I know you did; I reade that you added that little nugget at the end, because you knew I would call you out on it. Now that we've established your jumping through hoops while I'm here...
No person here stated Social Services Enfranchised...let's stick to Actual exchanges here, not manufactured nonsense.
No, you were primarily referring to Blacks in your post.
Jim Crow exists in modern times, against Whites? LOL, please, I want to read this, explain...
Social Service Dependency is nonsense. The MAJORITY of people who utilize those Services only do so because that is all they have access to. Social Services doesn't even cover basic necessities for families that utilize the services...part of the reason people who are in that place, can't get out.
I'm not judging you, just reading your comments.
Now that we've established that you're just a dishonest individual... This will be my last response to you, unless you're willing to engage this post honestly.
You did, in fact, conflate the existence of social security with the enfranchisement with blacks. I argued that dependency is worse for the poor, in the long run. You then said that this means I think it was better for blacks when there was segregation and disenfranchisement. Well, that's the whole point of talking about ALL poor people: isolating the effects of social security dependence from the only-temporally-related legal changes which are specific to blacks. (You see what I mean about prejudging me?) So the only way your remarks about disenfranchisement are not a non-sequitur is if the implementation of social security is inseparable from the enfranchisement of blacks etc.
It's clear that you have come to a preconceived notion of who I am and what I believe, so you read the things I say through glasses tinted by that fact. You are not capable of giving me the benefit of the doubt. You literally accuse me of saying things "because I know you will call me out", when in fact I had not even noticed you had returned to the forum until AFTER I wrote that post, including the aforementioned "nugget".
In fact, I carefully didn't limit it to blacks because I DON'T BELIEVE it applies "primarily" to blacks.
If I told you that I firmly believe to the core of my being that genetics do not dictate outcomes (and in fact that we grossly overestimate their influence on them), and that so-called "race" is therefore literally incapable of in any way influencing outcomes (as opposed to things which may happen to
correlate with race, like pre-existing poverty, or cultural norms), would you even believe me?
Or am I racist because I make comments about
cultures to which members of any race can, and do, belong? And race and culture are now somehow the same thing?
Also, by your "LOL" over "Jim Crow against whites", it's clear that you're yet AGAIN prejudging me and allowing that to color your interpretation of what I said. I'm not talking about "reverse racism" or any of that crap, which you clearly suspect I am.
It's quite simple. Many "Jim Crow" laws are still on the books. These laws derive from an era where the law was considered a "tool", to be used or not at the discretion of the law enforcer wielding it. Thus, they could be selectively wielded against blacks, or whatever other undesirable individuals might attract the ire of the law enforcer. Today, the law is viewed as a self-actuating phenomenon, deserving equal application to all its offenders. So now, perhaps somewhat ironically, laws which were inarguably passed as Jim Crow laws are enforced against whites (usually poor ones) as well as the originally intended targets.
A great many of the gun laws discussed extensively on this forum are of this exact provenance.