NPR: "Some white Oregon homeowners are selling at a loss to Black and Indigenous buyers"

Feel free to go back and read the now-deleted post that my rhetorical question was in response to. Is that “educational debate”, and if so why was it deleted?

It’s not anomalous post in the culture cultivated here.

Please. Obama is half Kenyan. Liberals I know don't view Africans as fully black so he doesn't count.

As to your question, it's the luck of the draw. People will also have different IQs, heights, etc but we don't think that we should live in a Harrison Bergeron society.

Doesn't help the neighbors property values.

American Indians have to get theirs first. Then the Irish --- we fought in all the wars to make America great. Slaves didn't have it so bad --two hots and a cot --- not any worse than today's immigrants are getting.

The instances in which the disparities cut out one class of people and favored another are so many that it is hard to even begin.

Let's start with one, It is a god-damn fact that blacks were not allowed to buy homes in certain neighborhoods - the better neighborhoods. And those were the neighborhoods where house prices were appreciating and people and families were growing rich in the process. But blacks were cut out of that opportunity. And it was pernicious, widespread, and very detrimental in the building of wealth, both on a personal level and a family level, and intergenerational as well.

Again, this is but one example.

It is not so much that there is anything wrong with inheriting wealth, but what is wrong is who were cut-out of that process. That is wrong. And finally our eyes are being opened to this inequity.

That's racist!!! Do they think BIPOC communities can't afford them without white privileged charity??? Bunch of prejudiced simpletons! 🙄

At this point we'll take communism or at least a form of socialism.

Y'all killing us, our kids and our dreams; when all you gotta do is share some of the wealth.

I am a white middle-aged male. It doesn't bother me that they are practically giving their houses way out of guilt, nor do I fell any guilt at all for who I am.

I'm not on either side because both sides of the aisle are full of their own morons.

I started a company that is successful in the service / contractor industry. I know full well that my company would not have been this successful if I wasn't white because there still is a quiet racism against minorities in the US. People would never give me thousands of dollars in deposits if I was black. I think I would have to hire a white salesman.

On the other hand, I have seen many opportunities taken away from my own children who are not being hired because of their color. One of them finally got hired but the other has had the last two companies literally tell them that they wanted someone that looked "different" than they did. Probably illegal for them to hire that way but who would call them out on it? Surprisingly, neither one of them are bitter about the experience.

Humans share 99% of the same genetic makeup which is interesting because we are all very similar physically but also very similar mentally which would explain why the human race shares a wide range of idiocy.

From Gulag: A History by Anne Applebaum. I think any objective reading of this by an honest reader will unveil the parallels with the language and rhetoric exhibited by the modern deconstructionist political and philosophical movements we are faced with today in Western societies with that used in the Soviet Union. I am not imminently concerned with being rounded up, I just feel obligated to point out that the rhetoric espoused by the post modernists and SJWs, such as yourself, sure sounds a lot like something Lenin (murderer by the way) might have said and written himself.

----

Lenin's vision of labor camps as a special form of punishment for a particular sort of bourgeois "enemy" sat well with his other beliefs about crime and criminals. On the one hand, the first Soviet leader felt ambivalent about the jailing and punishment of traditional criminals-thieves, pickpockets, murderers-whom he perceived as potential allies. In his view, the basic cause of "social excess" (meaning crime) was "the exploitation of the masses." The removal of the cause, he believed, "will lead to the withering away of the excess." No special punishments were therefore necessary to deter criminals: in time, the Revolution itself would do away with them. Some of the language in the Bolsheviks' first criminal code would have thus warmed the hearts of the most radical, progressive criminal reformers in the West. Among other things, the code decreed that there was "no such thing as individual guilt," and that punishment "should not be seen as retribution."

On the other hand, Lenin-like the Bolshevik legal theorists who followed in his wake-also reckoned that the creation of the Soviet state would create a new kind of criminal: the "class enemy." A class enemy opposed the Revolution, and worked openly, or more often secretly, to destroy it. The class enemy was harder to identify than an ordinary criminal, and much harder to reform. Unlike an ordinary criminal, a class enemy could never be trusted to cooperate with the Soviet regime, and required harsher punishment than would an ordinary murderer or thief. Thus in May 1918, the first Bolshevik "decree on bribery" declared that: "If the person guilty of taking or offering bribes belongs to the propertied classes and is using the bribe to preserve or acquire privileges, linked to property rights, then he should be sentenced to the harshest and most unpleasant forced labor and all of his property should be confiscated."

From the very earliest days of the new Soviet state, in other words, people were to be sentenced not for what they had done, but for who they were.

Some letsrun posters are spreading articles from corrupt government propaganda mills…

You should study up on Oregon’s racist history, dopey.

So, what's the answer then? If people want to draw a line right here right now and say: we do not want people to sell their homes based on race i.e. give a lower price to someone specifically because of their race, not because of other factors like lack of money and so on.

As it is a private sale, the only answer to that is increased government intervention surely? Do you want that or do you want people themselves to choose as it is a private sale?

Hold your horses. Right now you can only identify as the opposite gender. You'll need to wait for the next meeting of rainbow haired lesbians to see if they'll allow you to identify as black. Dare to disobey, and you will be socially ostracized and forced to involuntarily identify as a nazi.

These studies are BS because (1) they don't control for FICO scores and (2) conforming loan approval is determined by GSA formulas, so there isn't any individual discretion where discrimination can hide. Borrowers who are actually identical on paper get identical loans. When these researchers have to defend against these criticisms, they just say that FICO scores are racist because minorities are more likely to have missed payments in the past, as though that's not a relevant criterion for determining loan eligibility and rate.

Now, if the argument is that the GSAs are not appropriately pricing risk and they assign too much weight to otherwise legitimate factors that disproportionately affect minorities, that's at least theoretically possible. The fact that conforming loans have almost entirely crowded out the private sector indicates that the GSAs are pricing risk too low, but because they're largely unconstrained by market forces, they might be pricing risk too low in a way that provides more of a subsidy to white buyers than black buyers. But these studies haven't done the work to show that, and it's not the story they purport to be telling. They are suggesting that there is overt discrimination at the level of origination, where otherwise identical buyers are being treated differently on the basis of race. That just isn't happening.

Although, it is worth noting that they are racist if they are not accepting higher offers from those who are white or white adjacent.

Kudos to them; they are putting their money where their mouths are. If people want reparations, there are certainly worse ways to do it than by having wealthy people voluntarily transfer wealth to those they view as oppressed.

Someone needs to stop these woke weirdos from doing nice things!

Why are they the the "real losers"

Just imagine if it's the reverse, that someone is only selling to white people at a discount.