Is Financial Responsibility Racist?

[Ladsin2]

Mayor Brandon Johnson (D Chicago) wanted to give the teachers union a ~10% raise which the city couldn't afford. Thus they decided to take out a high interest loan to make up for the shortfall. This was not permitted by the school board members as it is a very financially irresponsible decision. Now Brandon Johnson says that they're all racist and financial responsibility was the argument made by confederates. "Now the so called experts, the so called fiscally responsible stewards are making the same argument when our people wanted to be liberated and emancipated in this country. The argument was, 'you can't free black people because it will be too expensive.'"

So, what do you think. Is it racist to be financially responsible?

It's pretty friggin racist

It's not racist

Depends on the skin color of the person being financially responsible.

Other

[BTigers96]

That's probably one of the dumbest things I've heard in a while, but it's typical. He has no credibility.

It's analogous to losing an argument and throwing up a white flag.

Mayor Johnson would have been better off just saying "I got nothing".

[Ladsin2]

Agreed

[RowdyYates]

I’m sure it makes perfect sense to moron.

[Ladsin2]

That's where I'm at with it.

[RowdyYates]

This will become like the story of the boy who cried wolf. People will no longer take it seriously.

[Ladsin2]

Pretty sure most folks are already there. I just asked a new question in a similar vein.
Is It Racist To Ask State Troopers To Do 5th Grade Math? ↗

[RowdyYates]

I'm answering it.

[RowdyYates]

Thanks for the MHO

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Well that WAS an argument against freeing slaves. For slave owner it WAS a bad financial decision, so in that case being financially "responsible" would have been racist, yes.

In this case I don't know, could be could not be. 🤷‍♀️

[Ladsin2]

It would be/ was bad for an agrarian economy. I've never heard someone describe that as Fiscal Responsibility lol

[GOLDFISH_smile]

U could tho. Just saying the comparison isn't necessarily a bad one, tho obviously (& thankfully) it's not exactly the same situation.

[Ladsin2]

It's a pretty bad one.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Why is it a bad comparison? It's both supposedly using a financial/economic excuse for doing something racist.

[Ladsin2]

Because fiscal responsibility isn't racist. Believing one race is superior or inferior to another race is racist. Kind of the basic definition for it. Financial responsibility has nothing to do with race.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

"The economy isn't racist. Believing one race is superior or inferior to another race is racist. Kind of the basic definition for it. The economy has nothing to do with race."

U see how the comparison can be made. Using something non-racist as a tool to do something that is racist. Not hard to understand.

[Ladsin2]

The economy isn't racist either... I have a screwdriver. It's a tool. Can it be racist? If a racist holds it, is the screwdriver racist? What if the racist uses the screwdriver to stab a person of a different ethnic group? Would that then make the non-racist screwdriver a racist?
I'm not sure I understand your contention.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

I'll try to help u understand with a few questions.

1. Do you think white people who argue that they should be allowed to keep black people as slaves are racist?

[Ladsin2]

More or less. The word slave comes from the Slavic people which are white. I don't think white people are racist against whites. Many people who owned African slaves did believe them to be inferior mentally or morally though. So pretty much yes, I'll grant that for the sake of argument.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Sorry, that is not an answer to the question I asked. Please try one more time, not "more or less" or "for the sake of argument" or any bs like that. I'm not asking about slave owners or Slavic people or whites against whites. I was very specific. I'll try to be even more specific and break the question down even smaller pieces to avoid another misunderstanding...

1.0. Are black people being treated as inferior to white people if white people (specifically) are allowed to own black people (specifically) as slaves?

[Ladsin2]

Yeah.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Okay. This one then just 1 more after that and I think I can explain my opinion better.

1.1. Is it racist to voluntarily and intentionally support racist practices?

[Ladsin2]

"Racist" in effect or intent?

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Okay, both.
1.1.0. Is it racist in effect?
1.1.1. Is it racist in intent?

[Ladsin2]

1.1.0. Potentially. The NBA is racist in effect, but not in intent.
1.1.1. Sure. It's racist to support a policy which is intentionally racist.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Okay, that was my bad I wasn't specific enough. I'll rewrite them once more.

1.1.0.0. Is it racist (in effect) to voluntarily and intentionally support racist (in effect) practices?
1.1.0.1. Is it racist (in effect) to voluntarily and intentionally support racist (in intent) practices?

1.1.1.0. Is it racist (in intent) to voluntarily and intentionally support racist (in effect) practices?
1.1.1.1. Is it racist (in intent) to voluntarily and intentionally support racist (in intent) practices?

[Ladsin2]

1.1.0.0. Don't think so. Racism requires intent.
1.1.0.1. Ditto

1.1.1.0. No, one can support the NBA which is racist in effect, but not have racist intent.
1.1.1.1. Yes. Racist intent + racist policy is racist. Makes sense to me.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Okay. Last one.

2. Does having two different intentions (for example: racism and the economy) make either one of the intentions no longer true?

[Ladsin2]

If I hate jews and therefor want to take their possessions, but I also favor a redistributive tax system for all wealthy persons does the one negate the other? I don't think so.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Okay. Thank you. Now I can explain what I meant.

Some people back in the day said "you can't free black people it will be too expensive." While it was true it was expensive to free black people, that doesn't make not freeing them any less racist.

Some people now say "you can't pay teachers a fair wage it is too expensive." While it is true that paying teachers fair wage is expensive, that doesn't make not paying them fairly any less racist.

So IF underpaying those teachers is racist, then it is STILL racist even if it is also a good financial decision. The fact that it is the financially responsible decision does NOT mean that it is not also a racist decision. Those are 2 separate intents that can't rule each other out.

[Ladsin2]

1) Many people wanted to free the slaves, but were racist themselves. Does this make the anti-slavery movement racist? There's a reason blacks went north for freedom but came back south oftentimes working the very same plantations they originally left.

2) Teachers are paid more than a fair wage in Chicago. They're some of the best paid teachers in the country. So much so that they're bankrupting the county. This goes back to 1.1.0.0, 1.1.0.1, and 1.1.1.0. I like that you brought up the teachers though. Because the entire argument is that not spending this money was racist against children, when in fact this money was just going to a bloated government organization. Racism is just the cover to force cowards to shut their mouths.

[GOLDFISH_smile]

Okay see that was NOT a question. & you've lost the subject again... I'll try again tomorrow to explain again but more specific this time. I'd do it right now but it would be a lot of writing make everything very clear for u & I'm tired. So for now just have a good night & re-read my explanation if u want to try understand it better or just wait & I'll make it better tomorrow. 🤷‍♀️💙

[Ladsin2]

I feel that we've spent enough time on this one, so I'm probably done. It was an interesting conversation though. Thanks for it!

[noohair]

Race is a 17th century pseudo-scientific theory to define humans by physical appearance. It is a defunct concept yet a widely followed construct. It is a convenient way to divide people into tribes that are easier to control by the political overseer class. There is one race, Homo Sapiens.

[Ladsin2]

So is financial responsibility a 17th century pseudo-scientific theory?

[noohair]

Financial Responsiblilty is an ancient moral theory. The mayor of Chicago is a jackass.

[Ladsin2]

Lol thanks

[noohair]

A moron too... lol... lol... No wonder Europeans think we are dullards. Who votes for these clowns in Chicago? ps, I don't care what Europeans think about American politics.

[jshm2]

Nah, seems he's pulling a trick from Trumps book of financial fuckups.

He has around a 10 billion dollar annual budget. But can't find a few extra thousand to give a pay rise that he hasn't budgeted for? Seems like he's sampling a bit too much crack, or losing his marbles.

[RowdyYates]

Like Biden?

[MisterWack]

Actually, he didn’t respond with “racist!”…. What he ended up doing was worse. The entire school board resigned in protest so, he replaced that school board with members that would be ‘yes men’ doing what he commands. He has been compared to a dictator and in response still holds up his decisions.
He wasn’t crying “racist!” “racist!” and if you looked into the facts it was way worse than that.

[Ladsin2]

I did. I dumbed it down for GaG because most folks aren't going to look into the story and most folks won't read if the question is too long. The question was pretty specific for a reason.

[MisterWack]

@ladsin2 No, that is not dumbing it down.
If I saw a movie then declared “woke”(on the right) or “conservative garbage”(on the left) instead of analyzing on a deeper level then obviously he contributed nothing in the conversation and will get skewed results. I’m a Progressive Individual and I’m not going to hide I lean towards the left though I know to dive deeper & strive for more knowledge / information because the facts don’t care about my feelings. That is a simple fact, that guy put yes men & misused the will of the board of education. You can have good intentions though the devil is in the details after all.

[Ladsin2]

Did he or did he not say exactly what I quoted?

[RedInnocent69]

Not inherently. But depends how the argument is being used.

[Anonymous]

No but unsurprising for the intellectually challenged democrats

[texascollegegirl]

This is a dishonest story.

[Ladsin2]

How so?