There is a search button lord knows you know how to use itI’ve posted many times.. take a hike90% of interracial violence is blacks attacking whites..How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.Im explained my definition.. and it’s factsI know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issueHow about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomedBullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964Cool story, I deal with realityIt is Jim Crow laws, new ones. They saw welfare, and destroying education had the same effect as have a sign in the window NO BLACKS ALLOWED.. im more advanced than you in race relations.. I’m making history. Now sit back down and enjoy the rideOf course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregatedI’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKEI’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgustingNo one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lolLol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining haAs always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.
Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.
And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.
Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.
But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.
If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.
The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.
I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.
At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.
Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.
Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.
I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.
Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.
You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.
Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.
Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.
Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.
You are like a little kid who has been corrected. "Well that is what I call it!" while stamping your feet.
If it was a new Jim Crow law (and I notice you didn't add the "new" until well into defending your error), it would be a law that forces segregation on penalty of prosecution. The fact that blacks do not own businesses in a new, trendy section of Boston is not due to Jim Crow laws. The people living in ghettos are not there because the law won't LET them move elsewhere. They are there because of poverty. Jim Crow laws concerning education were laws that did not allow integration in schools. What you have in Boston is school districts that are mostly black and poor. And the funding for most public schools come from local property taxes. Poor areas have low taxes, so there is less funding for the schools. That is NOT Jim Crow laws, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and yell "That is what I call it!!".
You are delusional. The new laws may have similar effects. But they are NOT Jim Crow laws.
As far as being more advanced in race relations, you defending and advocating lynching pretty much shoots that down. And, when you are told of a lynching in the 1980s, your first response being "Well he shouldn't have raped that white girl" shows you to be far behind the curve on race relations.
No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.
Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.
And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.
That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.
The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.
Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.
Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.
In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.
The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.
No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.
If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.
And you support that racist policy.
I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?
i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.
Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,
than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.
SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?
I don't believe in having race be any part of college admissions. If someone wants to start a private scholarship fund to help blacks, that is different. But the standard admissions and the standard financial aid you not be based on race at all.
I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.
You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?
I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.
I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.
YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?
A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.
1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.
2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.
I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.
Agreed.
But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.
That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.
THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.
I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.
And should also require eliminating all preferences given to legacies, children of donors, and children of faculty and staff.
These groups together comprise one-third of each class in some elite colleges and are admitted at eight times the rate of other applicants no matter what their test scores are, and those who are receiving such preferential treatment are typically not black or part of any other "minority group".
That change would make a far bigger difference than "regulating" the rate of black students being admitted, because as it stands currently, blacks are not displacing white students in college admissions on a widespread scale.
There are some who just believe that typically the success of any black person must have been at the expense of a more qualified white person, when it is actually the more privileged being favored over the less privileged on a far broader scale.
The exaggerated one-sided focus here on “admissions” to colleges is itself a product of the “white backlash” to today’s legally limited and restricted “affirmative action” programs. It is hardly merely “legacy admissions” to certain top universities that makes for a lack of “equal opportunity” in higher education, or in society as a whole.
It is a lack of money resources, historical racism, and cultural and political factors too, that created and sustain our racially divided society. The reality of impoverished communities, drug and crime problems, is today experienced in white communities too, and not just in rural areas, but for obvious historical reasons black city ghettos have suffered these problems the worst, and for generations.
Anybody with money can get a good university education, anybody with good connections and a rich family will have many opportunities that poor folks, black or white, will not have.
African-Americans are better educated today than ever before, have worked hard and made their way widely into sports and music, and now they enter more working-class service and professional jobs than ever. But with de-industrialization they have lost many once good paying unionized job opportunities, as have poor working-class whites.
Despite the victories over Jim Crow made by the generation of MLK and John Lewis, the “color line” that DuBois pointed out as being fundamental in the 20th century remains a profound problem for American society even today. African Americans are still on average far behind white Americans in wealth and education, and so lack all the advantages they bring. They still in most cases, as individuals, lack “equal opportunity.” At the same time black lumpenized elements still commit far too many crimes (mostly against their neighbors), and get jailed far more frequently.
Privileged elites in society, still disproportionately white, exploit every legal loophole to rip off society as a whole. Politically, African Americans face a new backlash of stupendous proportions — Trump has encouraged the expression of, and built upon, a new wave of “white grievance” and barely disguised racism. He has used serious problems like crime (far lower than in the period between 1970-1990), and illegal immigration, to gin up his base.
African-Americans have succeeded in taking advantage of their new opportunities in many areas. I worked in NYC in the subway & bus system for 26 years, which went from an Irish-American controlled industry and union to a majority black and Hispanic industry in a single generation. There were no “affirmative action” quotas, but only strict civil service exams that allowed employment at entry-level jobs.
As a college-educated person I easily scored at the very top of the test. I became a conductor and then motorman and then yard working engineer qualified on diesels and electric trains. Few whites took those tests. The same for sanitation jobs and many other “blue collar,” or dirty and seemingly poorly paid jobs requiring years of work at night, weekends, holidays. Some of my white friends decades later regretted their own career path taking “white collar” jobs that disappeared. Many to this day still mistakenly think “Affirmative Action” was the reason steady city and blue collar jobs became so integrated, and finally majority black and Hispanic. My experience, working with African American workers and often under black supervisors is perhaps not typical, but I wanted to at least mention it.
There is probably not a single African-American subway worker I knew who would not be deeply offended by many of the backward criticisms printed here on this thread. They, like I, knew all about black crime, broken families, the dangers of lumpen culture, the need for a good education. They mostly lived in the city or nearby, raised families there, and they and their kids still try to keep the young people out of trouble. They deeply respect people
like John Lewis and MLK, and remember their sacrifices.How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.Im explained my definition.. and it’s factsI know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issueHow about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomedBullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964Cool story, I deal with realityIt is Jim Crow laws, new ones. They saw welfare, and destroying education had the same effect as have a sign in the window NO BLACKS ALLOWED.. im more advanced than you in race relations.. I’m making history. Now sit back down and enjoy the rideOf course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregatedI’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKEI’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgustingNo one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lolLol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining haAs always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.
Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.
And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.
Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.
But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.
If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.
The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.
I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.
At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.
Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.
Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.
I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.
Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.
You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.
Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.
Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.
Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.
You are like a little kid who has been corrected. "Well that is what I call it!" while stamping your feet.
If it was a new Jim Crow law (and I notice you didn't add the "new" until well into defending your error), it would be a law that forces segregation on penalty of prosecution. The fact that blacks do not own businesses in a new, trendy section of Boston is not due to Jim Crow laws. The people living in ghettos are not there because the law won't LET them move elsewhere. They are there because of poverty. Jim Crow laws concerning education were laws that did not allow integration in schools. What you have in Boston is school districts that are mostly black and poor. And the funding for most public schools come from local property taxes. Poor areas have low taxes, so there is less funding for the schools. That is NOT Jim Crow laws, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and yell "That is what I call it!!".
You are delusional. The new laws may have similar effects. But they are NOT Jim Crow laws.
As far as being more advanced in race relations, you defending and advocating lynching pretty much shoots that down. And, when you are told of a lynching in the 1980s, your first response being "Well he shouldn't have raped that white girl" shows you to be far behind the curve on race relations.
No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.
Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.
And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.
That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.
The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.
Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.
Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.
In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.
The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.
No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.
If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.
And you support that racist policy.
I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?
i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.
Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,
than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.
SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?
I don't believe in having race be any part of college admissions. If someone wants to start a private scholarship fund to help blacks, that is different. But the standard admissions and the standard financial aid you not be based on race at all.
I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.
You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?
I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.
I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.
YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?
A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.
1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.
2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.
I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.
Agreed.
But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.
That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.
THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.
I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.
And should also require eliminating all preferences given to legacies, children of donors, and children of faculty and staff.
Why do you imagine these need to be connected?
These groups together comprise one-third of each class in some elite colleges and are admitted at eight times the rate of other applicants no matter what their test scores are, and those who are receiving such preferential treatment are typically not black or part of any other "minority group".
Interesting claims. Would you like to support these claims now?
That change would make a far bigger difference than "regulating" the rate of black students being admitted, because as it stands currently, blacks are not displacing white students in college admissions on a widespread scale.
The anti-white discrimination is well documented. Blacks are obviously displacing white students. Not sure what you are basing your flat, unsupported denial of the facts on.
There are some who just believe that typically the success of any black person must have been at the expense of a more qualified white person, when it is actually the more privileged being favored over the less privileged on a far broader scale.
your support for anti-white discrimination is noted. YOur justification for it, dismissed.
You have no clue what "I support".
You are attempting to imply that "I support anti-white discrimination", and that is nothing but your attempt to divert from the facts.
If there was empirical evidence of what you claim, I would listen it.
So far, you haven't done so in a credible way.
There IS NO ANTI-WHITE DISCRIMINATION taking place in colleges or the workplace.
You are free to "dismiss" whatever you choose to, "dismissal" does not make you right in any way..
There are NO government metrics that support the notion of "widespread anti-white discrimination" taking place in America at any point in the history of this country, except in the minds of those who view "black progress" as an assault upon the upward mobility of whites.
If there was actually a plan to disenfranchise the white population, and the effect of it was visible, there would be anarchy in the streets.
And YOU know it.
HOWEVER, if there is anything that is statistically credible that you can present that whites are being "discriminated against" on a "widespread" basis in favor of blacks, and blacks are displacing whites in college afmissions,on a "widespread scale"
PLEASE.......post it.
Feel free to support your position.
How is it bogus? We are more divided today than we are in 1964.Im explained my definition.. and it’s factsI know democrats have segregated us,, I’ve got pics of blacks wearing KKK, they were welcomed because they agreed with them.. segregation is about similarities. Z When you divide us by race gender religion color of skin like Democrats have With new policies than you Will have a segregation issueHow about integrated with diversity of thought? I could almost guarantee you that if I took 500 Trump supporters and put them in a black Atlanta neighborhood they would not be welcomedBullshit I bet Atlanta is more segregated today than it was in 1964Cool story, I deal with realityIt is Jim Crow laws, new ones. They saw welfare, and destroying education had the same effect as have a sign in the window NO BLACKS ALLOWED.. im more advanced than you in race relations.. I’m making history. Now sit back down and enjoy the rideOf course there is, new area in Boston sea port has no black owned business in a city that graduates more blacks than whites in the past 30 years. Destroying education is implementing Jim Crow Laws.. let’s keep the neighborhood segregatedI’ve already explain the new Jim Crowe laws.. stop pretending I haven’t been over this 100 times just because you’re wrong just because your butt hurt.. TAKE A HIKEI’m bringing awareness to the suffering of Black people in this community that he let happen for many many years.. he is a disgusting little pos. Do you wanna ignore the fact that people in his district living rat infestation!? I don’t .. When Black people live better in 1963 than they are doing today in 2020. The man should have been taken out years ago.. but with years of lying to blacks promising and promising to get re-elected, Absolutely disgustingNo one redefined it i always called it new Jim Crow laws, with an explanation it’s just over your head just go somewhere go flop somewhere else.. thanks for playing lolLol I live in reality,, when black ppl in his district where doing far better in 1963, than they are in 2020 than he is the racist, and the NEW Jim Crow laws he helped implement all working. Watching you deflect and flop like a fish is entertaining haAs always, you nail the numbskull racist Jitss617 . The man is not worth a moment of anybody‘s time, but you have a knack of eviscerated him publicly that I admire. Since it is probably impossible to ignore such worthless trash completely, there’s no harm in having a little fun, eh?Me?? LMAO!! First of all, it would be "you're", not "your".
But most importantly, the term "Jim Crow Law" concerns a very specific type of law. One that forces racial segregation. I have told you that over and over. I showed you several links that said the same thing. And yet you continue to try and pretend that Jim Crow laws are any law that works against black people. That is absolutely, unequivocally wrong. No matter how many examples you try to bring up, the specific definition of the term "Jim Crow law" does not change.
Most of his posts are just trolling. But, as I have said before, there are always people lurking on this site. People read his posts and accept them as accurate. Some of those people are simply stupid. But some just don't do research. I want those people to see Jitsie for what is truly is.
And yeah, there is the entertainment value. I can argue with Jitsie and still do other things. I appreciate you noticing.
Your attempts to redefine the term "Jim Crow Law" shows that you do not live in reality. Your inability to either admit you misunderstood the definition of the term or that you are wrong shows your ego is more important than actual truth.
But I repeat the challenge, what do you think "Jim Crow law" means? Give me your new definition of the term. Because what you have been arguing does not fit the long accepted definition.
If my continuing to reiterate the actual definition of the term is what you think is deflecting or flopping like a fish, you obviously don't live in reality at all. You made a claim. I pointed out your claim was bullshit. And you have spent page after page arguing.
The fact that you called it something doesn't matter. There is a long standing, accepted definition of the term.
I have not argued that the policies advocated by either John Lewis or the democrats was good or helped black people. What I have argued, consistently, is that those policies are not Jim Crow laws. They do not involve forced racial segregation by law. You claim I have flopped. But I know you cannot show one single post where I changed what I was saying about Jim Crow laws. Not one.
At least now you know what Jim Crow laws actually were. And what they were not.
Oh, and if you always called it "new Jim Crow laws", why didn't you make that claim about John Lewis? If you always called it that, why didn't you claim John Lewis supported new Jim Crow laws? I'll tell you why. Because it is bullshit.
Now you can run along and play somewhere else. This should be finished.
I have not ignored anything. And you are not bringing awareness about anything. You are scrambling and dancing to avoid admitting that you were wrong.
Are there ghettos in Atlanta? Yes. Were the policies of the democrats good for black people? No.
Did John Lewis support Jim Crow laws? No, he did not. And your insistence that he did is simply you lying to try and save face. Jim Crow laws were a very specific type of law. Apparently you were unaware of that fact. But now you know. So quit bullshitting and trying to make claims about what you said.
You want to discuss John Lewis record as a democrat, or the harm done to blacks by the democratic party? Fine. First you admit that Mr. Lewis did NOT, in fact, support Jim Crow laws.
Bullshit. Saying they are "new Jim Crow laws" is a dodge and you know it. If they were "new Jim Crow laws" they would be new laws forcing racial segregation. They aren't.
Just stop. You have been arguing bullshit for too many pages. Just stop. John Lewis did not support Jim Crow laws (falsely called "new" or otherwise). You are trying to avoid admitting you are wrong. But every person reading this bullshit can see that you were ignorant about it.
Just stop with the bullshit. You will never admit you are wrong, and I am fine with that. That is who you are, sadly. But stop pretending. Stop flailing around trying to defend your ignorance.
You are like a little kid who has been corrected. "Well that is what I call it!" while stamping your feet.
If it was a new Jim Crow law (and I notice you didn't add the "new" until well into defending your error), it would be a law that forces segregation on penalty of prosecution. The fact that blacks do not own businesses in a new, trendy section of Boston is not due to Jim Crow laws. The people living in ghettos are not there because the law won't LET them move elsewhere. They are there because of poverty. Jim Crow laws concerning education were laws that did not allow integration in schools. What you have in Boston is school districts that are mostly black and poor. And the funding for most public schools come from local property taxes. Poor areas have low taxes, so there is less funding for the schools. That is NOT Jim Crow laws, no matter how many times you stomp your feet and yell "That is what I call it!!".
You are delusional. The new laws may have similar effects. But they are NOT Jim Crow laws.
As far as being more advanced in race relations, you defending and advocating lynching pretty much shoots that down. And, when you are told of a lynching in the 1980s, your first response being "Well he shouldn't have raped that white girl" shows you to be far behind the curve on race relations.
No, you absolutely do not. Or your reality changes with each new lie.
Is it because of a law? That is the actual point, and you pretend it isn't.
And no, it is not more segregated than it was in 1964. In 1964 there were NO interracial neighborhoods. Now you would be hard pressed to find an area in the greater Atlanta area that is NOT interracial. You want to make claims about Boston, that is fine. But don't pretend you can tell me about my city when you have likely never been here.
That would depend on how they acted. Just like if you took 500 democrats and put them in a neighborhood of Trump supporters.
The issue is whether or not it is a law. That is why they call them Jim Crow LAWS.
Right. Since you made a bogus claim, now you want to claim you have your own definition.
Funny thing about language and communication, if it is not accepted by the masses (and this is not) it is worthless.
In 1964, few white people had black friends, at least in the south. Now we have black neighbors, interracial couples, more black millionaires than ever, more black celebrities, and more freedom of movement for all people. There is no need for a green book for black to travel. There are blacks in positions or leadership, including the previous US Presidency. Black sit beside whites in classrooms and share medical facilities instead of being required to have separate facilities. Blacks own tv networks, music studios, and radio stations.
The way the poor are treated have improved, but still has a long, long way to go. Every major university admits black student at a favorable rate. There is not a career field or academic degree program that does not admit blacks.
No, blacks are far better off now than they were in 1964. Go out and blow up a black church now, and I am certain you will be prosecuted quickly and harshly.
If every major university admits blacks at a favorable rate, they are thus admitting whites at an UNFAVORABLE RATE, ie racist discrimination.
And you support that racist policy.
I said nothing about supporting it. Just that it happens. Would you say admitting blacks at a favorable rate means things are worse now than in 1964?
i would say that admitting blacks "at a favorable rate" means discriminating against whites today.
Worse? MMm, The big difference, imo, is that in 1964, the political tide was moving against such racist discrimination, so that was a better time,
than TODAY, when all signs point to the political tide leading to ever greater and harsher racist discrimination and less and less change of ever having any chance of redress though legal or political means.
SO, do you support such racist discrimination today?
I don't believe in having race be any part of college admissions. If someone wants to start a private scholarship fund to help blacks, that is different. But the standard admissions and the standard financial aid you not be based on race at all.
I am shocked to hear you say that. And pleased.
You are aware that what does "it happens", is that race plays a huge role in standard admissions, right?
I understand that those who actually put in serious effort can get in. If they can't, they typically spend a year at a junior college and then get in.
I don't like the admission scam, and I vote for politicians who I think don't support them either, as far as that goes. But it is not high on my list of things I want a politician to pay attention to.
YOu realize that the reason we refer to the admission scam so much is not because admissions are more discriminatory than anything else, but because admissions are more DOCUMENTED than anything else?
A bias against blacks is reviled. A bias in favor of blacks is socially acceptable. It is the nature of the world now, I guess.
1. In favor of blacks, means racist discrimination against whites. And yes, it is socially acceptable.
2. But my point was, that the factors that lead to this is admissions, are pretty much universal in our society. We discuss the academics because the documentation makes the discrimination easy to see, not because it is especially bad in that limited instance.
I think the reason it is accepted is that it is seen as helping. After all, a college education was supposed to be the best thing for everyone. Personally, I think trade schools and vocational training would have helped more people.
Agreed.
But the point is, that widespread racist discrimination is accepted in our society today.
That is a valid issue. A big one. It hurts a lot of people.
THis should NOT be accepted. It should be ended asap.
I agree. College admissions should be based solely on the achievements of the student.
And should also require eliminating all preferences given to legacies, children of donors, and children of faculty and staff.
Why do you imagine these need to be connected?
These groups together comprise one-third of each class in some elite colleges and are admitted at eight times the rate of other applicants no matter what their test scores are, and those who are receiving such preferential treatment are typically not black or part of any other "minority group".
Interesting claims. Would you like to support these claims now?
That change would make a far bigger difference than "regulating" the rate of black students being admitted, because as it stands currently, blacks are not displacing white students in college admissions on a widespread scale.
The anti-white discrimination is well documented. Blacks are obviously displacing white students. Not sure what you are basing your flat, unsupported denial of the facts on.
There are some who just believe that typically the success of any black person must have been at the expense of a more qualified white person, when it is actually the more privileged being favored over the less privileged on a far broader scale.
your support for anti-white discrimination is noted. YOur justification for it, dismissed.
You are welcomed to "dismiss" whatever you claim that offends you.
Until you can present evidence of evidence of whites being displaced on a widespread scale that favors black students over white students, you are DISMISSED as well.
The reason we "Focus" on college admissions is not because the anti-white discrimination there is greater than anywhere else, but because the process is so well documented.
THe widespread and high levels of anti-white discrimination has been well documented.
Your denial of this is obviously because you support the discrimination.
The important point to remember is that the forces that lead to discrimination in college admissions, are nearly universal in modern American society.
The anti-white discrimination is everywhere.
Discrimination is often wherever one looks for it, and if there are no societal metrics supporting that such discrimination is happening, it is normal to not notice it, and to dismiss it as non existent.
That is not denial, that is human nature.
I'm not sure what you mean by "societal metrics". THe anti-white discrimination in college admissions have been well documented. That the rest of society is less documented so that anti-white discrimination there is harder to show, does not mean it is not happening there too, nor that the impact is not harmful to large numbers of people.
Especially when those who make the claim, offer no current, credible or concrete evidence to support it, other than just saying "it is happening on a widespread basis" or that "it is a leftist conspiracy that the MSM is covering up".
Except that examples and links have regularly, constantly been presented. So, that is a lie on your part.
How often is it that those posting here make the statement to others who offer actual facts yet are told to "just get over it"? or "move on"?
Very often. Generally in reaction to a story or event either from long ago, or an isolated event. The massive anti-white discrimination we see today, is neither of those.
That statement works both ways. Life is not fair, and eventually based on the cyclical nature of it, we all have been on the receiving end of a situation that we don't like.
So, you deny that it is exists, but then argue that people have to put up with it, because "cycles".
That is not very convincing.
Sounds an awful lot like "payback is a bitch". Which is not a reason to not fight it.
I've lived it before and so has everyone else. Its nothing new and is something that will not change.
Except we as a society have been united in changing that, for generations. ANd we have changed it, massively.
So, that is a nonsense statement.
So until you can present anything factual besides your "personal feelings" to support the so called "widespread anti-white discrimination" that you claim to be a victim of, it's existence is not worthy of any discussion time that I have available.
Wow. That is one of hte more confused arguments I have seen in some time. You deny it exists in the same post you tell me that it is just my turn to accept it, because "cycles". And back and forth a few more times.
You support anti-white discrimination because it benefits your people and/or because you are a racist.
There was nothing confusing about what I stated. You chose to be confused.
And to address your "ASSumption", no, I am not a racist. I have never opressed anyone based on their racial designation, nor do I judge people based on their race, in spite of what I've experienced personally.
And no, I don't support "anti-white" discrimination, because it is quite difficult to support what does not exist.
your support of racist discrimination makes you a racist.
ROFLMAO....
How eloquent a statement. No.I"m not. I dont believe that race is a determinant of superiority.
I just don't share your opinion that you are somehow a victim of racism that does not exist
. Actually the fact that you believe that any success experienced by anyone black comes at the expense of whites, makes you a racist yourself.
Facts about race and college admission
Race and ethnicity in college admissions: The Trump administration has reversed policies encouraging the consideration of race as a factor. Here are the facts.hechingerreport.org
Got a link for that?
Also, the post you are quoting is talking about college admissions and the racial discrimination involved in that. Much like your thread about low wages where you want to restrict it to discussion of illegals, you ignore the topic of these posts.
I know you have made the claim many times. You just haven't provided any proof. Typical.
And I love to hike. But I don't do that here. I post where I want. Feel free to complain. But there is nothing you can do about it.
Yes I do. I also know how to hold your feet to the fire when you make shit up.
Do you have any proof that 90% of interracial violence is blacks attacking whites?
curious. do you care? if it is, will that effect your view of anything?
First of all, I think that factoid he posted is fake.
Second of all, the circumstances of the violence does play a part. Gangbangers and drug dealers being violent is one thing. A very bad thing, to be sure. But if there is widespread violence on the part of gov't officials (police ect), that is a deeper betrayal of the people.
so, you are demanding a link, even though you have already decided that if the information is true, you will still dismiss it...
mmm, yeah, more and more that is why i don't bother with a lot of links. just saying.
I did not say I accepted that the information is true. I agree that there are probably more black on white violent crimes than there are white on black violent crimes.
But 90%? I question the validity of his claim. And Jitsie is quite well known for lying. Which makes me question it even more.
my question to you was, if the information was shown to be true, would you care, and/or how would it change your view of the issues involved?
