CDZ The Race to Success

[Natural Citizen]

Yo. Stop quoting me if you're not talking to me, dammit. I have gosh darned red lights popping up everywhere.

 

[usmbguest5318]

Perhaps we should begin promoting family values and the nuclear family again. Every child should be afforded the advantage of both parents in the household whenever possible. Two role models, two incomes, two supervisors, etc. It's too easy and too socially acceptable to have children out of wedlock or divorce rather than work it out. We are a selfish society and do not put children first.

Parents generally choose whether their children will have that advantage or not. Parents sacrifice to give their children that leg up ... or not. While not ALWAYS true, generally, those kids starting ahead should be made aware they have their parents to thank rather than the luck of the draw, as implied. Those starting in the back should be made aware as well, so they don't blindly repeat their parents mistakes.

We are a selfish society

That ^, along with the other side of the coin that bears selfishness, greed, is the root of the problem.

 

[Tresha91203]

Perhaps we should begin promoting family values and the nuclear family again. Every child should be afforded the advantage of both parents in the household whenever possible. Two role models, two incomes, two supervisors, etc. It's too easy and too socially acceptable to have children out of wedlock or divorce rather than work it out. We are a selfish society and do not put children first.

Parents generally choose whether their children will have that advantage or not. Parents sacrifice to give their children that leg up ... or not. While not ALWAYS true, generally, those kids starting ahead should be made aware they have their parents to thank rather than the luck of the draw, as implied. Those starting in the back should be made aware as well, so they don't blindly repeat their parents mistakes.

I'm not sure we should go back to the shaming of single mothers - many do a very good job...or to making it difficult to obtain divorces. It's a mixed bag...

My mother finally seperated from my father - he was an alcoholic and seldom there and when he was it was disruptive. We had a two parent family until highschool...but at what cost?

As I said, its not always true. A 2-parent household is no good if one (or both) is violent or a molester or a druggie, etc. However, generally, it is an advantage to have both parents in the household raising the children. It is a disadvantage to be raised in a single-parent household. That was a significant point in the video.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There are many factors that determine whether a person achieves 'success'. Of all of those factors, a person's will to succeed is the most important. You can overcome being born into a bad home, in the hood, a bad education, abuse you name it. You cannot overcome lack of will to succeed IMO.

Yes, people certainly can. But as a kid, you do not exactly look at things that way always. You more so know what you are taught.

My grandfather had to quit school to go to work for money to help the family. Should our kids now days do that?
How would that help them ''get ahead'' ?

Just because someone has a sheepskin does that mean we have to pay them because they have an education or should a person be paid for the job they can do even if they have a lesser education but their work quality is higher?

*****SMILE*****

That is not the point.

The discussion relates directly to legacy admissions and 'legacy' job placements so I do believe it is pertinent.

Hiring someone just because they have a sheepskin and putting them in charge of the person who's been doing that job for years then expecting said employee to train the 'legacy' sheepskin or do the job so the 'legacy' sheepskin can look in charge fits into the discussion perfectly.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Coyote]

There are many factors that determine whether a person achieves 'success'. Of all of those factors, a person's will to succeed is the most important. You can overcome being born into a bad home, in the hood, a bad education, abuse you name it. You cannot overcome lack of will to succeed IMO.

Yes, people certainly can. But as a kid, you do not exactly look at things that way always. You more so know what you are taught.

My grandfather had to quit school to go to work for money to help the family. Should our kids now days do that?
How would that help them ''get ahead'' ?

Just because someone has a sheepskin does that mean we have to pay them because they have an education or should a person be paid for the job they can do even if they have a lesser education but their work quality is higher?

*****SMILE*****

That is not the point.

View attachment 158843

The discussion relates directly to legacy admissions and 'legacy' job placements so I do believe it is pertinent.

Hiring someone just because they have a sheepskin and putting them in charge of the person who's been doing that job for years then expecting said employee to train the 'legacy' sheepskin or do the job so the 'legacy' sheepskin can look in charge fits into the discussion perfectly.

*****SMILE*****

No...it doesn't. It really doesn't....

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There is no such thing as true equality. Some Individuals are more naturally gifted than other Individuals.

There is only institutionalized equality.

Nobody takes issue with the fact that some individuals innately have more adroitness at this or that. That is not the kind of equality with which anyone takes exception. The inequality for which there is just cause to eliminate is the kind that results from the nexus of enduring social, political and economic constructs.

Does that mean that individuals who reap the advantages of those constructs' extancy will, upon their elimination, have a comparatively "harder" way to go to thrive, as compared with before the constructs' removal? Yes, it does. Among people who are presently "blessed" by the existential contrivance of constructs, some of us are okay with that, and some of us are not.

So because a person has parents who stay together to support and ensure that their children achieve it's a construct that needs to be removed?

******SMILE*****

Not sure what you mean my musical eagle friend...?

One of the first questions the guy holding the hundred dollar bill asked was about family stability. Therefore he's making a direct insinuation that family stability is a major factor in achievement. Hence it's one of the 'constructs' that said poster that I quoted is complaining about.

*****SMILE*****

 

[Coyote]

There is no such thing as true equality. Some Individuals are more naturally gifted than other Individuals.

There is only institutionalized equality.

Nobody takes issue with the fact that some individuals innately have more adroitness at this or that. That is not the kind of equality with which anyone takes exception. The inequality for which there is just cause to eliminate is the kind that results from the nexus of enduring social, political and economic constructs.

Does that mean that individuals who reap the advantages of those constructs' extancy will, upon their elimination, have a comparatively "harder" way to go to thrive, as compared with before the constructs' removal? Yes, it does. Among people who are presently "blessed" by the existential contrivance of constructs, some of us are okay with that, and some of us are not.

So because a person has parents who stay together to support and ensure that their children achieve it's a construct that needs to be removed?

******SMILE*****

Not sure what you mean my musical eagle friend...?

View attachment 158849

One of the first questions the guy holding the hundred dollar bill asked was about family stability. Therefore he's making a direct insinuation that family stability is a major factor in achievement. Hence it's one of the 'constructs' that said poster that I quoted is complaining about.

*****SMILE*****

Ahhh ok - I understand and agree

 

[Damaged Eagle]

There are many factors that determine whether a person achieves 'success'. Of all of those factors, a person's will to succeed is the most important. You can overcome being born into a bad home, in the hood, a bad education, abuse you name it. You cannot overcome lack of will to succeed IMO.

Yes, people certainly can. But as a kid, you do not exactly look at things that way always. You more so know what you are taught.

My grandfather had to quit school to go to work for money to help the family. Should our kids now days do that?
How would that help them ''get ahead'' ?

Just because someone has a sheepskin does that mean we have to pay them because they have an education or should a person be paid for the job they can do even if they have a lesser education but their work quality is higher?

*****SMILE*****

That is not the point.

View attachment 158843

The discussion relates directly to legacy admissions and 'legacy' job placements so I do believe it is pertinent.

Hiring someone just because they have a sheepskin and putting them in charge of the person who's been doing that job for years then expecting said employee to train the 'legacy' sheepskin or do the job so the 'legacy' sheepskin can look in charge fits into the discussion perfectly.

*****SMILE*****

No...it doesn't. It really doesn't....

Then everyone is equal and there's no point in discussing whether someone's parents stayed together, who went to school, who worked to support the rest of the family, who got tutored, who went to college, or even who achieves what because of any factor.

So what was the point of your video?

*****CHUCKLE*****

 

[Natural Citizen]

How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation

There is no such thing as true equality. Some Individuals are more naturally gifted than other Individuals.

There is only institutionalized equality.

That's true...but there is a difference between inate abilities and advantages and disadvantages that have nothing to do with your abilities.

I don't disagree. Dividing and conquering is not the solution, though. It only stimulates the problem. I do accept that there are very real divisions. I'm just not a fan of creating artificial division. Which is precisely what that video did.

Actually I think the video did the exact opposite...think about what you watched and what he was saying.

What are the things that added to the probability of a successful outcome?

A two parent family.
A father in the home.
Access to private education.
Access to a free tutor.
Not having to contribute to supporting your family.
Not having to worry about paying for college.

These are not race specific things - they just happen to disproportionately affect certain ethnic/racial groups. And some of those groups are white. Did you ever read Hillbilly Elegy? Excellant book. But those same things can be applied as well to Appalachia.

Ma'am, with all due respect, when you view humans strictly as members of groups rather than Individuals, you're acting equally as collectively as those who view minorities and the less fortunate as members of groups rather than Individuals. It's hypocritical. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire.

You're speaking from the heart. I understand. I do so myself sometimes.

Let me ask you this. What, in your view, is the root problem? Secondly, what, in your view, is the solution to what you understand to be the root problem? These are not trick questions. They're genuine questions since you're the thread starter. Thanks!

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Someone shared this with me...and it's an eye opener.

We all run the same race...but we don't all start out in the same place. And it's not because of anything we did.

I posted this in CDZ to avoid the BS that goes on in Race. I would be curious as to what people think of this and in particular what the narrator is saying.

Eye opener? You've already posted in other threads, endorsing government incentivized failure. You posted it because you agree, not because it opened your eyes to anything.

Equality is a myth, and those who decide to pretend that 'advantages' that other people may have, or 'disadvantages' that they may have somehow keep them down in life, only trick themselves into never succeeding. Nothing the government does will ever make life 'equal' for everyone. That video is utterly pointless.

People are capable of succeeding in life regardless of challenges imposed on them, DESPITE government interference.

Did you actually watch the video?

Yes, I did. He specified things that would supposedly advantage a person and had people step forward based on it. He then said he was sure those in the back would outrun everyone else if they were 'equal'.

The goal apparently being to make other people feel bad for things that would be an 'advantage' and feel bad that other people didn't have those same 'advantages'.

Typical leftist stuff.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Someone shared this with me...and it's an eye opener.

We all run the same race...but we don't all start out in the same place. And it's not because of anything we did.

I posted this in CDZ to avoid the BS that goes on in Race. I would be curious as to what people think of this and in particular what the narrator is saying.

Eye opener? You've already posted in other threads, endorsing government incentivized failure. You posted it because you agree, not because it opened your eyes to anything.

Equality is a myth, and those who decide to pretend that 'advantages' that other people may have, or 'disadvantages' that they may have somehow keep them down in life, only trick themselves into never succeeding. Nothing the government does will ever make life 'equal' for everyone. That video is utterly pointless.

People are capable of succeeding in life regardless of challenges imposed on them, DESPITE government interference.

That has nothing to do with the point of the video. That's what some are missing. No one doubts we all have our trials and tribulations.

It's the entire point of the man's experiment, and the entire point of Coyote posting it here. Identity politics is ALWAYS the reason behind this sort of thing.

 

[Coyote]

Someone shared this with me...and it's an eye opener.

We all run the same race...but we don't all start out in the same place. And it's not because of anything we did.

I posted this in CDZ to avoid the BS that goes on in Race. I would be curious as to what people think of this and in particular what the narrator is saying.

Eye opener? You've already posted in other threads, endorsing government incentivized failure. You posted it because you agree, not because it opened your eyes to anything.

Equality is a myth, and those who decide to pretend that 'advantages' that other people may have, or 'disadvantages' that they may have somehow keep them down in life, only trick themselves into never succeeding. Nothing the government does will ever make life 'equal' for everyone. That video is utterly pointless.

People are capable of succeeding in life regardless of challenges imposed on them, DESPITE government interference.

Did you actually watch the video?

Yes, I did. He specified things that would supposedly advantage a person and had people step forward based on it. He then said he was sure those in the back would outrun everyone else if they were 'equal'.

The goal apparently being to make other people feel bad for things that would be an 'advantage' and feel bad that other people didn't have those same 'advantages'.

Typical leftist stuff.

The goal was not that. He specified that he was sure SOME of those in the back would outrun some of those in front if all else were equal. Is he right...or wrong?

He also repeatedly empasized that those in front were not at fault in any way for having an advantage. Is he right or wrong?

 

[usmbguest5318]

Perhaps we should begin promoting family values and the nuclear family again. Every child should be afforded the advantage of both parents in the household whenever possible. Two role models, two incomes, two supervisors, etc. It's too easy and too socially acceptable to have children out of wedlock or divorce rather than work it out. We are a selfish society and do not put children first.

Parents generally choose whether their children will have that advantage or not. Parents sacrifice to give their children that leg up ... or not. While not ALWAYS true, generally, those kids starting ahead should be made aware they have their parents to thank rather than the luck of the draw, as implied. Those starting in the back should be made aware as well, so they don't blindly repeat their parents mistakes.

I'm not sure we should go back to the shaming of single mothers - many do a very good job...or to making it difficult to obtain divorces. It's a mixed bag...

My mother finally seperated from my father - he was an alcoholic and seldom there and when he was it was disruptive. We had a two parent family until highschool...but at what cost?

As I said, its not always true. A 2-parent household is no good if one (or both) is violent or a molester or a druggie, etc. However, generally, it is an advantage to have both parents in the household raising the children. It is a disadvantage to be raised in a single-parent household. That was a significant point in the video.

That was a significant point in the video.

It was a point of the video, and I suppose one can call it material;however, it was not the central point of the video. When considering whether to eat an apple, one's focus and the seller's focus is the pulp not the seeds, which contain cyanide and are thus poisonous. It's important to deal appropriately with the seeds, i.e., don't eat them, but the problem of the seeds isn't what's on one's mind when thinking through the matter of whether to eat the apple.

So it is with the thread's rubric video. There are a number of risk factors for why one may not realize success; however, but the central point is that our society must acknowledge that collectively extant inequity of the sort that is not intrinsic to individuals inhibits the success of whole classes of people before it can make material progress on attenuating the various risk factors.

And if one is honest, one will recognize that multiple types of cultural inequities; however, those based on race are the only ones whereof one who is the object of them can cannot alter the circumstances that make them so. Whereas one can bring one's talents to bear to alter the state of one's, say, financial position, one can bring nothing to bear to alter one's racial status. Thus, while some blacks are financially well-off, they are nonetheless subject to the constructs that impose inequities on blacks, and that is something black wealthy people's white financial peers simply do not face.

For instance, neither I nor any of my white friends have been by cops asked "where are you going/why are you here," "is this your car," yet each of my black friends has been asked that, and other than their blackness there is no difference between us in terms of where they go, what kind of car they drive, the genre of neighborhood in which dwell and frequent. Hell, when I walk through my neighborhood, which is in the city center, I'm never approached by a cop, yet blacks get approached "all the time" in my neighborhood. (I know this because some of the blacks to whom that has happened had it happen when they were walking from their car to my home.) Similarly, while one may be white and mendicant, one nonetheless benefits from, if nothing else, the benefit of the doubt.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The goal was not that. He specified that he was sure SOME of those in the back would outrun some of those in front if all else were equal. Is he right...or wrong?

He also repeatedly empasized that those in front were not at fault in any way for having an advantage. Is he right or wrong?

That's an important thing to note. Resolving racial inequity is not about blaming the beneficiaries of our legacy of advantage. It's about eliminating, as much as is humanly possible, those advantages. There's a huge difference between acknowledging that something wrong exists and should be corrected and blaming someone because they are the beneficiary of that wrong.

 

[Pumpkin Row]

Someone shared this with me...and it's an eye opener.

We all run the same race...but we don't all start out in the same place. And it's not because of anything we did.

I posted this in CDZ to avoid the BS that goes on in Race. I would be curious as to what people think of this and in particular what the narrator is saying.

Eye opener? You've already posted in other threads, endorsing government incentivized failure. You posted it because you agree, not because it opened your eyes to anything.

Equality is a myth, and those who decide to pretend that 'advantages' that other people may have, or 'disadvantages' that they may have somehow keep them down in life, only trick themselves into never succeeding. Nothing the government does will ever make life 'equal' for everyone. That video is utterly pointless.

People are capable of succeeding in life regardless of challenges imposed on them, DESPITE government interference.

Did you actually watch the video?

Yes, I did. He specified things that would supposedly advantage a person and had people step forward based on it. He then said he was sure those in the back would outrun everyone else if they were 'equal'.

The goal apparently being to make other people feel bad for things that would be an 'advantage' and feel bad that other people didn't have those same 'advantages'.

Typical leftist stuff.

The goal was not that. He specified that he was sure SOME of those in the back would outrun some of those in front if all else were equal. Is he right...or wrong?

He also repeatedly empasized that those in front were not at fault in any way for having an advantage. Is he right or wrong?

No, the goal WAS that. Are you telling me that we weren't already aware that people taking some steps forward would have an advantage in a race? This wasn't a groundbreaking experiment, it was a move to attempt to force people to think with their feelings instead of their heads. He wanted people to feel bad for being born with 'advantages' and feel bad for the people who aren't. Your loaded questions can't distract from the intentions behind the video, and it being posted here.

 

[usmbguest5318]

How To Stamp Out Cultural Marxism In A Single Generation

There is no such thing as true equality. Some Individuals are more naturally gifted than other Individuals.

There is only institutionalized equality.

That's true...but there is a difference between inate abilities and advantages and disadvantages that have nothing to do with your abilities.

I don't disagree. Dividing and conquering is not the solution, though. It only stimulates the problem. I do accept that there are very real divisions. I'm just not a fan of creating artificial division. Which is precisely what that video did.

Actually I think the video did the exact opposite...think about what you watched and what he was saying.

What are the things that added to the probability of a successful outcome?

A two parent family.
A father in the home.
Access to private education.
Access to a free tutor.
Not having to contribute to supporting your family.
Not having to worry about paying for college.

These are not race specific things - they just happen to disproportionately affect certain ethnic/racial groups. And some of those groups are white. Did you ever read Hillbilly Elegy? Excellant book. But those same things can be applied as well to Appalachia.

Ma'am, with all due respect, when you view humans strictly as members of groups rather than Individuals, you're acting equally as collectively as those who view minorities and the less fortunate as members of groups rather than Individuals. It's hypocritical. It's like pouring gasoline on a fire.

You're speaking from the heart. I understand. I do so myself sometimes.

Let me ask you this. What, in your view, is the root problem? Secondly, what, in your view, is the solution to what you understand to be the root problem? These are not trick questions. They're genuine questions since you're the thread starter. Thanks!

humans strictly as members of groups rather than Individuals

Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.

Hm. So you're a fascist, then?

Here. Let's properly share what fascism means so everyone understands the nature of what you just said...

 

[Natural Citizen]

Xelor said: Newsflash: humans are social animals. An ant will do the best it can to succeed at performing tasks appropriate to it as an individual ant; however, when it joins the rest of its colony, the single ant's success becomes subordinate to the that of the colony as a whole. Sometimes "it's all about the individual" and sometimes "it's all about the colony." It's essential that every individual understand and aptly recognize for what matters and when the colony is the greater priority and for what matters that is not the case. For humans, the "colony," encompasses the citizenry of one's country; however, racial inequities create "sub-colonies" within the "colony," and that is not good for the country.


Mussolini in his Doctrine of Fascism (1932) said: In the Fascist State the individual is not suppressed, but rather multiplied, just as in a regiment a soldier is not weakened but multiplied by the number of his comrades. The Fascist State organizes the nation, but it leaves sufficient scope to individuals; it has limited useless or harmful liberties and has preserved those that are essential. It cannot be the individual who decides in this matter, but only the State.


Does everyone see this? Xelor is precisely echoing Mussolini's Doctrine of Fascism. This is what you're up against. That you as the Individual do not matter. That only the collective matters. But in reality there is no collective. There is only the state.

There's your newsflash.

 

[Tresha91203]

Perhaps we should begin promoting family values and the nuclear family again. Every child should be afforded the advantage of both parents in the household whenever possible. Two role models, two incomes, two supervisors, etc. It's too easy and too socially acceptable to have children out of wedlock or divorce rather than work it out. We are a selfish society and do not put children first.

Parents generally choose whether their children will have that advantage or not. Parents sacrifice to give their children that leg up ... or not. While not ALWAYS true, generally, those kids starting ahead should be made aware they have their parents to thank rather than the luck of the draw, as implied. Those starting in the back should be made aware as well, so they don't blindly repeat their parents mistakes.

I'm not sure we should go back to the shaming of single mothers - many do a very good job...or to making it difficult to obtain divorces. It's a mixed bag...

My mother finally seperated from my father - he was an alcoholic and seldom there and when he was it was disruptive. We had a two parent family until highschool...but at what cost?

As I said, its not always true. A 2-parent household is no good if one (or both) is violent or a molester or a druggie, etc. However, generally, it is an advantage to have both parents in the household raising the children. It is a disadvantage to be raised in a single-parent household. That was a significant point in the video.

That was a significant point in the video.

It was a point of the video, and I suppose one can call it material;however, it was not the central point of the video. When considering whether to eat an apple, one's focus and the seller's focus is the pulp not the seeds, which contain cyanide and are thus poisonous. It's important to deal appropriately with the seeds, i.e., don't eat them, but the problem of the seeds isn't what's on one's mind when thinking through the matter of whether to eat the apple.

So it is with the thread's rubric video. There are a number of risk factors for why one may not realize success; however, but the central point is that our society must acknowledge that collectively extant inequity of the sort that is not intrinsic to individuals inhibits the success of whole classes of people before it can make material progress on attenuating the various risk factors.

And if one is honest, one will recognize that multiple types of cultural inequities; however, those based on race are the only ones whereof one who is the object of them can cannot alter the circumstances that make them so. Whereas one can bring one's talents to bear to alter the state of one's, say, financial position, one can bring nothing to bear to alter one's racial status. Thus, while some blacks are financially well-off, they are nonetheless subject to the constructs that impose inequities on blacks, and that is something black wealthy people's white financial peers simply do not face.

For instance, neither I nor any of my white friends have been by cops asked "where are you going/why are you here," "is this your car," yet each of my black friends has been asked that, and other than their blackness there is no difference between us in terms of where they go, what kind of car they drive, the genre of neighborhood in which dwell and frequent. Hell, when I walk through my neighborhood, which is in the city center, I'm never approached by a cop, yet blacks get approached "all the time" in my neighborhood. (I know this because some of the blacks to whom that has happened had it happen when they were walking from their car to my home.) Similarly, while one may be white and mendicant, one nonetheless benefits from, if nothing else, the benefit of the doubt.

I'm sheltered. I don't live in a city or an area with racial strife. We don't have an active city center. We have Friday night high school football. I was raised here, in an upper middle class small town with a 40/60 black/white mix. There's no one out running the streets here so no one getting hassled by cops like that. Also, I am a private academic tutor so deal with children whose parents are helping them with homework, seeking a tutor as needed, attending parent/teacher conferences, monitoring their child's internet activities, involving their child in community or church groups, etc. We still have income inequality, but most children here are raised well so become competent, productive adults.

An hour away is New Orleans. From my perspective, the difference isn't race at all. More than a third of my students are black. Their parents aren't getting stopped for DWB. Their children aren't being gunned down.

 

[Damaged Eagle]

Perhaps we should begin promoting family values and the nuclear family again. Every child should be afforded the advantage of both parents in the household whenever possible. Two role models, two incomes, two supervisors, etc. It's too easy and too socially acceptable to have children out of wedlock or divorce rather than work it out. We are a selfish society and do not put children first.

Parents generally choose whether their children will have that advantage or not. Parents sacrifice to give their children that leg up ... or not. While not ALWAYS true, generally, those kids starting ahead should be made aware they have their parents to thank rather than the luck of the draw, as implied. Those starting in the back should be made aware as well, so they don't blindly repeat their parents mistakes.

I'm not sure we should go back to the shaming of single mothers - many do a very good job...or to making it difficult to obtain divorces. It's a mixed bag...

My mother finally seperated from my father - he was an alcoholic and seldom there and when he was it was disruptive. We had a two parent family until highschool...but at what cost?

As I said, its not always true. A 2-parent household is no good if one (or both) is violent or a molester or a druggie, etc. However, generally, it is an advantage to have both parents in the household raising the children. It is a disadvantage to be raised in a single-parent household. That was a significant point in the video.

That was a significant point in the video.

It was a point of the video, and I suppose one can call it material;however, it was not the central point of the video. When considering whether to eat an apple, one's focus and the seller's focus is the pulp not the seeds, which contain cyanide and are thus poisonous. It's important to deal appropriately with the seeds, i.e., don't eat them, but the problem of the seeds isn't what's on one's mind when thinking through the matter of whether to eat the apple.

So it is with the thread's rubric video. There are a number of risk factors for why one may not realize success; however, but the central point is that our society must acknowledge that collectively extant inequity of the sort that is not intrinsic to individuals inhibits the success of whole classes of people before it can make material progress on attenuating the various risk factors.

And if one is honest, one will recognize that multiple types of cultural inequities; however, those based on race are the only ones whereof one who is the object of them can cannot alter the circumstances that make them so. Whereas one can bring one's talents to bear to alter the state of one's, say, financial position, one can bring nothing to bear to alter one's racial status. Thus, while some blacks are financially well-off, they are nonetheless subject to the constructs that impose inequities on blacks, and that is something black wealthy people's white financial peers simply do not face.

For instance, neither I nor any of my white friends have been by cops asked "where are you going/why are you here," "is this your car," yet each of my black friends has been asked that, and other than their blackness there is no difference between us in terms of where they go, what kind of car they drive, the genre of neighborhood in which dwell and frequent. Hell, when I walk through my neighborhood, which is in the city center, I'm never approached by a cop, yet blacks get approached "all the time" in my neighborhood. (I know this because some of the blacks to whom that has happened had it happen when they were walking from their car to my home.) Similarly, while one may be white and mendicant, one nonetheless benefits from, if nothing else, the benefit of the doubt.

So now you're saying this discussion is all about race and what you see as racial inequities instead of who had what advantages in achieving in life?

The staged race had plenty of white people back in the back who could most probably tell you plenty of stories about the police stopping them also.

*****SMILE*****