Other than the 1488 crowd wanting to be able to say ‘no blacks allowed’ in certain businesses, I’m genuinely curious what else is in there that should make it get repealed?
I personally would like it not repealed mainly because I would be personally affected by said policy obviously, but I’m curious in the reasons outside of just that, if y’all have reasons other than that, as AFAIK, the CRA violates freedom of assembly in the view of people who have that opinion.
Multiple reasons. 1st and foremost is the freedom of expression and assembly, which the civil rights act blatantly violates. There’s also the fact that the act has never been held to the “equal” standards but has allowed the brazen racist insanity we see today where even US Colonels are allowed to say “Don’t hire white men” with zero repercussions. The only version of a civil rights act that should exist is one that prevents the government from discriminating against it’s citizens. Not one that openly allows racial, sexual, etc discrimination as long as you are not a “minority” or “protected class”.
Doubtful, if anything you would see a massive boost in acceptance for not being a SoundCloud rapper with face tattoos. Sowell covered this quite explicitly and is something he is more than qualified to speak on being a black Harvard graduate before the CRA. He also goes over how most economic businesses would have “racial policies” that were rarely enforced (see the actual story of Rosa Parks) because it was completely economically unsustainable to have to run two passenger cars or buses for people that were all able to fit into one. The government were the ones who forced businesses hands on the matter and cost them massively financially, same with minimum wage, affirmative action, on and on.
The government should have no say in how I want to run a business, if I want to hire straight white men exclusively then I should be able to, the economy should be the decisive factor on whether or not that is sustainable or enough “diversity of thought” to compete with “diverse” businesses.
Can’t remember which book what you mentioned comes from but I had never considered that point about how it’s easy for the government to impose such rules since they don’t have to pay for it. It was either Sowell or Walter Williams who mentioned how the Pullman Train company didn’t want segregation for economic reasons since they didn’t want to have to build new train cars
"Intellectuals" never face consequences for being wrong.
Exhibit A: Fauci
twice now.
is that a for asshole which is on display?
It can be? Although I meant it as if I was in court. Sorry, I don't get what you are trying to say.
That was Sowell, I want to say Discrimination and Disparities, which is a great read
Oh yea. I read that a while back but it was good. Next Sowell book I want to read is either Vision of the Annointed or Quest for Cosmic Justice. Also need to pre order his latest
Anointed is crazy accurate on how leftists view themselves
"Stop voting against your own interests, you sister-fucking rednecks!"
Didn’t a liberal write a book based on that premise a while back. I remember the author sounding so condescending
My favorite Sowell book review was when a liberal criticizes Sowell as an affluent white man because of his views
Both are absolutely fantastic. Sowell's work fit together like a puzzle piece.
How dare you make me agree with you
He can't be wrong all the time or else the masquerade is over. Same thing as the fake Pope.
Sowell brothers found.
Dozens of us! Dozens!
Don't worry in the brave new world, the government will subsidy the new train cars required, so the corpos will have no doubt.
Naturally. Income tax at 99% will be for the best reasons.
They'll call it a green energy initiative. Perhaps the segregation will be based on social credit.
That is a fairly well-known story. The company in Louisiana supported the plaintiffs in the Plessy vs. Ferguson case because, as you say, they did not want separate rail cars limiting their profits.
I didn’t know those details until I read that book. Also didn’t know they purposely picked Plessy because he was mostly white
Same reason Rosa parks was picked. Because if they picked the usual people, segregation would still exist.
The First Lady they wanted to use was an unwed teen mom right?
The first one that actually happened yes. Not the one that made the papers.
Jim Crow was government policy, absolutely.
I'm 95% with you, but I do think discriminating on the bases of race or gender should be illegal. None of this protected class or affirmative action crap, just 100% color blind ban on racial discrimination. The only thing that should be considered when hiring someone is whether they can do the job.
of course, the burden of proof always lies with the accuser, and so the accuser should be the person responsible for providing proof that they were discriminated on by race, and not just because they were not qualified.
Here’s the thing, it’s one case to say if the government itself is discriminating, it’s a whole different beast when we look at how the law is applied, don’t forget all the fake racism cases that have imploded over that sentiment and completely ruined lives simply because someone was offended
you touch on one of the other significant problems that needs to be addressed. a false accusation should bear a heavy penalty. I'm of the opinion that a false accusation should have the same consequence as that of the accused crime. if you lie about someone racially discriminating it against you in the workplace, and they can prove it, you should pay whatever fine that carries. the way I see it, this is the only way to prevent the law from being abused by average citizens.
Okay, what if someone holds the sincere belief that women or a particular race can't do the job as well as other applicants? Should they be forced to hire them anyway because that judgement is based on race or sex?
And even if that person does not believe that women or a particular race would perform worse, but they simply feel uncomfortable around them or have some personal belief that would be in conflict with hiring them, why should they be forced to? Isn't that tyrannical? Why should the government get to dictate acceptable hiring criteria to private business owners?
Because it arbitrarily restricts people's abilities to discriminate.
Pretend I am a shopkeeper and protect my business with surveillance cameras. A ethnic culture or religion wears masks all the time. If I ban masks, according to the law, I have created a "disparate impact" to that ethnicity or religion. Does that make sense?
When people say "no blacks allowed", do you think most of that strong feeling is simply because of skin color? Or are they associating (regardless of how correct they are) said skin color with behaviors and attitudes that they detest? And are people allowed to make personal judgments that you disagree with? Or are we only allowed to make associations that you consider "fair"? To what extent are you allowed to restrict their actions?
It's a huge crack in the Constitution. We are supposed to and used to have a number of rights. Most of which are now subservient in some way to so-called Civil Rights. Speech is called hate speech. Habeas corpus is irrelevant if you shot a black guy. Pretty much any right you can think of, your right to it ends at as-you-pointed-out "disparate impact."
It's actually a rewrite of the Constitution on principle, too. The original document valued freedom, whereas Civil Rights values more equality.
How so? Do you think all the White business owners around you are rabid racists and only let you in their stores because it's the law?
And you still want to give them money?
You don't think there are any other businesses around that would gladly cater to you for money? What about large corporate stores, or "Black Owned" businesses?
If you're talking about banks redlining, I'll just point out that most Black people I've heard talk about this wouldn't want to live in a majority black neighborhood either. I'm sure there were ways to get around it.
It violates freedom of association, objectively. Arguably you can say the government has the right to regulate commerce and businesses offering services is different than individual associations - but it's still a form of association.
Maybe it’s just my general paranoia because of how I grew up (an autistic loner with very few friends until high school, and those friends being the only reason I’m not a woke black shithead today), but since I tend to lurk more than anything, I’ve read how a lot of people here 'weren’t racially aware until I saw ghetto black people for the first time’ or calling the BLM riots ‘chimp outs’ (which to be fair they were super violent so I have no issue with them being called that), or in every thread posted here where the local news hides the race of a criminal in the headline and it turns out to be a black person, but I think while there aren’t Nazis everywhere of course, there are enough people who have had negative (to say the very least) experiences with black people and would rather not have to deal with them.
Because I’m just an autistic nerd who spends his free time complaining about frame data and going to fighting game tournaments, I would rather not have businesses refuse me for sharing the same skin color as a lot of shitty people, but society has enabled said shitty people to run amok so it might just be inevitable.
For example, there’s a university in my state that hosts tournaments, but it’s in a rural area where that entire city revolves around the university, and all the small towns around it are like 65+% white, and I tend to eat at those local restaurants after bracket because I like eating at local, non-corporate restaurants, and I just don’t want to even think about the possibility that the only reason I was able to eat there is because they were forced to by law.
I wouldn’t eat at businesses owned by BLM supporters because they’re part of why this is even an issue, but yeah, I’m just already lonely enough as it is because I don’t really have that many friends, black or white, but it would be super insulting if I went to eat at a restaurant with my friends and I saw that they’d let my white friends in and not me.
Would you rather have a genuine racist throw you out of a restaurant, so that you can make sure you're not giving money to people that hate you? Or would you rather have them secretly spit in your food because they're forced to serve you?
Also, if your friends would ever ditch you because they were allowed in a restaurant and you weren't, they aren't your friends.
No offence but you sound like a major anti-white racist. You think that because the small town is 65% white (this is slightly more then the national average) then they are going to just refuse you service? Not sure what bubble you live in that you think that happens.
I’m not one at all, I’m just an idiot who gets constant conflicting messages from everyone he meets and made a bad assumption that more people are like Kaarous IRL than there actually are.
It's amazing how little I give a fuck about how you feel in this comment.
If your race/culture have become such a liability that the public at large doesn't find it worth it to deal with you.... cry me a fucking river.
People are crapping on you too hard for this. That said, if the impossible were to happen and the Civil Rights Act was struck down for being unconstitutional, none of those restaurants would throw you out.
I know this because people make it very clear when they don't want someone there regardless of whether they're legally obligated to serve them. If these people hated the color of your skin, you would already know.
My own views aren't as clear-cut, but let me ask you this question: do you think that business should be able to discriminate against people for not taking the Coronavirus vaccine?
In Europe, such discrimination (against folks holding a job) is banned. I guess some business owners are rabid Coronavaccine supporters, but you wouldn't know, nor does anyone have to worry about their opinions.
Is that good? Is that bad? Or neither?
Redlining wasn't about race, but about poverty. Blacks were just affected more because more blacks were poor.
No, such discrimination isn't fucking banned in Europe, in fact it was state enforced in many European countries, and just today in my country a dude got 5,5 years hard time for criticizing it (in the same country where a nigger raping a 16yo carries a two year sentence, to add some spicy context to the matter), so the whole point is moot. It already happened, and the same people who support nigger rights legislation also supported this, so fuck them, and fuck niggers, both groups should be deported to Africa as far as I'm concerned.
I suggest you calm down. I clarified my earlier comment a bit. As far as I know, not one country mandated that employers fire their employees for not taking the Coronavirus vaccine, and privacy regulations in many countries even forbid a company from knowing about it.
Regardless, let's say that it's not happening, and just state it as a pure hypothetical. Should it be allowed to fire people for refusing the coronavirus vaccine?
Multiple countries outright mandated vaccinations for various groups, employed or not. IIRC, Greece for seniors above a certain age, and Germany, Austria and Czech Republic for certain professions. In places that mandated vaccination based on field of work, failure to vaccinate would, of course, mean these people are barred from working in those fields, and therefore fired because noone's going to pay some dude who can't legally do his job. (The seniors in Greece would just get fined over and over again.)
Privacy what now? I had to stop going to the only restaurant within walking distance that isn't a shitty kebab shop, because the Ukrainian slut that waits tables there demanded to know my medical history and refused to serve me otherwise, how's that for fucking privacy regulations? That was also state-mandated, obviously, bitch didn't just one day wake up and think "today I should start asking regular customers wildly inappropriate questions", she just did what the TV told her to.
I am a little bit beyond discussing hypotheticals. I've already been treated like a kike in Nazi Germany over a cold. This is a fight against people who have only principle and that's total control, and until they're all gone I'm done discussing philosophy because they don't give a shit about anything except destroying anyone who even just appears to ever so slightly oppose them. Or just a random person, just for fun. We can talk about justice and right vs wrong after I slam dunk the last shitlib baby into a trashcan.
Then the way Europe is, is hypocritical and wrong.
For medical professionals, correct?
That is unfortunate. I'd have loved to hear what people would say when anti-discrimination laws are to their benefit.
Not sure about the details in other countries, in CZ it was for all emergency services, armed forces, and medical professionals as well as all citizens over 60.
Well the EU's ECHR allows laws for compulsory vaccination if there's a national interest to do so. Think of national and public security.
Fewer blacks were poor. A higher percentage of blacks were poor.
There are still, today, just as there have always been, more poor white people than poor black people (in the US, which is relevant because we're talking about the CRA).
The thing to me is that in 60 years of politicking they haven't changed this a bit.
White people's incomes remain average for the US.
Black peoples incomes are below that.
Black peoples incomes haven't improved.
Groups have moved up the ladder but those groups are not black or white.
The perils of imprecise language...
It doesn't matter if I think they should. They did. Still do in more than a few places.
Why does free association only go one way?
I think this isn't really a feasible example for a few reasons. Firstly, most of that was government-driven anyway, so I don't even view it as "private discrimination." There's one or two actually lunatics per, like, every thousand business owners who just wants to trade goods/services for money.
Secondly, even if they wanted to, implementation would be a pain. Are they going to check everyone entering the premises? Are they going to pay more employees to be on duty all the time, just to keep out customers? It's insane. Without a driving force - AKA the government - there's no way that naturally gets off the ground. And, just like with the CRA, I'm against the government exerting power to tell people how and with who they can do business.
I also think the protections about private data is completely different than overreach when it comes to bypassing freedom of assembly. But, even if it wasn't...yes, I'm still fine with businesses discriminating when it comes to who they let in.
As some of the other people have said, I don't want to give my money to people who hate me, anyway. If businesses were especially terrible at the height of mandates, I'm much less likely to frequent them now, even if they aren't actively kicking me out. I just won't go back to the places where they were dicks.
Absolutely let the fuckers discriminate. They're lunatics, and deserve to go out of business. Let me know who they are, so I can discriminate against them.
Because the outcome that it has created is clear for all to see. And not just the civil rights act, but all the prog policies of the sixties.
America, despite quite a few policy missteps before, still functioned before the sixties.
It came to a very rapid stop afterwards. We've been on a downhill trajectory ever since, something very much in evidence today. When you're trying to fix a machine that is broken, you figure out what isn't right and you undo it. You to set it back to how it was before. In extreme cases you have to go back to original factory settings.
This reply scared him and he name-dropped you further up as the bogeyman reason he needs to dislike Whites. I scrolled down to see what delightfully rayciss things you had to say, and this is super tame.
OP is a bitch in addition to all his other problems.
Oh I've certainly said quite a few "racist" things in the past, not that I think op dug them up at all.
What I find funny is the lack of self reflection here, which is often mirrored among blacks in the United States.
On the one hand we have a world in which the civil rights act was never passed and the corresponding destruction of the United States economy did not take place. This is one in which blacks are begrudgingly tolerated across most of the country. But it's also one in which the average buying power of the black family is double what it is today and because effectively policing criminals wasn't functionally banned, one in which their subculture isn't largely criminal. They eventually gain an uneasy acceptance but are left in their respective enclaves largely in peace. Note, I'm not spouting off here, this is literally what every other large scale accepted outgroup has done in the history of the nation, most recently Asians.
On the other hand we have the present situation, in which the CRA lead to a huge sweep of leftist policy changes, largely destroyed, outsourced or sold away the strongest economy in the history of the planet, and... One in which blacks are still only begrudgingly but mandatorially tolerated by law. This situation and the accompanying lack of legal accountability has created a deep and simmering resentment among the white race, because blacks have effectively become a plague, and in the long term is likely to lead to a pogrom of wide scale and proportion once the white left loses their grip. A pogrom that thirteen percent of the population has no chance of surviving.
And on the whole I've found that they actually PREFER the latter choice.
It's absolutely baffling to me.
Agreed completely.
You don't even need to go hypothetical. Thriving black communities and businesses existed pre-CRA because they had a partially captive market: other blacks. Integration wiped them out because they couldn't compete with White businesses.
And for the record, you have consistently excellent takes.
Well first of all thank you.
And you are correct about black businesses in the past. It's actually a smaller scale example of what happened with NAFTA. When so called free trade was instituted, Mexican local farmers found themselves unable to compete with the economy of scale of the United States. We caused, IMO deliberately so since NAFTA was drafted and influenced by people who we now know as the WEF, the largest economic downturn in Mexico of the last century. And given that they'd just had a depression almost immediately before that since they outspent their GDP hosting the Olympics... Well you don't need to major in economics to see why they started pouring across the border in numbers.
Dislike whites? No, I don’t at all and I hate that you assume that just because I’m genuinely curious as to what this would do.
Bruh
You said you were afraid of being ran out of town. When called an anti-White racist, you said your comment was because you assumed
When all he said was that the CRA and the other prog policies of the sixties were very clearly an inflection point for the country. Is he wrong? Was he advocating that (people like) you be kept out of local restaurants?
My pessimist thinking comes back to thinking the worst, so it’s me being an idiot. I don’t think we’ll see millions of businesses become white and/or asian only, I just overreacted by the thought of being excluded from a business that I’ve been frequenting for years as an example.
Then by all means, feel free to explain what you meant above.
In terms of the OP? Well, I never actually paid much attention as to why people wanted that repealed, but with everything I’ve actually read today, I understand why, and reading the reply to that other person where you talk about how the economy got messed up due to policing being nonexistent (I blame the economy more on Hart-Cellar and immigration more than just the CRA) and part of the policing could also be more recent, since the crime bill and stop and frisk were actually beneficial, but leftist cities decided to stop doing that because the people getting stopped were unruly blacks + the CIA not only importing drugs but also promoting rap to become what it was (that Rick Ross book explains a lot), but in general I get how you believe that the CRA is a big part of why the US is as fucked up as it is today.
I am just trying to think about how changes in the law affect me, because a lot of how I think about the law is ‘how would I feel if the law was enforced on me/how would I feel if certain restrictions were put upon me’, so that I’m not blind as to how laws effect others, but meh.
I just think that there’s so much more as to how black culture got to become what it was than just the CRA, like I mentioned above, but like I’ve said in other comments above this, I hate ghetto black culture, I don’t like BLM supporters, but because a repeal of the CRA would allow businesses to do what I mentioned above, I worry about it.
I think the way whites have been demonized for the past 100+ years is pretty bullshit and absolutely terrible, but I’m simply unsure if this is the solution to that. I’m just a black nerd who hates how ghetto thugs act and effect my life.
Edit: One thing I actually noticed in my life just from thinking about it more here; most of my friends outside of fighting games aren’t black, which I think is partly because ghetto people make me sick.
I did specifically say that the civil rights act was the onset of a sweep of leftist policy changes. This responsible for the destruction of the United States as a whole.
That was the dam breaking, the rest of the flood doesn't happen without it.
It's a simple matter of priorities. I for one think that the results speak for themselves. The real problem here is one that a lot of people called racists pointed out a long time ago. You specifically are on a fence, evidenced by your comment about restaurants, you'd rather be a privileged class so that people can't refuse you service because that is more personally comfortable for you. You have loyalty to your skin color. That's perfectly fine, so does everyone else when they're not brainwashed. In group preferences are normal.
But why should that only go one way?
I don’t like most other black people at all, because the majority of black people are the ghetto shitheads we complain about on a regular basis. I don’t think white people should be passed over, because affirmative action is bullshit, I wish society was actually equal but it isn’t, because not everyone is equal. I’m just unsure of how we actually go about things.
I’m just…a pessimist if that makes any sense, as I’m already down on myself and things as a whole as it is, but if the CRA gets repealed, I think that’ll honestly cause Civil War 2 more than anything, but I wish it wouldn’t.
Everyone should be able to have their own ingroup preferences if they have them, I actually have outgroup preferences (white and Asian women are more attractive than black women as a whole).
Correct, most of them are shit heads. As to how we go about things, well to be frank it sounds like you're pretty young. You don't really have the perspective on this so you haven't yet realized.
We don't. It was too late before I was even born.
And the civil rights act is probably one of the biggest proximate causes of the second civil war. Which probably isn't avoidable I might add. Rather than wringing your hands and endlessly worrying over it, try to get in front of it.
Most of the worthwhile blacks I've ever met had out group preferences. It's strongly correlated with intelligence and Christianity as well. If I'm to be quite blunt, if you're going to be a race traitor then embrace it.
There are very, very few genuine racists among whites. Even those who are, most of them don't hate any particular skin color. They hate behavior that should be hated. Wicked, slothful, criminal behavior. Most white people won't reject you if you look and act like a normal ass person and speak coherently. Vanishingly few people would ever throw you out of a restaurant unless they'd been burgled or attacked by blacks in the recent past. And if they do, say something like understandable ma'am have a good one God bless.
I say this as a Gaijin that grew up in Japan. Acceptance will be difficult, inconstant and begrudging, embrace even more so. But when you do get it br grateful and mean it.
Ah it's you. By the way the article you linked last week regarding the competence crisis was a good read. I'd go even further and suggest that certain swathes of the country won't even be able to sustain running water at all, let alone potable water. I'd have loved to see a follow up article detailing some of the complex systems at risk. For example insulin, in the coming collapse I foresee a near total loss of diabetics due to inability to sustain drug manufacturing.
If "how it affects me personally" is the standard by which we allow legislation to pass, we're fucked.
A lot of the wokeness is just 'civil rights law'. See this: https://www.richardhanania.com/p/woke-institutions-is-just-civil-rights
From the very beginning the Civil Rights Act was twisted in order to advance a certain agenda. The sponsor Humphrey assured senators that racially neutral tests would not be banned, but courts ruled otherwise. It bans 'affirmative action', but this was then overturned by courts.
What's worse, the Supreme Court has now held that 'transgenders' should be treated like real women, based on the Civil Rights Act.
I don't think discrimination based on race should be allowed by companies, but the Civil Rights Act does more harm than good - at least right now. I'd rather see it reformed to combat abuses committed in its name and have it be a force for good rather than evil. That said, compared to the current situation, I'd favor repeal.
I won't go into it, as I see a bunch of other responses that probably already covered it...but what I will say is...even some of the people who passed the damn thing openly said it was a necessary evil, and should be done away with at some point. Basically, it's anti-liberty. It treads on freedom of association/assembly, as well as opinion/speech. If the government can't tell me I have to have a black friend, for example, why should they be able to tell me I have to serve a black customer.
Uh. Not 1488 here. I still say people should be able to say "no X allowed," because I don't think it's any of the government's business.
Say I own property. I'm not obliged to let anyone in. But if I put up an "OPEN" sign, suddenly I'm obliged to let everyone in. But can "reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"...unless I say I'm refusing you because of your skin color? It's absolutely retarded.
It's not about being pro-racism. It's about being pro-freedom.
Plus, I think in the modern society, it's redundant anyway. We don't need the Civil Rights Act. Any business that actually said "no blacks allowed" would just be hurting themselves. But I support their right to do that.
How so? What do you think would happen?
If the law actually worked and anyone "protesting" the rules got a wood shampoo and a disturbing the peace citation, then those businesses would thrive.
I have no problem with the CRA. I have a problem with hypocrisy. If the CRA is what allows the hypocrisy, then yeah, repeal it.
'No blacks allowed' is enough. Build a case for why everyone should be forced to go everywhere. Do you think things are better now than before the CRA was enacted?
The main objections I’ve heard is the private association one or the unequal enforcement you see today where diversity agendas flat out say don’t hire white men. Also the lgbt expansion.
Freedom of association
CRA is a step closer to a communist dictatorship because of how it limits property rights. Repealing it would be moving away from a communist dictatorship.
That is good enough reason to repeal it.
Because its been abused (coming from a Jungle Asian)
What is 1488?
Fourteen words: We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children
88: Heil Hitler but also 88 Precepts
Ohhhh. Gotcha
Oh, you sweet summer child.
This comment actually just exploded, but I’ll say this, because a lot of commenters really, really missed this in my replies:
I hate anti-white racism. I hate it because it causes the problems that I mentioned in my replies, it results in certain people pre-judging me due to BLM idiots, some people specifically avoiding non-white or asian specialists because of affirmative action and then some. Anti-white racism is the worst thing to come out of the last century.
Asking a question about what happens if the pendulum swings this far back shouldn’t be this controversial but it is what it is.
Is this something people are arguing for? I've just been stating that thanks to Affirmative action, welfare, special interest groups etc black Americans are not being held to the same standards as everyone else and have been infantilised thanks to the dems that they aren't responsible for their actions, regardless of the damage that results.
Civil rights act is just a bad sticking plaster. Unless they treat blacks the same institutionally, I'm waiting for the eventual backlash by EVERY OTHER race...
Working in tech I've seen them use "the narrative" to socially beat up lower end white guys.
Once it's accomplished that they forget about the whole "helping black people" thing and having destroyed those guys they replace them with white women and immigrants...NOT black people from the US.
In the narrative they say "we're helping black people" but then once they get done beating up white guys they forget all about the actual hiring of black people. It seems like it's actual purpose now is not fighting racism but stoking it.
If you're thinking "I'm an immigrant so this is good for me right?" just take a look at the last people they prosecuted under the "civil rights act".
The cops that showed up where derek chauvin was and simply cordoned off the scene.
An Asian guy, a Black guy, and a White guy.
"Three ex-Minneapolis police officers guilty of violating George Floyd's civil rights"
Just try to imagine that you went through all the education and training needed to be a police officer, got a job, and 3 months later the civil rights act is used to fire you, destroy your career entirely, and put you in jail - but because you happened to be around interactions of people of different races.
Is that fighting racism?...or...is it's modern implementation just used for racism and race baiting?
Another thing...white peoples median income for the entire country is average for the country. 50% make more than the average. 50% make less.
Black people are lower. Like, 30% I think?
But here's the thing. Democrats have been running this same narrative since the 1960's and that dynamic hasn't changed. White and black people are in the same spots relative to each other in 2023 that they were in 1960.
Thomas Sowell has a bunch of stuff on that the actual real world effect of this kind of politicking hasn't helped black people at tall, and in many case locked them in place or sent them backwards.
Take the recent 'bail reform' stuff where they let violent offenders out immediately to go back home. Where do they live? In black communities. Where do they continue violence? In black communities. Who do they victimize? Mostly black people, businesses in black neighborhoods, etc.
Point I'm getting at is I don't believe they're even helping disadvantaged black people, and sometimes making things worse for them.
Can you explain this a bit further? If you're making judgments based on world views and behaviors, you're not making judgments based on race, and if you're making judgments based on race, you're not making judgments based on world views and behaviors.
Even if you say: I wouldn't want to associate with blacks, because on average they are more anti-social than other groups, and it's too costly in terms of knowledge and risk to try to judge every individual as a person. Then you're not saying that you would avoid a black whom you know to be a cool person, so you're still not saying that you don't want to associate with blacks.
There is a "critical negro mass" where the chances of anti-social behavior is increased by roughly the cube of the number of blacks in proximity.
Even the "cool" black person won't stop another "bad" black person from stealing from or sucker punching you or generally acting dishonorably.
Racial solidarity is more important to the overwhelming majority of blacks than any other consideration.
There are vast diffeerences between and within ethnic groups. Which is why your 'bone' does not make much sense. Unless you think that you have more in common with a white SJW than a black conservative.
Coming to 'general conclusions' would not lead one to avoid everyone of a given group.
I also prefer my group. Sensible people.
I don't want to keep dunking on OP, but we really do have a case of "nigger enjoys getting away from niggers; is terrified of the prospect of Whites being able to get away from niggers and/or being forced to go back to his own."