Seattle Mayor Adds Diet Drinks to His Soda Tax ‘To Tackle White Privilege’

a reply to: ketsuko

It's not a myth. It exists. But how obvious it is depends on different factors too. It's really nothing more than a side effect of both culture and a dominate racial bias of whoever is in power.

Go to any country which is majority of a race that you're not and the same will happen there too. Because you're different there will be a certain degree of privilege for the dominate race of which you don't belong.

It's subtle sometimes, sometimes not, but by being white in the US you are usually just not f*cked with as much. Just being able to recognize it exists and admit it doesn't mean you have to feel guilty about it though. I don't. It just is what it is and it's not nearly as bad as it was in the past. As each generation continues it smooths out more and more.

a reply to: IgnoranceIsntBlisss

No, it is not possible to discriminate or be racist toward white people.


Get with the times!

Gas whitey!

a reply to: schuyler

You poor, poor bastards.
q13fox.com...
This is what you get to choose from for mayor of the 4th largest west coast city in the nation. This list is garbage all the way around.

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
a reply to: schuyler

You poor, poor bastards.
q13fox.com...
This is what you get to choose from for mayor of the 4th largest west coast city in the nation. This list is garbage all the way around.

Granted, though the list is now down by one. Fortunately, I don't live within the Seattle city limits. Unfortunately, my city is almost as nuts.

The headline and OP is a spin.

A more accurate analysis would be that he concocted a tax scheme to do something about school performance between black and non black students ("white" in this case is also hispanic).

When he found out his tax scheme would tax black people more heavily, instead of scrapping the whole thing he instead tried to force the playing field to be level.

In the process he lost the inappropriate reason he had in the first place: that sodas are bad for health, and he has the authority to determine what is and is not healthy (despite the FDA approving these drinks for consumption).

Is he an idiot? Yes. But its not so much that he is out to get white people as he is out to tax white people to support his programs for black people. Meanwhile, he has no clue why the performance gap is there to begin, so is just stabbing randomly in the dark trying to win votes.

My wife would refer to him as a "kicking wing". He flaps his wings, kicks up dust, and gets nothing done other than appearing busy. Lots of effort to achieve nothing.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Sounds a #ing nightmare in the US, the black white thing is not mirrored in my experience in the UK.
Crim's/gangs here are mainly colour blind and doing business for profit.

Race is a HUGE issue here, in recent years, say, the last eight or so. Things were better, for a good while, but that changed during the last administration, due to his actually supporting and encouraging racial divisions. Gangs here, from what I know of them, are as much about color/race/origin as anything else. Human nature, to some degree, perhaps, and perhaps some cultural.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh for goodness sakes. KC is just far more open about it. They put initiative on the ballot to tax all of us to pay for the inner city for whatever programs they wanted. It passed.

Why can't Seattle just be honest about it?

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

Not just ebonics, but also the reality that black culture as a whole doesn't value reading like white culture tends to. They've done studies that show that from poor to even very wealthy black families, there will be less reading material around the house and parents are less inclined to read to their children by contrast with white where from very poor to very wealthy, there are almost always at least *some* books in the house and parents place far more value on literacy activities like reading to their children.

It has an impact, that difference in cultural value.

I didn't know that, but it would make a difference!! I can't imagine being friends with people who didn't read. Books in the house are a good sign!! My parents taught us the basics before we ever hit school, and we always had books around to read, and have read to us, growing up. I have more books now than I have shelves, and that's after losing some! Can't have too many books! We have more than one encyclopedia set, too, one much older, for research, because, as I tell the kids, the internet can be shut down. Power can be lost. We are also collecting other reference books, how-to sorts, and edible plant things, and the like. Knowledge is power, and knowledge means BOOKS. Plus, the internet can change!

How can a tax on soda be expected to help people read, if they don't want to read? Plus, does making education available for all also demand that all will learn? What about those with no wish to learn? In a free society, should we not allow that, too? Of course, someone who doesn't learn won't be able to get a good job, and would be limited to manual labor, but what if they choose that? I don't see how taxing "rich white people" is going to make "poor people of color" want to learn more, or read more. Are there no teachers and books in their schools now? This is penalizing one group for the choice of another.

a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It's not that they don't read so much as it is that culturally, there is less emphasis on it so you will find less books and magazines.

I remember that study because the ones who came to that realization concluded that the way to ensure equality was to make sure that white families stopped reading to their children and that early childhood education start much sooner so that access to literature of all children of all races could be precisely controlled and equalized by the state.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: LadyGreenEyes

It's not that they don't read so much as it is that culturally, there is less emphasis on it so you will find less books and magazines.

I don't understand the difference between the first clause of your sentence and the second. Less emphasis = less reading = fewer books. Whatever the reason, they don't read as much. Now, why is that?

1. They can't because they never really learned
2. The books they have to read are not relevant to them.

My first library job was at Yesler Branch of the Seattle Public Library, now called "Douglass-Truth" for obvious cultural reasons. What we did was fill the library with Black Fiction: Iceberg Slim instead of Little Black Sambo. Langston Hughes instead of Mark Twain. Mary Angelou instead of Jane Austen. And you know what? Those books flew off the shelves. It's not about not wanting to read; it's about having something TO read that interests you.

I remember that study because the ones who came to that realization concluded that the way to ensure equality was to make sure that white families stopped reading to their children and that early childhood education start much sooner so that access to literature of all children of all races could be precisely controlled and equalized by the state.

I believe that goal is about to be achieved.

Uhhh, yeah, this is the same Ed Murray who just got outed as a pedophile. Who, apparently, had a fetish for preying on young black boys.

I think he's gonna be having bigger things to worry about in the coming days than diet soda. The sooner he goes, the better.

a reply to: schuyler

Partially, thing is that if a culture holds reading as important, it will prize literacy. There should be plenty of materials a family can access that will provide opportunities to read if they look.

Most of modern pro-sports is dominated by African-American athletes. There are African-American authors if you bother to do the research beyond just the name.

Tax on being white. Sounds reasonable.

This sort of thing is exactly what states "rights" brings; more pilot programs and testing that is typically deemed federally illegal. Of course the same way that tobacco was taxed but yet in no way the leading cause of cancer an interesting aside; the rates of which are actually up since the controls on it. Soda is yet another personal choice of freedom as a "sin" tax meaning your body is not your right that it belongs to the state in which you were born or move to and dwell in; so instead of saying hey we own you, it is easier to slap a tax on it like they used to do with slaves and their tags in the Southern US of course wearing that tag is a social security number, drivers license number, birth certificate which basically became a bonded legal document to sell one's children into slavery in the state instead of freedom as a share holder in the corporation that is America.

Every dollar one holds is a bond of that debt that this country says you owe them, and the deceit err I mean deficit is so high? That one could likely never buy themselves out of the slave market into which their parents unwittingly sold them into before they had any say in the matter.

This is why we really have no say in our political voices. Career politicians are a plague as they are on the take of all of that business as shareholders this is why Mr. Obama that was considered to be worth less than 300k USD in financial assets now commands over twice that in giving one speech, since leaving presidential office.

So he got to sit in the seat as CEO of the US as America's first African American slave owner.

What a world huh? Power to the people then; and now.

originally posted by: Skadi_the_Evil_Elf
Uhhh, yeah, this is the same Ed Murray who just got outed as a pedophile. Who, apparently, had a fetish for preying on young black boys.

I think he's gonna be having bigger things to worry about in the coming days than diet soda. The sooner he goes, the better.

Yes, from worrying about "a tax on sodas", to worrying about going to jail for "attacks on boys"...

Not really funny, because there are victims involved in the latter case...but I hope (if guilty) he gets his just rewards.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh for goodness sakes. KC is just far more open about it. They put initiative on the ballot to tax all of us to pay for the inner city for whatever programs they wanted. It passed.

Why can't Seattle just be honest about it?

Coming from a small town, i find it reprehensible that we tax everyone to benefit a few.

That said, our local City Council has crapped all over the black community for years. Some things they've done have made me fighting mad, actually. One instance, the entire north side of town is "black community" and it has run down crappy parks. Some of the local people decided to fix up one derelict park and reopen its swimming pool. The city told them they could not operate a pool on their land, and filled it with sand one Sunday afternoon so they would stop working on it.

I was ready to whoop some ass over that one. It was just abrasive and purposefully rude. I love my hometown, but crap like that has made me happy to move from it.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: Bluntone22

I have zero white guilt though. Zero.

In fact when I do realize some form of white privilege happening, or any privilege that I'm in line with for that matter, I take full advantage of it if it's an option. Who wouldn't???

I am by no means feeling guilty about who I am and had no choice in being.

I'm not deluded enough to think that it doesn't happen though either. I know it does and don't deny it. But it is what it is.

That's why assuming I fit in some classification where you know me and what I feel about something is so stupid IMO. She doesn't want to debate it because she knows she might be proven incorrect and she would then have to rethink her nice safe solid belief which makes the world make sense for her and she doesn't have to question it.

Good job. I'm mixed race, look mostly white. But i for sure took (and take) advantage of any people what were dumb enough to offer me things just for my race like making it easier to get into college.

Why does anyone think more money in schools will make a difference? It's the people who go to the schools who are the problem, not the money. You could throw $500000000000000000000000000000000 a year into an inner city school and it wouldn't a bit of a difference. I think everyone knows this deep down inside but they just dont want to admit it.

Every inner city school today has more resources than a 1995 Harvard did. They have computers capable of instantaneous calculation and are easily programmable. Instant, free access to all knowledge from history from every civilization, instant free access to all literature from every language in history, instant Star Trek universal translators to translate it all, instant free access to every scientific or academic journal ever published in the world, instant free access to every scientific or academic journal not even published yet still in the draft stages, instant free communication with any billionaire or Nobel winning scientist or anyone in the world via e-mail on their web pages... Every single inner city school has all this. And they still fail.

Money couldn't buy a fraction of that in 1995 and now every school gets it for free. And it doesn't make a difference. Because it's not the money, it's not the teachers. It's the kids. The kids were raised in bad families and so now they're bad kids. More money won't fix that.

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh for goodness sakes. KC is just far more open about it. They put initiative on the ballot to tax all of us to pay for the inner city for whatever programs they wanted. It passed.

Why can't Seattle just be honest about it?

Coming from a small town, i find it reprehensible that we tax everyone to benefit a few.

That said, our local City Council has crapped all over the black community for years. Some things they've done have made me fighting mad, actually. One instance, the entire north side of town is "black community" and it has run down crappy parks. Some of the local people decided to fix up one derelict park and reopen its swimming pool. The city told them they could not operate a pool on their land, and filled it with sand one Sunday afternoon so they would stop working on it.

I was ready to whoop some ass over that one. It was just abrasive and purposefully rude. I love my hometown, but crap like that has made me happy to move from it.

If the city actually put money into the parks though, how long until the entire park gets vandalized, metal stolen for scrap metal for drug money, and graffitid to hell? ~ a day, right? How much extra $$ and general headache will the city have to put into policing them and cleaning up urine/ feces/ trash/IV needles/ broken 40 oz glass from drug addicts and low-lives? How long until ambulance chasers go after the county for that pool on their land? This is why people with a degenerate culture and broken family units can't have nice things.

originally posted by: RedDragon

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Oh for goodness sakes. KC is just far more open about it. They put initiative on the ballot to tax all of us to pay for the inner city for whatever programs they wanted. It passed.

Why can't Seattle just be honest about it?

Coming from a small town, i find it reprehensible that we tax everyone to benefit a few.

That said, our local City Council has crapped all over the black community for years. Some things they've done have made me fighting mad, actually. One instance, the entire north side of town is "black community" and it has run down crappy parks. Some of the local people decided to fix up one derelict park and reopen its swimming pool. The city told them they could not operate a pool on their land, and filled it with sand one Sunday afternoon so they would stop working on it.

I was ready to whoop some ass over that one. It was just abrasive and purposefully rude. I love my hometown, but crap like that has made me happy to move from it.

If the city actually put money into the parks though, how long until the entire park gets vandalized, metal stolen for scrap metal for drug money, and graffitid to hell? ~ a day, right? How much extra $$ and general headache will the city have to put into policing them and cleaning up urine/ feces/ trash/IV needles/ broken 40 oz glass from drug addicts and low-lives? How long until ambulance chasers go after the county for that pool on their land? This is why people with a degenerate culture and broken family units can't have nice things.

Given that a swimming pool was involved, the city was likely most worried about some kid drowning in the pool...and then getting sued for a gazillion dollars, because there was an unsupervised pool being operated on city property.

originally posted by: mOjOm
a reply to: ketsuko

It's not a myth. It exists. But how obvious it is depends on different factors too. It's really nothing more than a side effect of both culture and a dominate racial bias of whoever is in power.

Go to any country which is majority of a race that you're not and the same will happen there too. Because you're different there will be a certain degree of privilege for the dominate race of which you don't belong.

It's subtle sometimes, sometimes not, but by being white in the US you are usually just not f*cked with as much. Just being able to recognize it exists and admit it doesn't mean you have to feel guilty about it though. I don't. It just is what it is and it's not nearly as bad as it was in the past. As each generation continues it smooths out more and more.

White privilege isn't something that white people get unfairly. Several other races such as Asians get it too. Black people would have it as well except for they disqualify themselves from it.

Black men are 5% of the population and commit over 50% of all murders. If NYC were 100% white, shootings would go down by 97%. If Chicago were 100% white, murders would go down by 97.5%.

If a NYC cop pulls over a white female and a black male, the black male is over 300 times more likely to shoot the officer than the white female.

How can you expect a cop to treat black people the same under those circumstances? It would make for ineffective policing and it would be dangerous for the officer. You're asking him to pretend these things don't exist and pretend to be mentally handicapped and put himself in danger.

If black people get those murder stats down to everyone else's, they'll find that they suddenly have "white privelege" as well.