respect the rules of reddit and don't vote in the other threads. (Info / Contact)
1 sac-lawn-gnome 2018-06-22
Whoops...
1 rationalhuckleberry 2018-06-22
Some from 2002...
1 urmumqueefing 2018-06-22
This fucking bitch is the sort of person who enables the far right to sell their "both sides are the same" bullshit. Writing fake news to criticize Trump with gives his propagandists an example to point to when they tell his support base that all of the very real problems are just fake news too.
1 nanonan 2018-06-22
Just curious, what is the largest real problem Trump has caused?
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-22
Peace with North Korea.
Which he didn't do...
Even though South Korea directly said he did...
Unless it backfires...
Then he did do it...
Which is bad...
Because China wins. Somehow.
1 jaredschaffer27 2018-06-22
He has completely fucked up the issue of zupdog. It's in my view the biggest story of the year and nobody's talking about it.
1 nanonan 2018-06-22
Go zupdog yourself.
1 Yiin 2018-06-22
How you doin'?
1 a_thumb_in_my_bum 2018-06-22
Um, he made anime real?
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-22
Yeah, those damn far right people forcing left wing journalists to be lying scumbags!
1 Vakieh 2018-06-22
You do know what enabling means, right?
1 Arsenic99 2018-06-22
!remindme in 72 hours when I'm unmuted from IAmA, because the moderators muted me for asking why I was banned for pointing out that the premise of that AMA is a lie.
1 RemindMeBot 2018-06-22
I will be messaging you on 2018-06-25 19:41:56 UTC to remind you of this link.
CLICK THIS LINK to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
Parent commenter can delete this message to hide from others.
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
Imagine caring about being banned from a subreddit.
1 higashiline 2018-06-22
I got banned from /r/watches for calling some pajeet out on his fake patek
still mad about that cause I wanna talk shit about watches
1 AggressionSsb 2018-06-22
Make like 10 accounts duh
1 pitterpatterwater 2018-06-22
Good way to get an ipban lol.
1 AggressionSsb 2018-06-22
You can change your ip in minutes
1 error404brain 2018-06-22
Imagine being such a massive faggot that you don't even ban evade.
Please keep yourself safe for the good of mankind.
1 SovietWarfare 2018-06-22
Whomp whomp.
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-22
The mods even censored the freakin' automoderator comment because it asked people, automatically, to beware of proof.
1 headasplodes 2018-06-22
I'm surprised they're downvoted. I'd have thought that just saying you've seen hundreds of evidences no really guys would be enough to convince most redditors
1 d-amazo 2018-06-22
only works when the person making the claim is a woke womyn of colouyr
1 itsnotmyfault 2018-06-22
lol
1 BasicallyADoctor 2018-06-22
This is the same group who tried to prove redlining was still a problem, and that black people got denied home loans 5x as much or something - but they didn't account for credit score, which is the primary means of determining loan eligibility 🤔🤔
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-06-22
It doesn't change the point though.
1 JHFAS 2018-06-22
That black people are bad at managing money?
1 redditisgay6969 2018-06-22
you’re dumber than pizza shill
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-06-22
Do you got nothing in response?
1 redditisgay6969 2018-06-22
why do you assume basketball players have no agency to:
not murder each other
+
not mismanage their money?
are you saying they can’t make their own responsible decisions? or are wypipo forcing them to spend money frivolously?
1 RecallRethuglicans 2018-06-22
It’s about African Americans, not basketball players. I have no idea why you think someone like Larry Bird would have a hard time buying a house.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
so youre saying the financial opportunities available to people correlate with historical redlining practices, but it doesnt matter because now those people are just generationally poor? good thing we're living in the first year of history, or else that sure would look like a failure of our institutions to actually do anything to make up for decades of financial discrimination!
1 urmumqueefing 2018-06-22
You do realize that credit score doesn't actually list your race, right? Unless, of course, your argument is that black people are worse at managing money?
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
even with the sarcasm my argument was perfectly to anyone who isnt deeply invested in pretending the past has no influence on the present, but please continue to believe racism is only happening when a guy sees "black" on a form and throws it in the trash
1 ConsequentDog 2018-06-22
I mean, that's just dumb. Of course racism doesn't only happen when someone sees "black" on a form.
It also happens when someone sees "D'shiniqua Cartier Jackson" next to a credit score of 350. Obviously the name is the only reason you would deny that person a mortgage.
1 urmumqueefing 2018-06-22
So tell me, if there's no indication that someone is black on their credit report and they have an acceptable credit score, how do banks know to only deny black people loans?
1 HungryHungryHambeast 2018-06-22
That Henny won' pay for isself
1 BasicallyADoctor 2018-06-22
I don't doubt that black people are generationally poor, but what is the bank supposed to do about that? If black people with the same amount of money and credit score etc. get the same loans as other races, but there just aren't as many of them, then as far as the bank is concerned they are being fair
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
yes, and this is one of the profound failings of attempting to enact a "meritocratic" system in a society built upon massive historical inequalities, you just end up reifying those inequalities. "the bank" as a generalized construct could do quite a bit about this, but youre right that any single banking office, or even any single chain of banks, can do about as much about it as a cog can do something about the functioning of the machine it's in. the whole machine needs to be redesigned (or even better smashed, because the idea of people dying in the streets sexually excites me) to really fix the issue
1 BasicallyADoctor 2018-06-22
Giving loans to people who can't afford to pay them off sounds like a great idea
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-22
Remind me 2008!
Wait a second...
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
it is absolutely within the power of "the bank" as a collective blob entity (rather than a physical place you go and do banking) to give loans with friendly enough repayment schemes that anyone short of a homeless crackhead could pay them off. it could also give out loans and then just not seek to collect if a certain level of impoverishment could be proven. it's a choice not to do these things, there is no god forcing their hand. my point isnt that it these things should be done, they could actually be counterproductive outside a larger reformist program and, more importantly, are pie-in-the-sky absurdities materially speaking, just that economics is not natural law, and that the inequalities our existing system perpetuates are perpetuated by choice.
i realize i'm being very abstract, and it's because i don't disagree with your specific arguments, i just disagree with your meta-level assumption that because this is how it is, we must accept it as such and adhere to its ideological boundaries when discussing it. i think american banks' loaning practices are racist, but i agree with you that there is no change in policy banks could reasonably be expected to make to address the issue (to do so would represent a minor impedance global capital flows, and as such is unthinkable) unless theres a generalized leftward political pivot that puts massive pressure on them. our divergence is that i include the possibility of that pivot in the conversation at all.
1 BasicallyADoctor 2018-06-22
If the policy is racist, then that implies the banks are culpable. If there is nothing the banks can do, then how are they racist?
I also think you fail to realize just how bad of an idea it is to give people home loans who can't afford it. This was the cause of the 2008 crisis. If banks have to be "racist" to avoid another economic crisis then I guess I support racism.
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
there are things that can be done, but they would require stepping outside the ideological framework the financial industry is highly invested in presenting as the entire range of possibility, thus making them "unreasonable." like, not that i support this, but you would agree that simply ceasing to give out any loans whatsoever would deal with any issues of racism in loan granting, right? it would radically redefine the boundaries of what a bank does and be disastrous for a capitalist economy, but it could be done, it would just be unreasonable. my position is that "passively" maintaining a status quo which is built upon racial discrimination, as a bank does when it practices lending policies which reify redlining, is a racist act. my position is also that it's basically impossible to do anything about this under neoliberalism (or whatever you want to call the currently empowered economic ideology), which i find rather amusingly ironic.
also the 2008 crisis had a lot more to do with utterly batshit stock market speculation involving inscrutable financial products built out of those loans than the loans themselves. thats why i said any steps taken by "the bank" on its own could be counterproductive, because the rest of the economy would pounce like jackals on a humanistic weakness like trying to help people out of generational poverty and things would probably end up worse than they were before. thats why i said the machine as a whole would need restructuring, the parts cant do it on their own.
1 BasicallyADoctor 2018-06-22
Your solution is to not give anybody loans to avoid racism? Bad idea
1 westofthetracks 2018-06-22
im beginning to suspect your gambit from the beginning was just to see how long you could keep me writing walls of text, but i had fun writing them so whos the REAL winner here?
1 Foxehh3 2018-06-22
You should start this charity - sounds right up your alley.
1 GadolBoobies 2018-06-22
FTFY you sad DARVO loving schmuck.
1 neutralvoter 2018-06-22
" I’m an immigrant woman of color. I’m also an investigative reporter for reveal and the ONLY reporter who has talked to a child who was at Shiloh. We broke this story with the Texas Tribune. As this story goes viral, I’d appreciate it if fellow reporters credited us for our work. "
Lol, she leads with her status on the hierarchy and only after "I'm also" mentions her story. Is this a real person? Seems almost too cliche.
1 TRANSPHOBOS 2018-06-22
womp womp.
1 [deleted] 2018-06-22
[removed]
1 MemoirsofCrime 2018-06-22
Wheres all the trumpsters screaming "muh liberal bias" here O.o Oh let's just fold this neatly into the "never happened folder" I guess.
1 imissyouseattle 2018-06-22
Did you read the link?
Of course you didn't.
1 MemoirsofCrime 2018-06-22
it seems the liberal journalist is getting downvoted into oblivion.
1 nanonan 2018-06-22
By their fellow liberals no less.
1 outcastspidermonkey 2018-06-22
2014- same facility- https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/article/Federal-agency-s-shelter-oversight-raises-5969617.php.