Eric Reid Press Conference

[Mage]

9 minutes ago, bigdavis said:

Sir, I asked that the full article be read.  I can see you didn't.

Here's something else you didn't know, then: of the 20.1 million citizens excluded from the 1935 Social Security Act, at least 15 million were white.

15 out of 20 = 75%.  Some?

This Social Security racial connection is a postmodern historical revision, and one shouldn't buy into it, as you and Reid and many, many others have, as it fits their divisive narrative.  Please rethink it.

Before you post numbers, you need to understand context and do more research.  88% of the population in the United States in 1930 was white (~108mill) while only 9.7% was black (~11mill), of course there would be more white people excluded.  There were far more of them in that time period. 

https://www.genealogybranches.com/1930census.html

A better and more telling statistic would be the % of white people excluded from the act vs % of black people excluded from the act.  I'd guarantee it was a far higher % of the black population excluded than the white.  

[PanthersBigD]

9 minutes ago, bigdavis said:

Sir, I asked that the full article be read.  I can see you didn't.

Here's something else you didn't know, then: of the 20.1 million citizens excluded from the 1935 Social Security Act, at least 15 million were white.

15 out of 20 = 75%.  Some?

This Social Security racial connection is a postmodern historical revision, and one shouldn't buy into it, as you and Reid and many, many others have, as it fits their divisive narrative.  Please rethink it.

Go Panthers!  Go America!

That's not how statistics work. 

A quick internet search shows that in 1940, there were around 118,000,000 white people in the U.S. and only around 13,000,000 black people. So while around 13% of whites were excluded, 39% of blacks were excluded. That's three times as many blacks excluded as whites for those playing at home. Reflect on this and tell me what relevance it would have to a football player, who's still seeing similar inequities, 80 years later. 

[rodeo]

6 minutes ago, King_Returns said:

rodeo sweetie I specifically asked for the opinions of white leftists 

But you already let us all know how much you support this black man and what he has to say, so thank you for doing your duty as a white liberal and compulsively validating the opinions of a minority.

you're welcome and i'll continue to validate good opinions. you keep naming those breakfast cereals.

[cookinwithgas]

I love well spoken and articulate football players that are GOOD football players. This guy is one of those guys. I am also a bit stoked to have a great media figure on the team, not just Steve Smith who would punch you in the mouth. I hope he gets out with Cam some and see if they click

[Pup McBarky]

Just now, Mage said:

A better statistic would be the % of white people excluded from the act vs % of black people excluded from the act.  I'd guarantee it was a far higher % of the black population excluded than the white.  

27% white, 65% black.

[Silent Majority]

1 minute ago, bigdavis said:

Since you're into name calling, sir, which (or both) would you call me?

First, "hit dogs holler". You are ignorant to history, so you cherry picked a situation that was unfair to SOME white people. Beyond that, I have a few choice words for you, some of which are scholarly, non of them civil, therefore I am not trying to get banned. I reject your need to include me in  your attention whoring. 

[WarHeel]

4 minutes ago, Cat said:

I'm sure his whole life he has been treated like a millionaire lol

How do we know to what extent he’s been treated? And what makes his mistreatment held to a higher standard than anyone else?

[bigdavis]

1 minute ago, Mage said:

Before you post numbers, you need to understand context and do more research.  88% of the population in the United States in 1930 was white (~108mill) while only 9.7% was black (~11mill), of course there would be more white people excluded.  There were far more of them in that time period. 

https://www.genealogybranches.com/1930census.html

A better statistic would be the % of white people excluded from the act vs % of black people excluded from the act.  I'd guarantee it was a far higher % of the black population excluded than the white.  

Ah, the tried and true %s vs gross numbers argument.  Just what I posted about yesterday about the distortion of statistics.  The FACT remains that those claiming the SS Act was racist ignore the FACT that millions of white Americans were similarly excluded, and that it was an administrative impossibility to monitor withholding figures on farm and domestic workers.  Proportions of census figures are irrelevant.  Why don't we drop this discussion?  But thank you for your contribution, and more, for being civil about it.  We could do with more of that around here (tho I know we'll never get it.)

[PanthersBigD]

2 minutes ago, bigdavis said:

Ah, the tried and true %s vs gross numbers argument.  Just what I posted about yesterday about the distortion of statistics.  The FACT remains that those claiming the SS Act was racist ignore the FACT that millions of white Americans were similarly excluded, and that it was an administrative impossibility to monitor withholding figures on farm and domestic workers.  Proportions of census figures are irrelevant.  Why don't we drop this discussion?  But thank you for your contribution, and more, for being civil about it.  We could do with more of that around here (tho I know we'll never get it.)

@bigdavis uses statistics like a drunk uses a lamp post: for support, not for illumination. Face it, you've been outmatched. The only three people that refuse to see it are you, Bull123 and Warheel. Great company to be in... 

[PanthersBigD]

9 minutes ago, WarHeel said:

How do we know to what extent he’s been treated? And what makes his mistreatment held to a higher standard than anyone else?

Because he told us, just like millions of people of color have been telling us. You just don't like hearing it, so you continually try to move the goal post and change the discussion. 

[Pup McBarky]

7 minutes ago, bigdavis said:

The FACT remains that those claiming the SS Act was racist ignore the FACT that millions of white Americans were similarly excluded

Nobody ignores those facts. What you're ignoring is the entire Jim Crow era and the FACT that systemic racism was real then and it's real now...it's literally built into the DNA of America. Attempting to argue that it can't be real simply because poor whites were often seen as barely a step up from being black doesn't make it any less true. It just makes you a purveyor of red herrings. It's classic whataboutism yet again and frankly, it's really old and tired. 

[Mage]

14 minutes ago, bigdavis said:

Ah, the tried and true %s vs gross numbers argument.  Just what I posted about yesterday about the distortion of statistics.  The FACT remains that those claiming the SS Act was racist ignore the FACT that millions of white Americans were similarly excluded, and that it was an administrative impossibility to monitor withholding figures on farm and domestic workers.  Proportions of census figures are irrelevant.  Why don't we drop this discussion?  But thank you for your contribution, and more, for being civil about it.  We could do with more of that around here (tho I know we'll never get it.)

Proportion is absolutely relevant, though.  It was more detrimental to a larger portion of the black race than it was the white race.  That is 100% indisputable.  Now if you want to argue it wasn't deliberately done in a way that would affect minorities more than white people, that is fair.  I wasn't necessarily disputing that (there are more obvious examples of systematic oppression).  It isn't a cut-and-dry case.  I was merely pointing out that using bulk numbers is very misleading.  

This scholarly article does an outstanding job arguing both sides (whether it was racially coded vs not)

https://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v70n4/v70n4p49.html

I agree to drop it however (the above is worth a read though), and I appreciate you for being civil too.

[Moo Daeng]

If mods are going to waste time editing posts why not lock or move the thread that isnt going anywhere that already covered the subject?

[bigdavis]

4 minutes ago, Pup McBarky said:

Nobody ignores those facts. What you're ignoring is the entire Jim Crow era and the FACT that systemic racism was real then and it's real now...it's literally built into the DNA of America. Attempting to argue that it can't be real simply because poor whites were often seen as barely a step up from being black doesn't make it any less true. It just makes you a purveyor of red herrings. It's classic whataboutism yet again and frankly, it's really old and tired. 

I am squelched, sir.  Carry on.