Equality: is it overrated?

[wenglund]

4 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have come to believe that more than by precept the changed hearts have come largely from Church members who received opportunities to live outside the bubbles they and their parents were raised in such as missionaries returning from countries where they actually lived with and learned to love people who were different from themselves.

Yes, the gospel can take on greater meaning and generalized understanding when applied under different and divergent circumstances. However, I have personally found that some of my most challenging and growing experiences have come from within the "bubble" rather than from without. I tend to clash more with fundamentalists and dogmatist in my own faith than i do with more open-minded people of other beliefs. One of my favorite Youtube channels (because we agree on so much) is an atheist. Contrast that with the frequent head-butting I have had over the years on LDS discussion boards such as this. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[Mike]

36 minutes ago, wenglund said:

...One of my favorite Youtube channels (because we agree on so much) is an atheist.

How refreshing.

Quote

Contrast that with the frequent head-butting I have had over the years on LDS discussion boards such as this. 

You mean with people like me, hahaha?

 

[Just_A_Guy]

49 minutes ago, Mike said:

I have come to believe that more than by precept the changed hearts have come largely from Church members who received opportunities to live outside the bubbles they and their parents were raised in such as missionaries returning from countries where they actually lived with and learned to love people who were different from themselves.

This is a double-edged sword, though.  BYU is full of RMs but is rather infamously insular.  I know my own experience as a missionary in Brazil with the effects of alcohol, sexual promiscuity, crooked politicians, and poverty; led me to double down on both political and theological conservatism when I got home and resumed my studies.

I think that, for better or for worse, most RMs come off their missions a little less open-minded; and a little more certain that their pre-mission world outlook was fundamentally Right.

[Mike]

11 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This is a double-edged sword, though.  BYU is full of RMs but is rather infamously insular.  I know my own experience as a missionary in Brazil with the effects of alcohol, sexual promiscuity, crooked politicians, and poverty; led me to double down on both political and theological conservatism when I got home and resumed my studies.

I think that, for better or for worse, most RMs come off their missions a little less open-minded; and a little more certain that their pre-mission world outlook was fundamentally Right.

That's very interesting. My missionary experience was also in Brazil. It was just the opposite.

[Mike]

37 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This is a double-edged sword, though.  BYU is full of RMs but is rather infamously insular.  I know my own experience as a missionary in Brazil with the effects of alcohol, sexual promiscuity, crooked politicians, and poverty; led me to double down on both political and theological conservatism when I got home and resumed my studies.

I think that, for better or for worse, most RMs come off their missions a little less open-minded; and a little more certain that their pre-mission world outlook was fundamentally Right.

Still thinking about this. I'm interested in your opinion about why what you observe might be the case, I mean aside from lifestyles that you mentioned which are antithetical to the LDS lifestyle. 

[anatess2]

16 hours ago, wenglund said:

Agreed.

I disagree--in part because I believe Andrew Breitbart was correct in saying that politics is downstream from culture. It doesn't make sense to put the cart before the horse.

I also disagree because force doesn't produce genuine or lasting change (which is why, in part, "it is never temporary"). This is particularly true when the force causes the very thing it portends to correct--forced discrimination to correct discrimination doesn't work. Hypocrisy is not a very effective motivator.

I disagree as well because I believe there are far more effective and productive methods (organic) to address wrongful discrimination--not the least of which is the gospel of Christ. If you voluntarily change hearts, you change value systems, and eventually change cultures and markets, in lasting and productive ways.

The trick is to keep the impure elements of culture from creeping into the gospel--such as elevating equality in importance and making it a prioritized, if not paramount, objective.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This position is not tenable in secular application because people are... well, people.  Yes, you can wait it out, let the change flow organically.  That will require at least 3 generation cycles before the culture changes.  Sometimes, 3 generations is not something one can wait for.  That's basically why people go to war - like the US seceding from England.  Or the Yankees going to war with the Confederacy.  To force that change.  Affirmative action is supposed to make it so we don't have to go to war for it.  Affirmative action historically is, of course, not used properly.  Hence the problem continues to today.

[anatess2]

17 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't know the specifics of this particular case, but I suspect that given time and a free market Trump Sr. would have come to understand that minoriries' money was ultimately as good as anyone else's, and that he was only hurting himself by continuing to discriminate.

Instead, Trump Jr. saw his daddy (whom he idolized) humbled by progressive social warriors during a formative stage of his life.  And now, decades later, he's able and (many fear) very much disposed to give a little payback.

This is not correct.

Trump Sr has no problem taking colored money.  He has a problem taking a hit on property equity.  Basically, it's like today's Homeowner's Associations.  They don't want anybody in the community bringing property values down, so they put rules such as - your grass can't be taller than x inches, etc.  Well, in those days, a black family moving into a white neighborhood causes property values to go down.  Therefore, it is not that Trump Sr. hurt himself by continuing to discriminate.  Rather, he was forced to choose between getting hurt by discriminating or getting hurt by going to jail.

Now, Trump Jr saw his daddy getting humbled by progressive social warriors so he figured, heck, the government can force white people to accept black people so, daddy, I'm taking Manhattan.

As far as disposed to give a little payback?  I don't even know where that comes from.  What payback do you think he did to black people?

[Just_A_Guy]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

This is not correct.

Trump Sr has no problem taking colored money.  He has a problem taking a hit on property equity.  Basically, it's like today's Homeowner's Associations.  They don't want anybody in the community bringing property values down, so they put rules such as - your grass can't be taller than x inches, etc.  Well, in those days, a black family moving into a white neighborhood causes property values to go down.  Therefore, it is not that Trump Sr. hurt himself by continuing to discriminate.  Rather, he was forced to choose between getting hurt by discriminating or getting hurt by going to jail.

Now, Trump Jr saw his daddy getting humbled by progressive social warriors so he figured, heck, the government can force white people to accept black people so, daddy, I'm taking Manhattan.

As far as disposed to give a little payback?  I don't even know where that comes from.  What payback do you think he did to black people?

I don't think we really disagree on this.  What I was attempting to express was that, left alone in a free market and in the face of social trends, at some point continued discrimination would have become financially disadvantageous to the point that the Trumps (and anyone else who wasn't a die-hard racist) would have voluntarily stopped doing it--with no resentment against a set of do-gooders who had forced them to change their ways.

Whether Trump is actually disposed to offer payback against those who compelled him and his father to mend their ways, is beside the point I was making.  My point is--progressives fear that he is.  And they fear it because, deep down, they understand that they have been using the machinery of government to oppress would-be discriminators (among other political adversaries); and they understand that once their victims have gained control of the government, a backlash against the former oppressors is a perfectly natural consequence.  

Edited March 1, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

10 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't think we really disagree on this.  What I was attempting to express was that, left alone in a free market and in the face of social trends, at some point continued discrimination would have become financially disadvantageous to the point that the Trumps (and anyone else who wasn't a die-hard racist) would have voluntarily stopped doing it--with no resentment against a set of do-gooders who had forced them to change their ways.

Whether Trump is actually disposed to offer payback against those who compelled him and his father to mend their ways, is beside the point I was making.  My point is--progressives fear that he is.  And they fear it because, deep down, they understand that they have been using the machinery of government to oppress would-be discriminators (among other political adversaries); and they understand that once their victims have gained control of the government, a backlash against the former oppressors is a perfectly natural consequence.  

Yes, this was what I was telling wenglund.  Organic change would have eventually happened.  But black people cannot be expected to patiently sit idly by as generational cultural change slowly transforms society.

I don't see today's progressives fearing payback.  They are just willing to paint everybody who disagree with them racist for any and all reasons.  If they can't find a reasonable reason to paint someone racist that would gain traction on TV, they'll tell them they have white privilege which is basically the same as being racist.  I mean, they even called the entire election results a whitelash implying that all these rust belt voters are lashing against black people.  It's the only way they know to fight in the political arena these days.  They just don't want to accept that their choice to pander to groups such as the Environmentalists, Globalists, et. al., is not what these people want in their government.

 

[Just_A_Guy]

27 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, this was what I was telling wenglund.  Organic change would have eventually happened.  But black people cannot be expected to patiently sit idly by as generational cultural change slowly transforms society.

I don't see today's progressives fearing payback.  They are just willing to paint everybody who disagree with them racist for any and all reasons.  If they can't find a reasonable reason to paint someone racist that would gain traction on TV, they'll tell them they have white privilege which is basically the same as being racist.  I mean, they even called the entire election results a whitelash implying that all these rust belt voters are lashing against black people.  It's the only way they know to fight in the political arena these days.  They just don't want to accept that their choice to pander to groups such as the Environmentalists, Globalists, et. al., is not what these people want in their government.

I don't think many people expected black folks to "sit idly by".  The question is whether their plan of action should have included government coercion.

As for backlash--*I* fear it, Anatess.  Just this morning I saw no fewer than three comments on a (formerly mainstream) conservative board I frequent calling for the burial of NeverTrumpers, and a fourth gleefully proclaiming that the Republican Party is now a party for white people.  These Jewish headstones aren't tipping themselves over, and one of those Indian guys killed by a white supremacist a couple days ago was a friend of a friend.  The leftist histrionics sure aren't helping things; but something very ugly has awakened within the Republican Party.

Edited March 1, 2017 by Just_A_Guy

[anatess2]

31 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don't think many people expected black folks to "sit idly by".  The question is whether their plan of action should have included government coercion.

As for backlash--*I* fear it, Anatess.  Just this morning I saw no fewer than three comments on a (formerly mainstream) conservative board I frequent calling for the burial of NeverTrumpers, and a fourth gleefully proclaiming that the Republican Party is now a party for white people.  These Jewish headstones aren't tipping themselves over, and one of those Indian guys killed by a white supremacist a couple days ago was a friend of a friend.  The leftist histrionics sure aren't helping things; but something very ugly has awakened within the Republican Party.

Something very ugly has been happening in Society.  This is nothing to do with Trump nor the Republican Party.  This is more to do with the advent of the Information Age and an American Society that has not had any major challenges..  People have been trolling each other on the Internet since the invention of Facebook and Twitter.  Back in my grandfather's and even father's age, most people have fought 2 World Wars, several national wars, a nuclear arms race, war with the Communists, Civil Rights marches, etc. etc.  My generation's Americans biggest challenge is if they have reliable wifi.

Cyber bullying have been in existence before Trump.  Mass shootings have been in existence before Trump.  White supremacists have been in existence before Trump.  As a matter of fact, they've been in existence since forever.  It's easy to rile today's people up into a stupid fight to make their lives seem important.  It's not as easy to rile somebody up who has survived Normandy Beach.  And then you magnify that with the ease of getting these people together through their smartphones.

Conservatism is the new counter-culture.  It's the same cycle that we went through with our parents and teachers that led us to headbang to Brick in the Wall and Parents Just Don't Understand and led us to rebel against religious piety against the evil AC/DC, Sex Pistols, Twisted Sister, and whatever punk rock bands we were into who dare to say the words Sh- and F- Y- in their lyrics.  You can't stop it from invading the pious Republican Party anymore than you can stop your kids from saying "Like" after every 3 words.

So yeah.  All that simply shows you have become your parents.  I'm Filipino - I grew up in a different culture.  So I'm still young... psych!

Edited March 1, 2017 by anatess2

[Traveler]

 

There are two notions of freedom and equality going on in our society and much of the understanding seems to be directly according to one’s age or the generation that they grew up in.  The older generation seems to believe that everyone has the right and freedom to work harder and invest their time and as a result get paid more.  The idea is that equality means that everybody gets the equal opportunity to work and invest or to not work and invest.

The younger generation has the idea that freedom and equality means that everybody gets the same regardless of how they work and invest.  This means that everybody (that is equal) gets paid the same – regardless of how much they work or invest.

I personally believe there is something in both points of view but because I am older – I tend to think that those that work harder get more than those that do not.  But I realize that not always does it work out that those that work harder get paid more.  During my life experience, I have observed that many times that there are some that seem to get more and some less than deserved.

As a side note – a recent survey asked the question what is the most probable way to become a millionaire.  By far the largest majority responded that the most likely way to become a millionaire is to win a lottery.  This is why many think by gambling and buying lottery tickets they are investing in the best possible way for them to become millionaires.   I recall a number of years ago sitting down with a friend and showing mathematically that they would become a millionaire sooner by investing the money they would have spent on a stamp to mail in their entry to publisher clearinghouse sweepstakes than the probability of wining from their entry.  They purchased a stamp and sent their entry anyway.  I have concluded that lotteries and sweepstakes are a unequal tax of stupid people that refuse to learn math.  If we want people to be equal in society we must first get rid lotteries, gambling and sweepstakes first.  Those that invest in such things – regardless of generation – are proving by their actions that they do not believe in equality. 

 

The Traveler

[Just_A_Guy]

18 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Something very ugly has been happening in Society.  This is nothing to do with Trump nor the Republican Party. 

The point of political parties is to elevate the broader society by eschewing its worst aspects while advocating, and living, a higher standard.

Mainstream Republicans, generally speaking, used to be above the kind of nonsense I've been seeing.  Now--they aren't; except for a small cadre of so-called "cuckservatives".  

We haven't beaten the progressive statist amoralists; we've become them.  Progressives, of course, don't know what to do with us anymore now that we've quit playing by the old rules; and their nonplussment is both amusing and gratifying for the moment.  The problems will come when they figure out how to escalate.

And make no mistake--they'll figure it out.

[Traveler]

9 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

The point of political parties is to elevate the broader society by eschewing its worst aspects while advocating, and living, a higher standard.

Mainstream Republicans, generally speaking, used to be above the kind of nonsense I've been seeing.  Now--they aren't; except for a small cadre of so-called "cuckservatives".  

We haven't beaten the progressive statist amoralists; we've become them.  Progressives, of course, don't know what to do with us anymore now that we've quit playing by the old rules; and their nonplussment is both amusing and gratifying for the moment.  The problems will come when they figure out how to escalate.

And make no mistake--they'll figure it out.

 

The point of political parties has never been about benefiting society – it has always been about power – the seizing of power and implementing the agenda of the some over the many. 

 

The Traveler

Edited March 1, 2017 by Traveler

[anatess2]

32 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

We haven't beaten the progressive statist amoralists; we've become them.

No, we haven't.  You just don't like Trump that's why you are willing to buy into the negative press about him.

Like I mentioned to someone else before.  If you would say this same thing about McCain, then okay, you have a position.  But, if McCain would have been running against Hillary and you would vote McCain (or you voted McCain in 2008) without your conscience getting in the way, then you bought into the blue pill.

Edited March 1, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

On 3/1/2017 at 7:09 AM, anatess2 said:

This position is not tenable in secular application because people are... well, people.  Yes, you can wait it out, let the change flow organically.  That will require at least 3 generation cycles before the culture changes.  Sometimes, 3 generations is not something one can wait for.  That's basically why people go to war - like the US seceding from England.  Or the Yankees going to war with the Confederacy.  To force that change.  Affirmative action is supposed to make it so we don't have to go to war for it.  Affirmative action historically is, of course, not used properly.  Hence the problem continues to today.

I understand the good intentions behind things like affirmative action, but I doubt that a hypocritical and counter-productive approach like affirmative action has sped the process along-- except in the opposite direction. Forcing businesses to hire on the basis of skin color, not only reinforces what is intended to be surmounted, and generates resentment, but it also inadvertently engenders the soft bigotry of low expectations and robs people of genuine self-accomplishment--those accepted at colleges and universities and hired because of affirmative action tend to suffer under the stigma that they weren't really qualified and  only brought on and kept around because of their skin color. This spills over to blacks and other minorities who actually got accepted to prestigious schools, attained postgraduate degrees with honors, got jobs and promotions, on their own merits.

It also sets people up to fail by pitting them against students and co-workers with higher natural or developed skills and knowledge sets. 

This doesn't even take into account the extreme vulnerability to abuse from race-grifters and shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

Documentation for this and other related issues can be found on my blog at The Politics of Race and The Politics of Compassion and The Politics of Equality.

If we are going to be compassionate in righting past wrongs, I think it best to take an approach that actually works as intended even if it takes more time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Edited March 2, 2017 by wenglund
spelling correction

[Traveler]

 

Reading more in this thread.  I would add that if our considerations of equal begins with birth and ends with death – there is no such thing as equal nor is there any justice.  In order to allow justice as a possibility and to grant any kind of equality – there must be something before birth that justifies and mitigates the inequity and injustices of birth.  I have used this logic many times when addressing atheists as well as most all religious thinkers (since LDS are one of the few that validate justice and equality with a pre-birth existence).

It is the tenet of almost all religions that there is some existence for humans following death that enables justice and brings the possibility of equality.  What surprises me the most about religious thinking is that most religious thinkers believe that the more they believe in G-d – the less they will have to account for injustice and inequality.  That they believe that G-d will allow them to be unjust and unequal but will damn those striving for justice and equality because they do not believe.

This contradicts the idea that G-d is just and not a respecter of persons.  The point being that the more one understands the justice and equity of G-d the more the will emulate him.

The one point that seems to be left out of the discussions of this thread is the concept and implementation of repentance in conjunction with mercy.  What I would add is that without repentance and mercy – justice and equality cannot be applied.   That any effort to do so will be unjust and unequal.

 

 The Traveler

[anatess2]

18 hours ago, wenglund said:

I understand the good intentions behind things like affirmative action, but I doubt that a hypocritical and counter-productive approach like affirmative action has speed the process along-- except in the opposite direction. Forcing businesses to hire on the basis of skin color, not only reinforces what is intended to be surmounted, and generates resentment, but it also inadvertently engenders the soft bigotry of low expectations and robs people of genuine self-accomplishment--those accepted at colleges and universities and hired because of affirmative action tend to suffer under the stigma that they weren't really qualified and  only brought on and kept around because of their skin color. This spills over to blacks and other minorities who actually got accepted to prestigious schools, attained postgraduate degrees with honors, got jobs and promotions, on their own merits.

It also sets people up to fail by pitting them against students and co-workers with higher natural or developed skills and knowledge sets. 

This doesn't even take into account the extreme vulnerability to abuse from race-grifters and shakedown artists like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and the NAACP.

Documentation for this and other related issues can be found on my blog at The Politics of Race and The Politics of Compassion and The Politics of Equality.

If we are going to be compassionate in righting past wrongs, I think it best to take an approach that actually works as intended even if it takes more time.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Sure.  Of course.  Such is the problem with flawed humans.  They have this great propensity to muck things up.  So organic change is desirable as it absorbs the faults of flawed humans and keeps moving forward.

But, that's hoping everything goes well with the organic change.  This usually isn't the case.  Usually, war happens.  The oppressed simply runs out of patience especially as they have to live with nothing but hope of the oppressors changing.  Or some segment of society decides to take advantage of the weakened oppressor and the not-yet-strong oppressed and wages war to take control of society.

 

Edited March 2, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

5 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Sure.  Of course.  Such is the problem with flawed humans.  They have this great propensity to muck things up.  So organic change is desirable as it absorbs the faults of flawed humans and keeps moving forward.

But, that's hoping everything goes well with the organic change.  This usually isn't the case.  Usually, war happens.  The oppressed simply runs out of patience especially as they have to live with nothing but hope of the oppressors changing.  Or some segment of society decides to take advantage of the weakened oppressor and the not-yet-strong oppressed and wages war to take control of society.

 

I believe that racist hiring practices quickly declined in the wake of the civil rights movement, not because of affirmative action, but in spite of it. From what I observed, public discourse raised consciousness about the problem, and reasonable and good-hearted people responded, affecting an organic change. I witnessed this second hand at the time as the son of a personnel manager for a major (Fortune 500) international company and the president of the personnel managers association for the state of Washington. Most businesses didn't need to be forced by the government to higher black workers. Many had already done so for years. and others were obliged (either by personal ethics or market forces) to quickly get on board. It is only when the government stepped in and required quotas that resistance rightly occurred--in response to reverse discrimination. 

Race relations in the U.S. have been remarkably good for nearly 50 years. Eight years ago a black person was even hired for the highest job in the land, not as a function of affirmative action, though as a way, in some people's minds, of marking an end to racial strife. It is unfortunate that in the last several years things have deteriorated, in part because the race-baiting community organizers gained high-level government backing, giving rise to the race-centrist government/industrial complex and a flurry of manufactured controversies.

So, for me, I have great faith in organic solutions to race problems and otehr instances of inequality, and serious reservations about government involvement in either.

Besides, there is one other reason that I failed to mention for why government forced racial equality (as with affirmative action) is problematic. It is resistant to the development of personal/community strength derived from rising above challenges. For example, Asians faced considerable discrimination (immigration and hiring, etc.) around the turn of the 20th century and on through WWII. To my knowledge there haven't been government enforced college enrollment or hiring requirements or any other forms of affirmative actions to rectify that past wrong (the virtue signalling of reparations notwithstanding). Yet, Asians have organically risen out of that challenging situation and have become strong and flourished to the point of leading in educational and business successes. The same is true of our LDS forefathers who went from being despised and persecuted to founding a thriving and well-respected community, all without the help of the government, and to some degree in spite of resistance from the government. The black community, on the other hand, with notable exception,s continues to flounder even with (and I believe because of) government assistance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[wenglund]

On 2/28/2017 at 3:13 PM, Mike said:

You mean with people like me, hahaha?

We disagree, but I don't think we have butted heads. You are too thoughtful and considerate for that to happen.

I, on the other hand, tend to respond in-kind, which explains my flattened forehead and somewhat scrambled musings. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund- 

[anatess2]

27 minutes ago, wenglund said:

I believe that racist hiring practices quickly declined in the wake of the civil rights movement, not because of affirmative action, but in spite of it. From what I observed, public discourse raised consciousness about the problem, and reasonable and good-hearted people responded, affecting an organic change. I witnessed this second hand at the time as the son of a personnel manager for a major (Fortune 500) international company and the president of the personnel managers association for the state of Washington. Most businesses didn't need to be forced by the government to higher black workers. Many had already done so for years. and others were obliged (either by personal ethics or market forces) to quickly get on board. It is only when the government stepped in and required quotas that resistance rightly occurred--in response to reverse discrimination. 

Race relations in the U.S. have been remarkably good for nearly 50 years. Eight years ago a black person was even hired for the highest job in the land, not as a function of affirmative action, though as a way, in some people's minds, of marking an end to racial strife. It is unfortunate that in the last several years things have deteriorated, in part because the race-baiting community organizers gained high-level government backing, giving rise to the race-centrist government/industrial complex and a flurry of manufactured controversies.

So, for me, I have great faith in organic solutions to race problems and otehr instances of inequality, and serious reservations about government involvement in either.

Besides, there is one other reason that I failed to mention for why government forced racial equality (as with affirmative action) is problematic. It is resistant to the development of personal/community strength derived from rising above challenges. For example, Asians faced considerable discrimination (immigration and hiring, etc.) around the turn of the 20th century and on through WWII. To my knowledge there haven't been government enforced college enrollment or hiring requirements or any other forms of affirmative actions to rectify that past wrong (the virtue signalling of reparations notwithstanding). Yet, Asians have organically risen out of that challenging situation and have become strong and flourished to the point of leading in educational and business successes. The same is true of our LDS forefathers who went from being despised and persecuted to founding a thriving and well-respected community, all without the help of the government, and to some degree in spite of resistance from the government. The black community, on the other hand, with notable exception,s continues to flounder even with (and I believe because of) government assistance.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes, that's historical viewing which is always 20/20.  We won't really know if things would have happened any other way because it didn't happen any other way.  All we can do is move forward.

Our black brothers continuing to flounder may be a byproduct of many causes, one of which is culture that is different from Asian culture.  It is better to look forward and do something else if what has been tried before is not working out.  Unfortunately, we can't do that.  Because the Democrats have a firm grip on that sector.  And if the first black POTUS is not even interested in transcending politics to elevate his own community, what hope is there for all other Democrats?

Edited March 2, 2017 by anatess2

[wenglund]

1 hour ago, anatess2 said:

Yes, that's historical viewing which is always 20/20.  We won't really know if things would have happened any other way because it didn't happen any other way.  All we can do is move forward.

Our black brothers continuing to flounder may be a byproduct of many causes, one of which is culture that is different from Asian culture.  It is better to look forward and do something else if what has been tried before is not working out.  Unfortunately, we can't do that.  Because the Democrats have a firm grip on that sector.  And if the first black POTUS is not even interested in transcending politics to elevate his own community, what hope is there for all other Democrats?

Well said!!

Ironically, it likely will take much longer, if ever, for blacks to climb out of the hole dug by government enforcement (particularly since it is still digging) than it would have taken organically to begin with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

[anatess2]

10 hours ago, wenglund said:

Well said!!

Ironically, it likely will take much longer, if ever, for blacks to climb out of the hole dug by government enforcement (particularly since it is still digging) than it would have taken organically to begin with.

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

This will depend entirely on Trump and if he delivers on that economic prosperity and law enforcement that he promised.

[classylady]

On 2/28/2017 at 0:35 PM, wenglund said:

Are you sure see was denied a loan because of her gender rather than her fincial situation being higher risk of not meeting the loan obligation? I came of age during the 60's and 70's, when the second-wave feminism was in full bloom, and I heard a lot of accusations of sexism, many of which turned out to conflated with other things.

Either way, there is an unwittingly destructive tendency to look to government to solve perceived social injustices when other constructive avenues are available, like the free market, if not also the gospel. 

Thanks, -Wade Englund-

Yes. It was because of her gender. The bank explicitly told her the only reason she was being refused the loan was because she was a woman. This was probably late 60's, and in a small town. Feminism probably hadn't reached there yet. 

[JohnsonJones]

On ‎3‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 9:41 AM, Traveler said:

 

Reading more in this thread.  I would add that if our considerations of equal begins with birth and ends with death – there is no such thing as equal nor is there any justice.  In order to allow justice as a possibility and to grant any kind of equality – there must be something before birth that justifies and mitigates the inequity and injustices of birth.  I have used this logic many times when addressing atheists as well as most all religious thinkers (since LDS are one of the few that validate justice and equality with a pre-birth existence).

I strongly agree with this idea.  I think that we had some very major decisions in the pre-existence which affect what and where we are here in this life.  I think one of the ways the Lord knows who would have accepted the gospel in this life, even if they did not have the opportunity to, is due to what they decided in the pre-existence.  Those who were born into the covenant, I think chose for that.  Those who chose to be born to wealth and power in this life, but to not have the opportunities to be associated with the church or to reject it, I think made a lot of that decision in the pre-existence as well.  In fact, I think much of this life is simply to see whether we will choose good when given the choices between good and evil, and that a LOT of the other implications and effects on our lives were already decided by us before we ever came here.