No one white today owned slaves but most whites today benefitted from the 100 years after slavery.

[Correll]

As always, I am not responsible for the voices in your head. NONE of the crazy you attribute to me, has anything to actually do with me or anything I said.


Please try again.

No need to venture down YOUR path of persecution again.

If you happened to be an Asian student who was actually being affected by the information in numerous studies out there, including the one you posted, then I might have some empathy, but you trying to ride on the coattails of their challenges relating to fainess in college admissions, does in fact effectively remove the mask from your psychosis.

There is nothing in this thread to "try again" for where you are concerned.

Carry on.

That Asians are discriminated against even MORE individually does not mean that many more whites are not discriminated against.



It is not credible that you cannot grasp that simple fact, based on the reality that you have the brain power to find your computer on a regular basis.

I have more than one computer, so finding one is not an issue. What matters is the information that you use it to find.

"Credible" studies point to the fact that Asians are discriminated against in college admissions in favor of whites.

But you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Why?

I guess because the conversation is dominated by lefties whinging about past racism, and whites rightly complaining about current discrimination.


NOt sure what you want from me on this. Discrimination against asians does not mean that the discrimination against whites is not happening.

I don't want or expect anything from you.

All that I did was repeat what studies say.

Asians are being discriminated against in favor of whites.

And whites and asians are being discriminated against in favor of blacks and browns.



I don't support any of that. Nothing I have said can be interpreted as supporting any of that.


You on the other hand...You lefties love your racist discrimination.

 

[IM2]

No need to venture down YOUR path of persecution again.

If you happened to be an Asian student who was actually being affected by the information in numerous studies out there, including the one you posted, then I might have some empathy, but you trying to ride on the coattails of their challenges relating to fainess in college admissions, does in fact effectively remove the mask from your psychosis.

There is nothing in this thread to "try again" for where you are concerned.

Carry on.

That Asians are discriminated against even MORE individually does not mean that many more whites are not discriminated against.



It is not credible that you cannot grasp that simple fact, based on the reality that you have the brain power to find your computer on a regular basis.

I have more than one computer, so finding one is not an issue. What matters is the information that you use it to find.

"Credible" studies point to the fact that Asians are discriminated against in college admissions in favor of whites.

But you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Why?

I guess because the conversation is dominated by lefties whinging about past racism, and whites rightly complaining about current discrimination.


NOt sure what you want from me on this. Discrimination against asians does not mean that the discrimination against whites is not happening.

No what we have here is blacks talking accurately about continuing white racism and one white person complaining about a non existent discrimination against whites.

THe evidence is that white racism has been effectively defeated as a significant force and anti white racism, has risen in it's place.

as per the 230 point sat bonus.

There is no such evidence.There is no anti white racism. Trying to equalize things so that whites don't have a continued advantage because of white racism is not anti white racism.

White boy amnesia isn't allowed in threads I make.

 

[IM2]

No need to venture down YOUR path of persecution again.

If you happened to be an Asian student who was actually being affected by the information in numerous studies out there, including the one you posted, then I might have some empathy, but you trying to ride on the coattails of their challenges relating to fainess in college admissions, does in fact effectively remove the mask from your psychosis.

There is nothing in this thread to "try again" for where you are concerned.

Carry on.

That Asians are discriminated against even MORE individually does not mean that many more whites are not discriminated against.



It is not credible that you cannot grasp that simple fact, based on the reality that you have the brain power to find your computer on a regular basis.

I have more than one computer, so finding one is not an issue. What matters is the information that you use it to find.

"Credible" studies point to the fact that Asians are discriminated against in college admissions in favor of whites.

But you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Why?

I guess because the conversation is dominated by lefties whinging about past racism, and whites rightly complaining about current discrimination.


NOt sure what you want from me on this. Discrimination against asians does not mean that the discrimination against whites is not happening.

I don't want or expect anything from you.

All that I did was repeat what studies say.

Asians are being discriminated against in favor of whites.

And whites and asians are being discriminated against in favor of blacks and browns.



I don't support any of that. Nothing I have said can be interpreted as supporting any of that.


You on the other hand...You lefties love your racist discrimination.

Whites aren't being discriminated against. Neither are Asians. We end programs that promote equal opportunity and Asians are going to be excluded just like every other non white group. Regardless of test scores. Because test scores never made any mother fucking difference in admittance in the first place.

White boy amnesia is not allowed here.

Now why don't you try explaining the restrictive covenants that still exist today giving whites the benefit in housing?

 

[IM2]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

What is your point? If the restrictions are unenforceable, while it's unfortunate that they are still there, they aren't actually policy. I thought it was policies you were discussing?

If they are still being applied they are policy. Even without that restrictive covenants are a example of a policy that benefitted whites after slavery that has had an impact upon whites living right now. You whites really need to quit looking for excuses to deny the facts.

 

[IM2]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

And what? some of those things are probably locked into the fine print on some pages, but no one is going to follow them and if they do, they are going to get there ass sued. I'm sure many have been erased where people have taken time to do so, but if they remain, then they remain as a reminder.

They are still being followed idiot, that's the point of the article. Still even if they were not, the fact is these are policies that were created after slavery that benefitted whites and whites today have benefitted from it.

 

[IM2]

So now we have heard all the excuses about how no one today owned slaves. But what we never seem able to discus is the 100 years after slavery where blacks were denied equal rights ,equal protection under the law, equal access to public accommodations, education, housing and jobs. Many whites here benefitted from things that occurred during this time.

Bring your popcorn. Here comes more lies and excuses.

So?

Are you scared to talk about it?

What's to talk about?

No one in my family ever owned slaves. Even if they had, I don't owe their descendants a goddam thing.

Next?

This thread is not about slavery. And all you are doing is showing me just how scared whites are to discuss the years after slavery because they know they benefit today from laws and policies created after slavery ended at the expense of blacks and other non white people.

because they know they benefit today from laws and policies created after slavery

You never explained how I benefit today from redlining in the past.
Did you forget?
Did you realize your claim was BS?

No, you were to explain how redlining benefitted whites.

 

[IM2]

You can stop trying to use Asians in this disingenuous argument you are trying to make. You racists don't give a flying fuck about Asians or their equal rights. The OP is about how whites have benefitted from laws and policies after slavery. The same motherfucking laws and policies that put Asians in interment camps. There is no anti white discrimination and there is no adverse impact on whites by whatever correll and you are trying to argue. You've been shown that Asians are admitted into Ivy league schools at 3 times the rate of their population so there is no adverse impact there. And the fact remains that there are actually blacks who do score better than Asians and whites on these tests. If anything the 230 points are awarded due to the adverse impact of admission policy on blacks since blacks are admitted at half their rate of the population. about 3 times less than Asians and about 7 to 8 times less than whites.

Actually I do, and what you are saying here is YOU don't give a flying fuck about Asians, so stop projecting.

Nope. That's not what I am saying. I am saying this argument about Asians disingenuous and that's because it is. I bought up how Asians are paid less than white men and have filed more did racial discriminations suits against whites than anyone else and we hear crickets. If you are so concerned with the plihh of Asians then you are concerned about these things. What is going on is that Asians are being used in this argument to try denying the fact of how whites have benefitted the most from modern polices and to try reducing the reality of what blacks have faced.

Point out how exactly whites are being helped by slavery 150 years ago the 360,000 white men died to free the slaves who had never seen a slave in their life. You're throwing abstract statement out, and then being racist by saying this abstract statement applies to ALL of a certain skin color. It's a ridiculous statement, not to mention again, racist. Yes blacks can be very much guilty of racism too, and that's the group I've experienced the most racism from in my life. I don't put that on all blacks because it's just not the case. Asians can also be racist, more towards other Asians, but no group is innocent of racism. No group is entirely or even mostly guilty of racism wether it's on purpose or not. It's just a ridiculous statement to make, and it will get you no where. It also makes you no better than those guilty of racism, soft racism or hard racism, your perputating the cycle. Do it if you want, that's on you for being part of the problem not the solution.

I can do that but this thread is not about slavery. It is about the 100 years after slavery and how laws and policies made during that time befitted whites to include whites living right now. You've not experienced black racism. I know you don't have the intelligence to understand how I can say this, but you haven't. You are the one who is part of the problem because you think you are making sense but your argument is full of inconsistent thinking, is off topic and based upon false equivalences and inaccurate depictions of history..

Whites did not die to fight against slavery but again that is not what the OP was about.

Laws in ONLY THE SOUTHEAST. Blacks didn't just live in the old south. So why is it applied to all? Again point out how specifically whites EVERYWHERE are just reaping the benifits from laws ended around 50 years ago. And racism is racism, whatever color you are. You could make the argument that whites aren't as effected when racism is directed at them, they also don't usually give any power to said racism. You don't have to be black to know what racism feels like, and you're not excused from racism being black. If you want TRUE equality, then what is good for the goose is good for the gaggle, and if we determine what one goose does as bad, then it is bad for the gaggle. That is actual justice, no one is above the law, no one is below the law. Does racism still exist, yes. But you cannot apply it to an entire skin color, with out being racist yourself. You are not being intellectually honest when you do so. There is no collective boot from one group of a skin color keeping another entire skin color down. It's such an over generalization, that the claim is just outrageous. There is a carrot and a stick coming from government, the carrot is dependency, and the stick is withdrawing of that dependency. There's also the problem of a large portion of mellianials who are now adults, being in arrested development in the adolscent mindset, trying to figure out adulthood, but not wanting any of the responsibilities that come with it, always being used to constant guidance, and are usually lost without said guidance. Those two things are a bad recipe. That is not coming from any one skin color. People are responsible for their own actions. More importantly parents are responsible to raise their kids with responsibility. The government cannot do that, the village cannot do that, schools cannot do that, and a politician cannot do that. To blame an entire race, for the plight of a portion of another race, is flat out wrong. The personal decisions that a person makes effects their own life more than anyone else around them can effect it. Which is what makes you wrong on this issue.

Redlining and restrictive covenants were nationwide fool. LAWS that ended 50 year ago only ended on paper stupid ass. Things just did not magically stop happening.. There is no "poof we are all equal now". For white people who were kids in the suburbs black could not live in due to these covenants living in houses finance by the FHA loans who are now grown cannot see how that benefitted their white asses. Whites have depended upon government for the entirety of American history idiot.

I am right to blame whites for what has happened. Because whites are the ones who did it.

Now to make this short, you talk about blacks being racists.Start showing laws and policies made by blacks that have denied whites of rights. If you cannot shut the fuck up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That Asians are discriminated against even MORE individually does not mean that many more whites are not discriminated against.



It is not credible that you cannot grasp that simple fact, based on the reality that you have the brain power to find your computer on a regular basis.

I have more than one computer, so finding one is not an issue. What matters is the information that you use it to find.

"Credible" studies point to the fact that Asians are discriminated against in college admissions in favor of whites.

But you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Why?

I guess because the conversation is dominated by lefties whinging about past racism, and whites rightly complaining about current discrimination.


NOt sure what you want from me on this. Discrimination against asians does not mean that the discrimination against whites is not happening.

No what we have here is blacks talking accurately about continuing white racism and one white person complaining about a non existent discrimination against whites.

THe evidence is that white racism has been effectively defeated as a significant force and anti white racism, has risen in it's place.

as per the 230 point sat bonus.

There is no such evidence.There is no anti white racism. Trying to equalize things so that whites don't have a continued advantage because of white racism is not anti white racism.

White boy amnesia isn't allowed in threads I make.

There is no such evidence.There is no anti white racism

Right. Giving blacks 230 SAT bonus points doesn't hurt anyone. Right?

Trying to equalize things

Everybody should get an equal score on the SAT, right?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

That Asians are discriminated against even MORE individually does not mean that many more whites are not discriminated against.



It is not credible that you cannot grasp that simple fact, based on the reality that you have the brain power to find your computer on a regular basis.

I have more than one computer, so finding one is not an issue. What matters is the information that you use it to find.

"Credible" studies point to the fact that Asians are discriminated against in college admissions in favor of whites.

But you refuse to acknowledge that fact.

Why?

I guess because the conversation is dominated by lefties whinging about past racism, and whites rightly complaining about current discrimination.


NOt sure what you want from me on this. Discrimination against asians does not mean that the discrimination against whites is not happening.

I don't want or expect anything from you.

All that I did was repeat what studies say.

Asians are being discriminated against in favor of whites.

And whites and asians are being discriminated against in favor of blacks and browns.



I don't support any of that. Nothing I have said can be interpreted as supporting any of that.


You on the other hand...You lefties love your racist discrimination.

Whites aren't being discriminated against. Neither are Asians. We end programs that promote equal opportunity and Asians are going to be excluded just like every other non white group. Regardless of test scores. Because test scores never made any mother fucking difference in admittance in the first place.

White boy amnesia is not allowed here.

Now why don't you try explaining the restrictive covenants that still exist today giving whites the benefit in housing?

Because test scores never made any mother fucking difference in admittance in the first place.


Of course they did. That's why they had to give points to blacks, so they could admit more of them.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

So?

Are you scared to talk about it?

What's to talk about?

No one in my family ever owned slaves. Even if they had, I don't owe their descendants a goddam thing.

Next?

This thread is not about slavery. And all you are doing is showing me just how scared whites are to discuss the years after slavery because they know they benefit today from laws and policies created after slavery ended at the expense of blacks and other non white people.

because they know they benefit today from laws and policies created after slavery

You never explained how I benefit today from redlining in the past.
Did you forget?
Did you realize your claim was BS?

No, you were to explain how redlining benefitted whites.

No, you were going to explain how redlining benefits whites today.

 

[Montrovant]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

What is your point? If the restrictions are unenforceable, while it's unfortunate that they are still there, they aren't actually policy. I thought it was policies you were discussing?

If they are still being applied they are policy. Even without that restrictive covenants are a example of a policy that benefitted whites after slavery that has had an impact upon whites living right now. You whites really need to quit looking for excuses to deny the facts.

1. You have no idea of my race.
2. I did not deny any facts.
3. The article you linked to about racist deed restrictions and restrictive covenants, and in fact the quote you put in bold with large letters, says that such clauses are NOT being applied because they have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.
4. Those things absolutely are an example of policies or rules that benefited whites. That doesn't change the fact that bringing them up is bringing up something which has not applied, legally speaking, for more than half a century.

 

[Montrovant]

Actually I do, and what you are saying here is YOU don't give a flying fuck about Asians, so stop projecting.

Nope. That's not what I am saying. I am saying this argument about Asians disingenuous and that's because it is. I bought up how Asians are paid less than white men and have filed more did racial discriminations suits against whites than anyone else and we hear crickets. If you are so concerned with the plihh of Asians then you are concerned about these things. What is going on is that Asians are being used in this argument to try denying the fact of how whites have benefitted the most from modern polices and to try reducing the reality of what blacks have faced.

Point out how exactly whites are being helped by slavery 150 years ago the 360,000 white men died to free the slaves who had never seen a slave in their life. You're throwing abstract statement out, and then being racist by saying this abstract statement applies to ALL of a certain skin color. It's a ridiculous statement, not to mention again, racist. Yes blacks can be very much guilty of racism too, and that's the group I've experienced the most racism from in my life. I don't put that on all blacks because it's just not the case. Asians can also be racist, more towards other Asians, but no group is innocent of racism. No group is entirely or even mostly guilty of racism wether it's on purpose or not. It's just a ridiculous statement to make, and it will get you no where. It also makes you no better than those guilty of racism, soft racism or hard racism, your perputating the cycle. Do it if you want, that's on you for being part of the problem not the solution.

I can do that but this thread is not about slavery. It is about the 100 years after slavery and how laws and policies made during that time befitted whites to include whites living right now. You've not experienced black racism. I know you don't have the intelligence to understand how I can say this, but you haven't. You are the one who is part of the problem because you think you are making sense but your argument is full of inconsistent thinking, is off topic and based upon false equivalences and inaccurate depictions of history..

Whites did not die to fight against slavery but again that is not what the OP was about.

Laws in ONLY THE SOUTHEAST. Blacks didn't just live in the old south. So why is it applied to all? Again point out how specifically whites EVERYWHERE are just reaping the benifits from laws ended around 50 years ago. And racism is racism, whatever color you are. You could make the argument that whites aren't as effected when racism is directed at them, they also don't usually give any power to said racism. You don't have to be black to know what racism feels like, and you're not excused from racism being black. If you want TRUE equality, then what is good for the goose is good for the gaggle, and if we determine what one goose does as bad, then it is bad for the gaggle. That is actual justice, no one is above the law, no one is below the law. Does racism still exist, yes. But you cannot apply it to an entire skin color, with out being racist yourself. You are not being intellectually honest when you do so. There is no collective boot from one group of a skin color keeping another entire skin color down. It's such an over generalization, that the claim is just outrageous. There is a carrot and a stick coming from government, the carrot is dependency, and the stick is withdrawing of that dependency. There's also the problem of a large portion of mellianials who are now adults, being in arrested development in the adolscent mindset, trying to figure out adulthood, but not wanting any of the responsibilities that come with it, always being used to constant guidance, and are usually lost without said guidance. Those two things are a bad recipe. That is not coming from any one skin color. People are responsible for their own actions. More importantly parents are responsible to raise their kids with responsibility. The government cannot do that, the village cannot do that, schools cannot do that, and a politician cannot do that. To blame an entire race, for the plight of a portion of another race, is flat out wrong. The personal decisions that a person makes effects their own life more than anyone else around them can effect it. Which is what makes you wrong on this issue.

Redlining and restrictive covenants were nationwide fool. LAWS that ended 50 year ago only ended on paper stupid ass. Things just did not magically stop happening.. There is no "poof we are all equal now". For white people who were kids in the suburbs black could not live in due to these covenants living in houses finance by the FHA loans who are now grown cannot see how that benefitted their white asses. Whites have depended upon government for the entirety of American history idiot.

I am right to blame whites for what has happened. Because whites are the ones who did it.

Now to make this short, you talk about blacks being racists.Start showing laws and policies made by blacks that have denied whites of rights. If you cannot shut the fuck up.

Are you saying racism is only racism when it is backed by law or governmental policy?

 

[Montrovant]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

And what? some of those things are probably locked into the fine print on some pages, but no one is going to follow them and if they do, they are going to get there ass sued. I'm sure many have been erased where people have taken time to do so, but if they remain, then they remain as a reminder.

They are still being followed idiot, that's the point of the article. Still even if they were not, the fact is these are policies that were created after slavery that benefitted whites and whites today have benefitted from it.

You should not call someone an idiot and follow it up immediately with an incorrect statement, particularly when you've provided a quote to show the statement is incorrect in the same bundle of nestled quotes.

The article neither says nor implies that racist deed restrictions and restrictive covenants are still being followed. In fact, it quite clearly points out that both the 1948 Shelley v Kraemer ruling on racially restrictive covenants and the 1968 Fair Housing Act make such documents legally unenforceable. Instead, the article talks about them in an historical context and as a sort of vestigial appendage which should be removed.

 

[IM2]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

What is your point? If the restrictions are unenforceable, while it's unfortunate that they are still there, they aren't actually policy. I thought it was policies you were discussing?

If they are still being applied they are policy. Even without that restrictive covenants are a example of a policy that benefitted whites after slavery that has had an impact upon whites living right now. You whites really need to quit looking for excuses to deny the facts.

1. You have no idea of my race.
2. I did not deny any facts.
3. The article you linked to about racist deed restrictions and restrictive covenants, and in fact the quote you put in bold with large letters, says that such clauses are NOT being applied because they have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.
4. Those things absolutely are an example of policies or rules that benefited whites. That doesn't change the fact that bringing them up is bringing up something which has not applied, legally speaking, for more than half a century.

Read the bolded words very carefully and do not stop after reading the words "such clauses have bene unenforceable for 60 years". Those words tell you that such covenants are still being used, are in effect now and are used in the governance of policy in homeowners associations across the country.

 

[IM2]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

And what? some of those things are probably locked into the fine print on some pages, but no one is going to follow them and if they do, they are going to get there ass sued. I'm sure many have been erased where people have taken time to do so, but if they remain, then they remain as a reminder.

They are still being followed idiot, that's the point of the article. Still even if they were not, the fact is these are policies that were created after slavery that benefitted whites and whites today have benefitted from it.

You should not call someone an idiot and follow it up immediately with an incorrect statement, particularly when you've provided a quote to show the statement is incorrect in the same bundle of nestled quotes.

The article neither says nor implies that racist deed restrictions and restrictive covenants are still being followed. In fact, it quite clearly points out that both the 1948 Shelley v Kraemer ruling on racially restrictive covenants and the 1968 Fair Housing Act make such documents legally unenforceable. Instead, the article talks about them in an historical context and as a sort of vestigial appendage which should be removed.

The article starts off with an example of a person trying to by a home and was told the home was only going to be sold to whites per the deed.

So you can be called an idiot for trying to make the claims you are making. Saying something is unenforceable does not mean I is being done dumb ass. The story is evidence of this.

But regardless of what you think this article was referring to the article shows a policy made after slavery that benefitted white that whites today did benefit from during their lives. There is no such thing as teflon history. Things that were ended 60 years ago did not just magically make all things equal. Nor did it eliinae advantages gained by whites.

 

[Montrovant]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

What is your point? If the restrictions are unenforceable, while it's unfortunate that they are still there, they aren't actually policy. I thought it was policies you were discussing?

If they are still being applied they are policy. Even without that restrictive covenants are a example of a policy that benefitted whites after slavery that has had an impact upon whites living right now. You whites really need to quit looking for excuses to deny the facts.

1. You have no idea of my race.
2. I did not deny any facts.
3. The article you linked to about racist deed restrictions and restrictive covenants, and in fact the quote you put in bold with large letters, says that such clauses are NOT being applied because they have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.
4. Those things absolutely are an example of policies or rules that benefited whites. That doesn't change the fact that bringing them up is bringing up something which has not applied, legally speaking, for more than half a century.

Read the bolded words very carefully and do not stop after reading the words "such clauses have bene unenforceable for 60 years". Those words tell you that such covenants are still being used, are in effect now and are used in the governance of policy in homeowners associations across the country.

No, those words do not say that. It merely says that those clauses and restrictions still exist. If you read the article it is clear that the point is not that racist clauses and restrictions are still enforced, even beyond the fact that it says they are unenforceable. The article talks about the difficulty in getting them removed, about realtors redacting such clauses and not showing them to home buyers, but it does not say that clauses like that are enforced and used as policy.

I imagine we've all seen silly, crazy, or just stupid laws from around the country that are still on the books, but are not enforced and/or are legally unenforceable. Those laws survive, but they are not policy: dominoes cannot be played on Sunday, pet flamingos are barred from entering barber shops, people cannot commit "unnatural acts" with another person, etc. Those laws exist, they survive, but they are no longer policy.

 

[Montrovant]

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years.

Read your own pastes.

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

And what? some of those things are probably locked into the fine print on some pages, but no one is going to follow them and if they do, they are going to get there ass sued. I'm sure many have been erased where people have taken time to do so, but if they remain, then they remain as a reminder.

They are still being followed idiot, that's the point of the article. Still even if they were not, the fact is these are policies that were created after slavery that benefitted whites and whites today have benefitted from it.

You should not call someone an idiot and follow it up immediately with an incorrect statement, particularly when you've provided a quote to show the statement is incorrect in the same bundle of nestled quotes.

The article neither says nor implies that racist deed restrictions and restrictive covenants are still being followed. In fact, it quite clearly points out that both the 1948 Shelley v Kraemer ruling on racially restrictive covenants and the 1968 Fair Housing Act make such documents legally unenforceable. Instead, the article talks about them in an historical context and as a sort of vestigial appendage which should be removed.

The article starts off with an example of a person trying to by a home and was told the home was only going to be sold to whites per the deed.

So you can be called an idiot for trying to make the claims you are making. Saying something is unenforceable does not mean I is being done dumb ass. The story is evidence of this.

But regardless of what you think this article was referring to the article shows a policy made after slavery that benefitted white that whites today did benefit from during their lives. There is no such thing as teflon history. Things that were ended 60 years ago did not just magically make all things equal. Nor did it eliinae advantages gained by whites.

The article starts off with the owner who was trying to sell his home claiming that his deed prevented the sale of the home to non-whites. It does not say that his argument was upheld, and in fact says that the Virginia attorney general's office joined in a lawsuit against that homeowner. So, no, the article does not say that such racist restrictions are policy.

I have not denied that such racist policies existed, nor that they were likely common, nor that many other racist laws and policies gave whites advantages.

 

[IM2]

Nope. That's not what I am saying. I am saying this argument about Asians disingenuous and that's because it is. I bought up how Asians are paid less than white men and have filed more did racial discriminations suits against whites than anyone else and we hear crickets. If you are so concerned with the plihh of Asians then you are concerned about these things. What is going on is that Asians are being used in this argument to try denying the fact of how whites have benefitted the most from modern polices and to try reducing the reality of what blacks have faced.

Point out how exactly whites are being helped by slavery 150 years ago the 360,000 white men died to free the slaves who had never seen a slave in their life. You're throwing abstract statement out, and then being racist by saying this abstract statement applies to ALL of a certain skin color. It's a ridiculous statement, not to mention again, racist. Yes blacks can be very much guilty of racism too, and that's the group I've experienced the most racism from in my life. I don't put that on all blacks because it's just not the case. Asians can also be racist, more towards other Asians, but no group is innocent of racism. No group is entirely or even mostly guilty of racism wether it's on purpose or not. It's just a ridiculous statement to make, and it will get you no where. It also makes you no better than those guilty of racism, soft racism or hard racism, your perputating the cycle. Do it if you want, that's on you for being part of the problem not the solution.

I can do that but this thread is not about slavery. It is about the 100 years after slavery and how laws and policies made during that time befitted whites to include whites living right now. You've not experienced black racism. I know you don't have the intelligence to understand how I can say this, but you haven't. You are the one who is part of the problem because you think you are making sense but your argument is full of inconsistent thinking, is off topic and based upon false equivalences and inaccurate depictions of history..

Whites did not die to fight against slavery but again that is not what the OP was about.

Laws in ONLY THE SOUTHEAST. Blacks didn't just live in the old south. So why is it applied to all? Again point out how specifically whites EVERYWHERE are just reaping the benifits from laws ended around 50 years ago. And racism is racism, whatever color you are. You could make the argument that whites aren't as effected when racism is directed at them, they also don't usually give any power to said racism. You don't have to be black to know what racism feels like, and you're not excused from racism being black. If you want TRUE equality, then what is good for the goose is good for the gaggle, and if we determine what one goose does as bad, then it is bad for the gaggle. That is actual justice, no one is above the law, no one is below the law. Does racism still exist, yes. But you cannot apply it to an entire skin color, with out being racist yourself. You are not being intellectually honest when you do so. There is no collective boot from one group of a skin color keeping another entire skin color down. It's such an over generalization, that the claim is just outrageous. There is a carrot and a stick coming from government, the carrot is dependency, and the stick is withdrawing of that dependency. There's also the problem of a large portion of mellianials who are now adults, being in arrested development in the adolscent mindset, trying to figure out adulthood, but not wanting any of the responsibilities that come with it, always being used to constant guidance, and are usually lost without said guidance. Those two things are a bad recipe. That is not coming from any one skin color. People are responsible for their own actions. More importantly parents are responsible to raise their kids with responsibility. The government cannot do that, the village cannot do that, schools cannot do that, and a politician cannot do that. To blame an entire race, for the plight of a portion of another race, is flat out wrong. The personal decisions that a person makes effects their own life more than anyone else around them can effect it. Which is what makes you wrong on this issue.

Redlining and restrictive covenants were nationwide fool. LAWS that ended 50 year ago only ended on paper stupid ass. Things just did not magically stop happening.. There is no "poof we are all equal now". For white people who were kids in the suburbs black could not live in due to these covenants living in houses finance by the FHA loans who are now grown cannot see how that benefitted their white asses. Whites have depended upon government for the entirety of American history idiot.

I am right to blame whites for what has happened. Because whites are the ones who did it.

Now to make this short, you talk about blacks being racists.Start showing laws and policies made by blacks that have denied whites of rights. If you cannot shut the fuck up.

Are you saying racism is only racism when it is backed by law or governmental policy?

No. But what I am saying is that all you who whine about black racism show me where blacks have done the exact same things as whites to deny all opportunities to whites or anyone else. And if so then I wiil agree. If you cannot, then stop claiming that blacks are just as racist or more racist than whites. You can say blacks have prejudices and to that I will not argue, But when it comes to racism I am not just going to agree with a claim made based on false equivalences and amnesia about everything whites have done and keep doing.

 

[Montrovant]

Point out how exactly whites are being helped by slavery 150 years ago the 360,000 white men died to free the slaves who had never seen a slave in their life. You're throwing abstract statement out, and then being racist by saying this abstract statement applies to ALL of a certain skin color. It's a ridiculous statement, not to mention again, racist. Yes blacks can be very much guilty of racism too, and that's the group I've experienced the most racism from in my life. I don't put that on all blacks because it's just not the case. Asians can also be racist, more towards other Asians, but no group is innocent of racism. No group is entirely or even mostly guilty of racism wether it's on purpose or not. It's just a ridiculous statement to make, and it will get you no where. It also makes you no better than those guilty of racism, soft racism or hard racism, your perputating the cycle. Do it if you want, that's on you for being part of the problem not the solution.

I can do that but this thread is not about slavery. It is about the 100 years after slavery and how laws and policies made during that time befitted whites to include whites living right now. You've not experienced black racism. I know you don't have the intelligence to understand how I can say this, but you haven't. You are the one who is part of the problem because you think you are making sense but your argument is full of inconsistent thinking, is off topic and based upon false equivalences and inaccurate depictions of history..

Whites did not die to fight against slavery but again that is not what the OP was about.

Laws in ONLY THE SOUTHEAST. Blacks didn't just live in the old south. So why is it applied to all? Again point out how specifically whites EVERYWHERE are just reaping the benifits from laws ended around 50 years ago. And racism is racism, whatever color you are. You could make the argument that whites aren't as effected when racism is directed at them, they also don't usually give any power to said racism. You don't have to be black to know what racism feels like, and you're not excused from racism being black. If you want TRUE equality, then what is good for the goose is good for the gaggle, and if we determine what one goose does as bad, then it is bad for the gaggle. That is actual justice, no one is above the law, no one is below the law. Does racism still exist, yes. But you cannot apply it to an entire skin color, with out being racist yourself. You are not being intellectually honest when you do so. There is no collective boot from one group of a skin color keeping another entire skin color down. It's such an over generalization, that the claim is just outrageous. There is a carrot and a stick coming from government, the carrot is dependency, and the stick is withdrawing of that dependency. There's also the problem of a large portion of mellianials who are now adults, being in arrested development in the adolscent mindset, trying to figure out adulthood, but not wanting any of the responsibilities that come with it, always being used to constant guidance, and are usually lost without said guidance. Those two things are a bad recipe. That is not coming from any one skin color. People are responsible for their own actions. More importantly parents are responsible to raise their kids with responsibility. The government cannot do that, the village cannot do that, schools cannot do that, and a politician cannot do that. To blame an entire race, for the plight of a portion of another race, is flat out wrong. The personal decisions that a person makes effects their own life more than anyone else around them can effect it. Which is what makes you wrong on this issue.

Redlining and restrictive covenants were nationwide fool. LAWS that ended 50 year ago only ended on paper stupid ass. Things just did not magically stop happening.. There is no "poof we are all equal now". For white people who were kids in the suburbs black could not live in due to these covenants living in houses finance by the FHA loans who are now grown cannot see how that benefitted their white asses. Whites have depended upon government for the entirety of American history idiot.

I am right to blame whites for what has happened. Because whites are the ones who did it.

Now to make this short, you talk about blacks being racists.Start showing laws and policies made by blacks that have denied whites of rights. If you cannot shut the fuck up.

Are you saying racism is only racism when it is backed by law or governmental policy?

No. But what I am saying is that all you who whine about black racism show me where blacks have done the exact same things as whites to deny all opportunities to whites or anyone else. And if so then I wiil agree. If you cannot, then stop claiming that blacks are just as racist or more racist than whites. You can say blacks have prejudices and to that I will not argue, But when it comes to racism I am not just going to agree with a claim made based on false equivalences and amnesia about everything whites have done and keep doing.

Blacks can be just as racist as whites, but they do not have the power to enforce any such racism that whites have enjoyed. That's clear.

 

[IM2]

I did dumb ass.

Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.



Such clauses have been unenforceable for nearly 60 years. But historians who track such things say that thousands of racist deed restrictions, as well as restrictive covenants governing homeowner associations, survive in communities across the country.

And what? some of those things are probably locked into the fine print on some pages, but no one is going to follow them and if they do, they are going to get there ass sued. I'm sure many have been erased where people have taken time to do so, but if they remain, then they remain as a reminder.

They are still being followed idiot, that's the point of the article. Still even if they were not, the fact is these are policies that were created after slavery that benefitted whites and whites today have benefitted from it.

You should not call someone an idiot and follow it up immediately with an incorrect statement, particularly when you've provided a quote to show the statement is incorrect in the same bundle of nestled quotes.

The article neither says nor implies that racist deed restrictions and restrictive covenants are still being followed. In fact, it quite clearly points out that both the 1948 Shelley v Kraemer ruling on racially restrictive covenants and the 1968 Fair Housing Act make such documents legally unenforceable. Instead, the article talks about them in an historical context and as a sort of vestigial appendage which should be removed.

The article starts off with an example of a person trying to by a home and was told the home was only going to be sold to whites per the deed.

So you can be called an idiot for trying to make the claims you are making. Saying something is unenforceable does not mean I is being done dumb ass. The story is evidence of this.

But regardless of what you think this article was referring to the article shows a policy made after slavery that benefitted white that whites today did benefit from during their lives. There is no such thing as teflon history. Things that were ended 60 years ago did not just magically make all things equal. Nor did it eliinae advantages gained by whites.

The article starts off with the owner who was trying to sell his home claiming that his deed prevented the sale of the home to non-whites. It does not say that his argument was upheld, and in fact says that the Virginia attorney general's office joined in a lawsuit against that homeowner. So, no, the article does not say that such racist restrictions are policy.

I have not denied that such racist policies existed, nor that they were likely common, nor that many other racist laws and policies gave whites advantages.

The fact of whether t was upheld or not is irrelevant. The fact this still exists should show you a very serious flaw in the it doesn't happen anymore argument. And yes the article says that homeowners associations are still governed by these covenants.