Current Events > City of Oakland to give families under $59k/yr $500/mo, no white people allowed

(+) Yeah! (+)

MrKapowski posted...

Let's play the word swap game

City of Oakland to give families under $59k/yr $500/mo, no black people allowed

City of Oakland to give families under $59k/yr $500/mo, no Asian people allowed

City of Oakland to give families under $59k/yr $500/mo, no Hispanic people allowed

City of Oakland to give families under $59k/yr $500/mo, no Native American people allowed

City of Oakland to give families under $59k/yr $500/mo, no Pacific Islander people allowed

Weird that people don't think this is racist af

Seriously.

s0nicfan posted...

Then you're racist. Full stop.

Racism is based on oppression. You're not oppressing white people by uplifting black people

But nice alt-right tactic "Ur dah REEL RACIST"!

---

ZMythos posted...

Racism is based on oppression. You're not oppressing white people by uplifting black people

But nice alt-right tactic "Ur dah REEL RACIST"!

Well I for one am a democrat and don't think it's fair of this program to turn someone away for skin color whatsoever if they meet the financial qualification, so there's that.


---

Phantom36 posted...

Well I for one am a democrat and don't think it's fair of this program to turn someone away for skin color whatsoever if they meet the financial qualification, so there's that.

Again, the idea here is equity, which is inherently "unfair".

This is a private fund. If you have to distribute that fund to a larger group, then each member of that group will get less. This inhibits the upward mobility of black people, which was the entire purpose of the fund in the first place.

You wouldn't say that a blind person receiving a donation for surgery is unfair because you, a seeing person, didn't get any money for eye surgery.

---

Not giving this to the White families who are under $60k is so stupid.

---

ZMythos posted...

The US gave millions of acres of land almost exclusively to white people around the turn of the 20th century.

$500/mo to black residents of one city is nothing.

Oh it was ok to do something wrong 120 years ago so its ok to do something wrong now

Nah, this isn't the way to do it Jack.

---

ZMythos posted...

Racism is based on oppression.

It's funny the lengths people will go to to convince themselves they're not racist. You can't just change the definition of a word because you don't want that word to apply to you.

Racism is prejudice or discrimination against others based on their race. Actual oppression being exerted is not necessary.

ZMythos posted...

Racism is based on oppression. You're not oppressing white people by uplifting black people

But nice alt-right tactic "Ur dah REEL RACIST"!

If you think only alt-right people are gonna have a problem with this you're extremely out of touch

ZMythos posted...

Racism is based on oppression

racism
/rsizm/

noun

1. prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against a person or people on the basis of their membership in a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized.

I've seen your argument so many times on social media and it always makes me laugh when their bullshit gets thrown right back in their face lol

---

ZMythos posted...

Racism is based on oppression. You're not oppressing white people by uplifting black people

But nice alt-right tactic "Ur dah REEL RACIST"!

No, you actively advocate for treating people differently based on the color of their skin. You're an old fashioned open and proud racist.

---

Cerealmilk posted...

Oh it was ok to do something wrong 120 years ago so its ok to do something wrong now

Way to exercise a complete lack of contextual understanding.

---

The pearl clutching certain users are displaying in this topic is something.

---

Quoting the dictionary is the lowest form of argument about racism because

1. The meanings of words are not set in stone, and the definition of racism has evolved to fit the context of oppression, especially in the past decades
2. The literal second definition is based on systemic oppression, and to pretend it's not there is ignorant

---

s0nicfan posted...

No, you actively advocate for treating people differently based on the color of their skin. You're an old fashioned open and proud racist.

Whoa there hold on buddy, in case you forgot he changed the meaning of a word so that means he's not racist

---

YellowSUV posted...

As for it being unconstitutional, it probably depends how much the city is involved. It is a private fund, but what exactly is the city's role in it beyond the Mayor announcing it?

If a bunch of salaried city employees are spending taxpayer funded time managing this pot of money that has a "no whiteys allowed" stipulation on that then how is it any different then the city funding the program?

Actually imagine a poor white person applying to this and getting it and then a city employee comes out and says "you shouldn't have gotten this money, you need to return it or we are going to arrest you for fraud or use city funds to sue you to get the money back. You should have known this cash wasn't for a white person like you. Ignorance of the law isn't an excuse. But we totally aren't being racist because this money came from a private source".

ZMythos posted...

1. The meanings of words are not set in stone, and the definition of racism has evolved to fit the context of oppression, especially in the past decades

Its ok to discriminate someone based on their skin color as long as said person isnt oppressed?

---

ZMythos posted...

Quoting the dictionary is the lowest form of argument about racism because

1. The meanings of words are not set in stone, and the definition of racism has evolved to fit the context of oppression, especially in the past decades
2. The literal second definition is based on systemic oppression, and to pretend it's not there is ignorant

"The first dictionary definition doesn't matter, but let me reference the second definition in my argument"

---

Payzmaykr posted...

Uhhh wow. When are we going to stop perpetuating this myth that all white people have a good job and generational wealth? Its a fairy tale that hasnt been true for a VERY long time.

It's not all white people but a lot more than minorities which is still a significant problem.

ZMythos posted...

Quoting the dictionary is the lowest form of argument about racism because

1. The meanings of words are not set in stone, and the definition of racism has evolved to fit the context of oppression, especially in the past decades
2. The literal second definition is based on systemic oppression, and to pretend it's not there is ignorant

It's "evolved" so people can be racist without allowing themselves to be called racist. It's the lowest form of gaslighting there is.

People are saying its a no white people policy but I looked it up and its actually a BIPOC only policy.

Basically that means if you are white, East Asian, South Asian, Hispanic, and anything else that doesnt qualify as BIPOC then you are excluded.

Im not saying that makes it any better but at least its not excluding only a single race.

---

Good

---

Alteres posted...

This really doesnt sound like a good idea, it should be for all people in that income bracket.

---

TrevorLawrence posted...

People are saying its a no white people policy but I looked it up and its actually a BIPOC only policy.

Basically that means if you are white, East Asian, South Asian, Hispanic, and anything else that doesnt qualify as BIPOC then you are excluded.

Im not saying that makes it any better but at least its not excluding only a single race.

It should be based entirely on income level and absolutely nothing else, that's it period. Screw that "well everyone has an opinion" mentality and bs, in this case I am absolutely right and anyone who disagrees with what I just said is categorically wrong.

---

ZMythos posted...

Quoting the dictionary is the lowest form of argument about racism because

1. The meanings of words are not set in stone, and the definition of racism has evolved to fit the context of oppression, especially in the past decades
2. The literal second definition is based on systemic oppression, and to pretend it's not there is ignorant

Actually step back and think about how this' evolution' looks to most of us. The only practical change from the old definition to the new definition is that someone can do horrible shit to white people because of their race, they could even be screaming "I am doing this to you because you are white!" and now that isn't racism because views on racism have evolved.

I would either have to be crazy or stupid to accept that new definition over the old one.

Phantom36 posted...

It should be based entirely on income level and absolutely nothing else, that's it period.

If it's actually a private charity with actual private money, they can do whatever the hell they want, unless employees are involved, or the office isn't wheelchair accessible.

I fail to see how people who condemn shouting but all lives matter! can see this as bad. Its the exact same logic.

Somehow when it comes to money or hand outs they put up blinders?

I don't know why I'm going to continue to argue this but:

The purpose of this fund is to address differences in capital as a direct result of systemic racism. It doesn't even cover every black family that meets the criteria. It's 600 BIPOC families that are randomly selected.

So quit pretending like this is actively hurting people and accept that giving more economic freedom to black families is nothing short of an absolute good.

---

this is why trump won but unironically
---

ZMythos posted...

I don't know why I'm going to continue to argue this but:

The purpose of this fund is to address differences in capital as a direct result of systemic racism. It doesn't even cover every black family that meets the criteria. It's 600 BIPOC families that are randomly selected.

So quit pretending like this is actively hurting people and accept that giving more economic freedom to black families is nothing short of an absolute good.

So if a rich old man came out and said. "I am dedicating my fortune to uplifting the next generation of white men in America! No poor white man should have to give up their dreams in America. So I'm setting up a fund for poor white men to raise them up to reach their fullest potential"

- your first thought would be "Look at that nice old man helping out these poor guys. Good on him!"

Questionmarktarius posted...

If it's actually a private charity with actual private money, they can do whatever the hell they want, unless employees are involved, or the office isn't wheelchair accessible.

I would agree, but no one thought a private bakery should have the right to decide who they want to bake a cake for. Either private entities are free to make their own decisions, or they are not. It's gotta be one or the other, and must be consistent.

---

You know, whenever African Americans ask for help or simply asked to not be murdered, people always say why dont you fix your own community first!...in a way this is that. You guys cant complain now!

---

Its privately owned so what they do with the money is their businesses as long as it's not tax payer. But I'm really curious why they had publically announce this.

---

Phantom36 posted...

I would agree, but no one thought a private bakery should have the right to decide who they want to bake a cake for. Either private entities are free to make their own decisions, or they are not. It's gotta be one or the other, and must be consistent.

No it doesn't and your inability to exercise nuance is not an argument.

Atralis posted...

So if a rich old man came out and said. "I am dedicating my fortune to uplifting the next generation of white men in America! No poor white man should have to give up their dreams in America. So I'm setting up a fund for poor white men to raise them up to reach their fullest potential"

- your first thought would be "Look at that nice old man helping out these poor guys. Good on him!"

This is a strawman argument, and like the poster above, lacks any kind of context or nuance.


---

Racially driven communism.

I'm sure this will end well....

---

ZMythos posted...

No it doesn't

Yes it does. Your stance is then basically "private entities are free to act as they wish as long as I agree with their decisions. Otherwise they must be forced to act differently." And that's bullshit.

---

Atralis posted...

So if a rich old man came out and said. "I am dedicating my fortune to uplifting the next generation of white men in America! No poor white man should have to give up their dreams in America. So I'm setting up a fund for poor white men to raise them up to reach their fullest potential"

- your first thought would be "Look at that nice old man helping out these poor guys. Good on him!"

That's basically 14 words.
---

Phantom36 posted...

Yes it does. Your stance is then basically "private entities are free to act as they wish as long as I agree with their decisions. Otherwise they must be forced to act differently." And that's bullshit.

No that's not my stance at all and you're continuing to fail to understand it.

---

Joeydollaz posted...

This needs to be done NATIONWIDE

many people are dying of hunger every day

---

Joeydollaz posted...

This needs to be done NATIONWIDE

Nothing's really preventing that.

Cwhys is there such tension between races!?!?"

---

WashYourHands posted...

Its ok to discriminate someone based on their skin color as long as said person isnt oppressed?

Antiracism says "discrimination that leads to inequity is racist, discrimination that leads to equity is antiracist". Expext more of it.

---

You guys do realize that we're never gonna get to equity by treating everyone equally right? That's fundamentally impossible. People were treated differently based on race for hundreds of years, they're not gonna be able to catch up without being BETTER than others when they are only EQUAL and have been severely disadvantaged. MLK Jr. himself recognized this.

"Even before the March on Washington, he had applauded the Indian government's efforts to help the caste once called untouchables through "special treatment to enable the victims of discrimination" including the provision of Especial employment opportunities." Moreover, in his 1964 book, "Why We Cant Wait," King compared the social reforms he favored to the GI Bill of Rights, which gave World War II veterans special preferences including home loans, college scholarships and special advantages in competition for civil service jobs. King maintained that African-Americans could never be adequately compensated for the "exploitation and humiliation" they had suffered in the past, but he proposed a "Negro Bill of Rights" as a partial remedy for these wrongs. He insisted that African-Americans should be compensated through "a massive program by the government of special, compensatory measures which could be regarded as a settlement in accordance with the accepted practice of common law." He added that "such measures would certainly be less expensive than any computation based on two centuries of unpaid wages and accumulated interest."

---

The defining question is whether the discrimination is creating equity or inequity. If discrimination is creating equity, then it is antiracist. If discrimination is creating inequity, then it is racist.
Ibram X. Kendi, How to Be an Antiracist

this is bullshit.

AND I'M LIVE/FROM OAKLAND

---

I left California for Arizona this month. I am home.
---

This is exactly the type of thing that has to happen to make up for the trillions in wealth stolen from black individuals and families. It is correct that even bringing it up drives a lot of people insane because they were taught to seriously believe that all that was needed for equality and for everything to be peachy keen was colorblindness. That's a pipe dream.

---

VipaGTS posted...

You know, whenever African Americans ask for help or simply asked to not be murdered, people always say why dont you fix your own community first!...in a way this is that. You guys cant complain now!

Pretty much. Not entirely dissimilar from the circular reasoning that goes on concerning black representation in the film industry: 'We're tired of you putting token black characters in our movies and replacing traditional white characters! Why can't you go make your own characters and movies?' 'Okay then, we'll go make movies exclusively for black actors.' 'NO THAT'S RACISM!'

---

iPhone_7 posted...

We cant have equality without equity, so your tax dollars should go directly to those who deserve it more.

Watch the Trump supporters take issue with this absolutely fair & much needed legislation.

How is such blatant racist exclusion fair?

If they said they were giving the money only to poor white families, it would be making the news as the most racist thing ever.

Now if all families making below the threshold received the money and it just so happened that most were black, then that is not racist. It is a huge difference from from what they are doing.

Also, it is pretty sad that $59k a year is poverty level in California when that is almost double what the average salary is in the US.