Does systemic racism exist in the US?
I've started this thread for the sole reason of allowing those who want to claim it doesn't their say without derailing the separate topic on its causes, effects and what to do to solve the problem.
@Brett @NOS4A2 etc. Please feel free to demonstrate your thesis here.
(For clarity: The first twenty or so posts were originally in the other thread.)
@Brett @NOS4A2 etc. Please feel free to demonstrate your thesis here.
(For clarity: The first twenty or so posts were originally in the other thread.)
Comments (1005)
One can affirm each instance that goes to support the notion that there's systematic racism in the country, and yet deny the inference at the end of it all.
What would motivate such a denial?
It's not like George Floyd's case is unique in the most important way for a belief in systematic racism -- that he was killed when he should not have been killed because he was black. And it's not just the unjust and racialized treatment of the criminal justice system to supports the notion. It's a social fact -- so we don't need to look into the intents of individual officers or ideologies propogated, though those are bound to also be there. But we don't need to. We need only look at the social treatment of blacks vs. whites in the United States, and the inference is supported. At the very minimum we cannot just declare that there is absolutly no systematic racism, like it's a fairy tale to be dismissed and disgusted with.
Quoting Echarmion
I don’t agree with that leap from the systemic problem of cops becoming hardened and disconnected from those they are meant to serve to institutional racism. Institutional racism suggests a practised, conscious act by those who employ the cops. I don’t doubt there are people who dislike blacks for all sorts of reasons, but cops behaving badly does not equate to institutionalised racism to me. But what it does suggest is a lack of proper management. All across the world we saw overreach by cops in regard to social distancing and the Covid virus. It varied from state to state or city to city. The police seem to have forgotten how to talk to people, what their job is and just who it is they serve and protect. Maybe the force attracts a particular type, but even if that was the case that person should be managed better. I wouldn’t want the job of a cop. If you’ve worked out there on the street you’ll know what I mean. It takes a special kind of person to handle that day after day. So maybe, like teachers, we need to make this a special kind of job, led and managed by unique individuals. If poverty is behind the tension among black communities, something that is not going away over night, then it’s the police force that can change and respond to the situation sooner than economic change.
Quoting Moliere
The search for the core problem.
Here’s some sobering evidence that kind of throws doubt on the whole claim of “systemic racism” among the police shootings.
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877
That’s interesting research, but it doesn’t address the permanent, general harassment of blacks and black neighbourhoods by the police, which may be unquantifiable.
Edit: what I mean is the manner in which the two interact with each other on that level.
I'd say this is cherry picking. Maybe something interesting in there, but I can play that game too by traveling down your articles citations, which I did take a gander at, but figured it was better to just point out what it is we're doing.
To be fair that research is not just about fatal shooting numbers but about the race of officers involved in incidents and how that relates to issues of racism.
I just don’t know how an act can be considered racist if it is mostly perpetuated by a member of the same race. What is the evidence that an officer holds a racist outlook when he unjustly kills a man of another skin color? Maybe I haven’t quite fully grasped the concept of “systemic racism“.
No "maybe" about it. :shade:
Systemic racism obtains when a system(s) function (regardless of explicit rules) to favour certain racial groups over others. It doesn't require overt individual racists (though it may protect and even reward them) nor does it necessarily require any conscious acts of racism at all (and obversely you could have conscious acts of racism in a system where no systemic racism exists, only rather than being performative of the system, they would be antithetical to it). Systems are culturally contextual, they're embedded in cultures and how they function depends on their relationship to the culture they're in. So, often it's what the system allows rather than what the system demands that's important. E.g. if you've got a justice or policing system embedded in a culture that's only recently emerged from the acceptance of explicitly institutionalised racism, you need extremely strong safeguards to avoid the continuance of implicit racism in whatever ostensibly non-racist institutions are substituted. Not having those safeguards in place means the explicit racism of before doesn't just disappear but finds footholds in the new institutions and festers there looking for opportunities to express itself.
Systemic racism occurs in all areas of social life, policing, housing, education etc. And again, it's not primarily about explicitly racist acts or explicitly racist policies or legislation but how things work in practice to disadvantage communities of color. Here's an example relating to housing.
https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/race/reports/2019/08/07/472617/systemic-inequality-displacement-exclusion-segregation/
"For much of the 20th century households of color were systematically excluded from federal homeownership programs, and government officials largely stood by as predatory lenders stripped them of wealth and stability.
In the decades preceding the Fair Housing Act, government policies led many white Americans to believe that residents of color were a threat to local property values. For example, real estate professionals across the country who sought to maximize profits by leveraging this fear convinced white homeowners that Black families were moving in nearby and offered to buy their homes at a discount. These “blockbusters” would then sell the properties to Black families—who had limited access to FHA loans or GI Bill benefits—at marked-up prices and interest rates. Moreover, these homes were often purchased on contracts, rather than traditional mortgages, allowing real estate professionals to evict Black families if they missed even one payment and then repeat the process with other Black families.57 During this period, in Chicago alone, more than 8 in 10 Black homes were purchased on contract rather than a standard mortgage, resulting in cumulative losses of up to $4 billion. Blockbusting and contract buying were just two of several discriminatory wealth-stripping practices that lawmakers permitted in the U.S. housing system."
Most likely, as with you, objections to the existence of systemic racism turn on a misunderstanding of what it is. As if it's just the type of claim that police are racist or police departments have racist policies. That's really not it. It's usually far subtler than that and, for being so, all the more pernicious.
In any case, I don't want to go off on a tangent on this. In asking how systemic racism can be solved (particularly in policing), the OP presumes its existence. If you want to participate you'll need to do so on that presumption (or at least not derail the discussion by making it about something it's not, i.e. stay on topic, please).
Interesting how the mods dominate this discussion. Baden, you’re basically saying that one can’t disagree with the OP, that if you want to participate then you must agree with the OP. Very totalitarian. I think your true colours are showing. You’re probably one of the bigger instigators of tension on this forum these days. You want it one way only, no dissent. You’ll get your way in the end.
No, I'm saying stay on topic. You can start your own topic about the existence of systemic racism somewhere else. This conversation is about how to stop systemic racism (and about racism in general). It's specified in the OP.
Quoting Baden
The idea that it's totalitarian to ask posters to stick to the OP topic as defined doesn't hold up seeing as off-topic posts are regularly deleted in OPs.
Not debating this here, Brett. If you really feel strongly that systemic racism doesn't exist in the US and you can reasonably demonstrate that with evidence and data etc, you can attempt an OP on that subject. I expect you won't because I expect you know as well as I do that it does exist. Anyway, right now, we're off-topic.
You mean you would easily believe right wing propaganda.
Quoting Brett
This is just delusional.
OP based on an accepted premise happen all the time.
You're not making a new OP outlining your claim racism isn't systematic because there's no case to be made.
You are simply trying to derail this conversation because obvious truths threaten your identity and you believe power should be enough to determine what the truth is. So you want to flex your trollish power here to frustrate good faith analysis and virtue signal to your cause. Maybe my diagnosis of your fascist psychology is off topic, but I'm glad you don't have a problem with that.
Whether there exists 'systemic racism' is, as far as I am concerned, up for debate. I'm not convinced either way. There's a saying that goes "Whatever you feed will grow," and it seems to me that by telling everyone they're racist, and by labeling incidents as racist incidents prior to this being proven, one creates a climate of self-fulfilling prophecy.
Both the news and the social sciences have been treading extremely thin ice in this regard, and seem much more interested in forwarding political narratives than abiding by the rigorousness and neutrality that these fields demand.
"The Federal Housing Administration institutionalized the system of discriminatory lending in government-backed mortgages, reflecting local race-based criteria in their underwriting practices and reinforcing residential segregation in American cities. The discriminatory practices captured by the HOLC maps continued until 1968, when the Fair Housing Act banned racial discrimination in housing.
But 50 years after that law passed, the lingering effects of redlining are clear, with the pattern of economic and racial residential segregation still evident in many U.S. cities — from Montgomery, Ala., to Flint, Mich., to Denver. Nationally, nearly two-thirds of neighborhoods deemed “hazardous” are inhabited by mostly minority residents, typically black and Latino, researchers found. Cities with more such neighborhoods have significantly greater economic inequality. On the flip side, 91 percent of areas classified as “best” in the 1930s remain middle-to-upper-income today, and 85 percent of them are still predominantly white".
It's possibly the biggest injustice in modern American history that almost goes totally unremarked upon. Not that it's all down to redlining of course. But gosh was it terrible (in fact it still exists). Unsurprisingly, it's roots are economic.
"Social scientists often discuss these disparities as outcomes. However, inequality is probably better understood as a process - one sustained largely as a result of how systems and institutions are structured and reproduced, and the ways in which people act and interact within them across time. Systemic racism is not a product (outcome) of people holding the ‘wrong’ beliefs or feelings. It is a function of behavioral patterns - and (unjust) allocations of resources and opportunities - that systematically advantage some, and disadvantage others, within particular contexts. It persists because it is enacted moment to moment, situation to situation. It could be ended if those who currently perpetuate it committed themselves to playing a different role instead – not merely through their words or feelings, but with action" (source).
It's not a secret though is it? I heard about it in Patricia Williams Reith Lectures in 1997.
That's a long time ago and a long way away. You'd think Americans would be familiar... them all being shit-hot financiers an'all.
I don't know. I'm curious. I read about it for the first time in some obscure political economy book. Had to look it up after. Have barely heard about it since. Maybe they do things differently in the US. My impression is that alot of Americans think that black issues came to an end after reconstruction and it's been more or less hunky dory ever since. What say the Americans here?
Sam, I'm sorry to see you go, and it may be too late already. But it would surely be tragic to leave over a typo. Systemic is not systematic.
I wouldn't refer to your examples above as systemic racism, but instead as institutionalized racism, where the government officially condones discrimination by allowing such behavior to remain legal. It's without question that it's illegal to put your knee onto a petty criminal's neck who is otherwise offering no resistance until he dies. If such behavior were legal, then we'd have institutionalized racism analogous with the FHA and redlining issues brought up in the video.
We also don't need to search deeply to find other examples of historical institutionalized racism, many of which are far worse than unfair lending or redlining practices. Jim Crow laws no doubt played an important role in the American psyche for both blacks and whites. To call them "systemic" racism does a disservice to those oppressed, abused, and murdered. Not affording protections against blacks against such practices (and even explicitly legalizing such practices) denies human beings of their most basic human rights.
There is a critical distinction between that institutionalized racism and the fact that the races harbor distrust for one another. I don't group all of that behavior into one big category, as if my subconscious racism equates to the legal institutionalization of racist laws.
Moving more to the the video, it speaks of the great disparity in educational funding based upon race. By way of example, Washington DC spends $21,974 per pupil per year for public education. Utah spends $7,179. https://patch.com/district-columbia/georgetown/how-va-dc-education-spending-ranks-nationwide-census-bureau. The demographics of the DC school system are: 68 percent of students are African American, 18 percent are Latino, 10 percent are white, and four percent identified as other. https://www.dcpolicycenter.org/publications/landscape-of-diversity-in-dc-public-schools/
The Utah school system is 1% black (74% white) : https://www.schools.utah.gov/file/89d76231-2165-46e5-b842-4e925c04c700.
I could, if I had the inclination, to go county by county in my home state of Georgia and show you that teacher pay does not vary within any county, as the teachers in the affluent areas make the exact amount as those in the poorest areas. I could also show you that counties within the metro region, even those with large struggling urban populations, pay higher teacher salaries than those in the rural regions. In fact, that is where you see the greatest disparity in spending, which is when you go from urban to rural, with the rural schools simply not having the tax base to offer larger salaries. But of course everything is less affluent among the cows than the high rises, and that applies in the poor almost entirely white Appalachian mountain counties of Georgia and to the southern mostly black rural counties of Georgia.
You simply cannot paint this picture of African American struggles as being entirely or even mostly the result of racism, and certainly not the result of present day racism. It's not even a theory that many African American leaders still adhere to, which is to suggest that the greatest threat to the African American comes from the subtly or openly white racist. Should we take a young African American who now finds himself in prison, for example, we need to honestly ask ourselves, does he owe his plight to past FHA lending practices, the pre-civil rights Jim Crow laws, the amount paid his teachers in salary, or the glass ceiling his father found at work that limited his management opportunities.
I would suspect that if you examined the goings on in that child's home, you'd see drugs, violence, paternal absence, lack of appropriate adult role models, crime, no emphasis on education, and all sorts of other glaring ills that make your reference to subtle or present day racism appear as child's play. Attempting to link all of those ills to past racism is an attempt to absolve a whole lot of people close to that child of some seriously wrong behavior.
An article on this point, by an African American journalist (although that shouldn't be important): https://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/16/opinion/racism-is-not-the-issue.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism
"Institutional racism (also known as systemic racism)"
I just read on fivethirtyeight that, according to surveys, 48% of Americans believe that black people enjoy equal rights and no further changes are necessary. That's compared to 80% of police officers who hold that view.
Then I need a different term for what I've described, perhaps legalized racism.
Don't know why you don't just use the term that describes what's being talked about, which is systemic racism. No-one here is claiming some absolute determinative power for it (of course, multiple factors affect outcomes). In fact, the argument in this thread is simply whether it exists or not. So, we agree on that, I guess. But if there is something I said you don't agree with, just quote me. Because I can't figure out what it is or whether it's someone else you disagree with.
E.g. Are you talking to me here? I already made this distinction:
Quoting Baden
So, maybe the language is tricky (and actually I was aware of that when I was writing the above) but explicitly institutionalised racism is not what we're talking about now. It's implicit in the supposedly non-racist structures that remain (or some of them at least).
This was super interesting. Orlando Patterson was an incredible scholar of slavery and I've alot of time for him. I think he's right to insist that the problem is indeed, primarily economic. But I'm not convinced that one can so easily parse out economics and race. That something is primarily economic does not make it not about race - i.e. poverty is a racial problem. To steal @botheius's MLK quote form the other thread:
"In 1863 the Negro was granted freedom from physical slavery through the Emancipation Proclamation. But he was not given land to make that freedom meaningful. At the same time, our government was giving away millions of acres of land in the Midwest and the West, which meant that the nation was willing to undergird its white peasants from Europe with an economic floor, while refusing to do it for its black peasants from Africa who were held in slavery two hundred and forty four years. And this is why Frederick Douglass would say that emancipation for the Negro was freedom to hunger, freedom to the winds and rains of heaven, freedom without roofs to cover their heads".
Or this, from Kwame Ture (mostly recently made known again by Spike Lee's Blackkklansman) and Charles Hamilton:
"Racism is both overt and covert. It takes two closely related forms…we call these individual racism and institutional racism… The second type is… far more subtle, less identifiable in terms of specific individuals committing the acts. But it is no less destructive of human life. The second type originates in the operation of established and respected forces in society, and thus receives far less public condemnation than the first type… It is institutional racism that keeps black people locked in dilapidated slum tenements, subject to the daily prey of exploitative slumlords, merchants, loan sharks and discriminatory real estate agents. The society either pretends it does not know of this latter situation, or is in fact incapable of doing anything meaningful about it.”
These issues are not competing with each other. It does good to think through them together, of a piece with each other.
Can't get through the paywall on that one. Got a hack?
Ooh, got it hehe. On the Washington Post all I do is turn off javascript and it works.
Don't know why they made it so easy. Idiots. :lol:
Anyway, re the article. The author recognizes systemic racism exists here:
"Certainly, poor blacks are hurt by racial discrimination -- mostly in biased police behavior and draconian drug-sentencing laws that result in horrendous incarceration rates for young men. "
But then points to other factors she thinks are more important. That's fine. It's not an unreasonable position to debate.
E.g. I agree that it shouldn't be the case that "Any problem associated with blacks is simply assumed to be racist in origin."
So, again, @Hanover I don't know what the precise bone of contention is.
So it's tricky. I think it's necessary to acknowledge the implication of race and class. On the other hand I don't think it's fair to always have to foist the question of race onto people. I suppose there's simply no general model. Just gonna have to ask people what they think or prefer.
I'd say the school book story is that after MLK racism was solved, more or less.
D'oh, of course. God I was a hundred or so years off.
I beg to differ. :mask:
Thanks for writing that out.
Not a bother.
:point:
[quote=Malcolm X]
The white man is intelligent enough, if he were made to realize how black people really feel, and how fed up with all that compromising sweet talk -- stop sweet talking him, tell him how you feel, tell him how, what kind of hell you've been catching, and let him know that if he's not ready to clean his house up, if he's not ready to clean his house up, he shouldn't have a house. It should catch on fire, and burn down.
[/quote]
Turns out branding Martin Luther King an extremist and killing him, and then ignoring what he did have the time to say for over 50 years, was an act of pure lunacy ... if you cared about your children's future, which of course those in power do not; for their children are cozying up to a nice little fire in the alps right now, I think they're doing pretty good; I often wave to them on the slopes.
This:
Quoting Baden
That is, I agree that racism is not the primary problem facing the African American community, and to the extent that racism does play a role in the continued oppression of it, it is of the sort practiced by the government that offers the greatest damage (e.g. police brutality and disparate drug sentencing). The racism of me subconsciously favoring my tribe is a universal problem facing us all, and I don't think we need to spend our time fretting about how we may be imperfect creatures in that regard. I'm not saying I ought celebrate my preference for those of my likeness, but I don't think that that is creating enough of an impediment that we need to riot, kneel, or even protest.
While I recognize you've not argued all of what I've said (as some is responsive to Un's video), I do think we need to appreciate the profound difference between my propensity to hire a white person over a black and a black's propensity to hire a black over a white to be far different than a cop murdering a black man in the street and even the government permitting blacks be steered away from white neighborhoods.
That being said, I echo the article I cited in its recognition of the drug laws being a primary driver of the police brutality issue. By making drug crimes felonies and creating such severe penalties for its possession, we have effectively criminalized an entire community and made it commonplace for armed officers to raid black communities and drag out the young males and throw them in prison. That does not engender trust for law enforcement, and the resistance to law enforcement in those communities is understandable. And let's not pretend that the white officers are more likely to do harm to black suspects than black officers. I've never seen any statistic that suggests white officers are less kind than their black counterparts.
Then why is exotic erotic?
Should you not fight to demonstrate your point of view? Oh, If you do that without being very "politicaly correct" they ban you... Yeah, real.
I'm not sure that being sexually attracted to other races is proof of lack of racism. Sexual attraction originates from a different part of the brain than hate.
Agreed, put like that, it could be a kind of racism, or an aspect of it.
But (to put the premise differently) the fact of our sexual attractions not being noticeably reduced by signs of genetic diversity at least calls into question the too-universally acknowledged 'truth' that racism is somehow innate.
How predictable. Caucasian males are suffering. Think of the tragic historical processes that have created their unconscionable plight.
I'm not the only one who thinks this way as this article mentions.
I know of no country that does not have some legacy past or even current of slavery, colonialism, racism, or expansionism.
I have a few hunches. That I will keep to myself. Except to say, I really hope Trump didn't start an unwarranted global propaganda war he can't win leaving 350 million Americans to absorb the blowback.
My own biases aside, I [s]think[/s] know if non-Americans are using an American tragedy for the sole purpose of stroking their own national ego, especially those who couldn't care less about George Floyd or not just black people but minorities in their own country... black Americans should be pissed. Not to say many or even most are just, if your nation is less than 13% African or people can't just stop and record civil servants performing their duties and share it globally, the old adage of make sure your own house is in order first and the beam in your eye before the speck in your brother's both come to mind.
So what is important in all this is how other countries see the 'mercans? That sorta misses the point.
Scotty from Marketing tried to sell something along those lines - to avoid “importing the things that are happening overseas to Australia”. Then Rio Tinto blew up a 45,000 year old sacred site, and an aboriginal boy was videoed having his legs kicked out from under him by a cop who "was having a bad day". Other folk pointed out that indigenous Australians are the most incarcerated people on earth. All during Reconciliation Week.
Watching the slow train smash of 'merica falling apart provides no such self-satisfaction.
Karen Attiah
I was suggesting, to some, yes it is the only thing. It completely misses the point. And that was mine.
Exactly. No one is protesting about that. Why do you think that is? Because it doesn't effect them. They have nothing to gain.
Every country has had turmoil. Perhaps you're a glass half empty kind of guy. Darkest before the dawn isn't really your philosophy. That's fine. You could be right. I would however bet you money very little will change as a result of this as far as the national system. Maybe laws. Definitely not territory. Except, and this is important, those who do not abide by the Constitution (life, liberty, pursuit of Happiness, all men equal, etc) will be removed and may even be charged as the enemies of the State that they are, violators of 'color of law' will be punished timely and properly, and so on. Which only restores the idea and essentially gets it back on track. Basically all should be well. Got to crack a few eggs to make an omelette. Speaking of which... I'm hungry. :grin:
I wasn’t going to reply to this then I decided to, largely because I wanted to clarify my position to myself.
I was not trying to derail the conversation. Nor was I doing it because the obvious truth threatens my identity or that power determines truth. What I was referring to was the idea that a truth had been assumed and was unquestionable. How can a statement or truth be tested, which it should be, unless there is room for dissent.
What I meant when I said that I could prove there was no systemic racism easily if I had no disagreement was that proving something in an echo chamber with everyone agreeing with me would be easy, I would simply ban everyone who disagreed and remove any evidence that questioned my premise. Obviously to someone interested in truth the questioning would be welcome, it tests your ideas and opens you up to different perspectives, which helps you peel away the layers needed to reach the truth, which may or may not exist. My questioning of Baden’s reply to Nos4r2’s was because of this. On that OP you assume the truth of systemic racism without question and then look at this to address it in an effort to overcome it. Then many presented their evidence for systemic racism. Some were not convinced that there was systemic racism, which does not mean there is no racism. I don’t think any of my posts denied systemic racism anyway. But I was questioning whether that really was the basis for addressing racism in America. If you were interested in finding some truth to formulate a response to racism wouldn’t you want that bedrock idea you base everything on tested, made water tight. Maybe you’re convinced but that still doesn’t mean you’re right. That’s not a personal insult, it’s just that we can rarely be sure we’re absolutely right, not unless our point of view has been tested and survived. I think Baden was shutting down that essential element to a discussion, which is dissent.
Now you either support dissent or you don’t. If you refuse it then you do yourself a disservice and probably others you support.
Finally you refer to my fascist psychology and suggest that I’m virtue signalling. Is dissent now a sign of being a fascist? Does it mean you’re right wing because you question something or do I have to go along with everything to be accepted? And is that what you want from others?
Police brutality happened. Did racism happen? How would we know - simply because the color of the skin was different? Don't you need to know what is in the mind of the individual if they aren't using racial slurs to make it clear that it was racism?
Race baiting is when you assume racism is the cause of some conflict simply because the color of skin is different, as a means to promote special treatment for a particular group. When a white person disagrees with a black person on anything, the white person is racist. Anytime that a conflict arises between two people and their skin is of a different color, racism is automatically assumed to be the cause. Why, when there are so many other possible explanations as to the cause of the conflict? Because pushing agendas are more important than finding truth.
The fact that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites puts them into contact with police at a higher rate than whites. When accusing the system of being racist, you accuse the jurors, prosecutors and judge of being racist too. So why are we only hearing about cops being racist? Where are the stories about doctors saving white lives as opposed to black lives? Where are the stories about teachers giving black children F's while giving white children A's? Where is this systemic racism, and what privileges do whites have that blacks don't? Is it really that we don't have the same privileges, or is it that we don't take advantage of the same privileges - like free public education? If a group receives handouts from the government that you only qualify for by being a member of a particular group, then those are privileges that the other groups don't have, even though there are members of other groups that have the same need (they are in poverty). If systematic racism were real, then how could it ever be that there are many whites with less than many blacks?
Maybe you need to educate yourself on what systemic racism entails. If doesn't require overt acts of racism. That blacks are treated differently by police is well known. It's precisely why this white woman said what she said:
https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/100000007159234/amy-cooper-dog-central-park-police-video.html
She didn't call in the hopes of coincidentally getting a racist on the line. She called knowing that her framing of being threatened by an African American, when she bloody well wasn't, would illicit a faster and harder response from the police.
The rest has been discussed at length in this thread. Meanwhile, you can read up here : https://docs.google.com/document/d/1BRlF2_zhNe86SGgHa6-VlBO-QgirITwCTugSfKie5Fs/edit?usp=drivesdk
You also need to look up the difference between 'systemic' and 'systematic'. They're not the same thing. As I mentioned before, the objections to the idea that systemic racism exists tend to be based on misunderstandings about what's being talked about. But the term has been explained in the thread and explanations are not exactly difficult to find online, so there's no excuse for not knowing what it means.
Here are just a couple of the thousands of academic papers written on the subject. We can argue about how prevalent systemic racism is but the idea it just isn't there is a conspiracy theory. Anyone who denies that, please do present your peer reviewed academic papers supporting your position (hint: there are none).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277953613005121
https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/unilllr2004§ion=46
https://heinonline.org/hol-cgi-bin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/cpilj8§ion=12
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/016059761103500304
The Grievance Studies Affair showed us just how much stock we should put into academic studies in the social sciences.
These are the same academics that changed the definition of racism to “prejudice plus power” bullshit.
Im not saying no stock at all should be put into these sorts of academic papers, but its certainly not indisputable that systemic racism exists, nor is it akin to believing the moon landings were faked. The definition of systemic racism may be so loose as to be only implausibly denied, but then it fails to pack any punch as a real problem...certainly not as real a problem as actual racists and racism found in a disturbingly high levels throughout the US.
Have you ever heard of Thomas Sowell? He doesnt believe in it, he is an academic. Do you have any peer reviewed papers refuting his writing on it? You said No peer reviewed papers that refute systemic racism? Did you even check? Ill bet you checked with the same authority you are referencing the academic papers of, the same authority that taught you this stuff in the first place. Strikes me as a bit circular.
Its not as one sided and obvious as you are portraying it to be, and trying to dismiss people arguing against the existence of systemic racism comes off as a cheap, strawman tactic.
Reading that, I think we might disagree about the extent of the specific role racism plays in the problems facing black communities, but not the existence of systemic racism (and you gave a good example of it in your last paragraph). As for black cops vs white cops, I don't know, but any functionary of a systemically racist system playing their part as performative of that system has a role in propagating the racism of that system. That doesn't make them racist, just "doing their job". That's part of what's pernicious about systems. They compromise you.
This also relates to @StreetlightX's question "where are the good cops?". A cop qua functioning node in a systemically racist system can't be good by definition. Only cops actively resisting the system could be. But, in a sense, a resister is not really a cop anymore. Not from the perspective of the system at least. So, it's maybe not a fair question without qualification. There are "good cops" in the sense of good people who become cops and whose intent is benign, or even benevolent, but insofar as they follow the written and unwritten rules of cop culture (over which they don't have individual control) there's a sense in which they can't be good. Back to the problem being primarily systemic than being about "good" vs "bad" cops.
Why are the other cops required to 'actively resist' the disproportionate effect of their institution's role on minorities in order to avoid charges of complicity? It seems an odd 'guilty by association' response.
If a policeman carries out his duty doing the best he can to serve everyone equally, he will nonetheless disproportionately disadvantage minorities. That's the nature of systemic racism. To fight it, one needs to change the system. But the same is true of almost all economic systems. Even buying and selling property. Are all homeowners therefore complicit for taking part in the systemically racist property market. Low cost clothing, car manufacture, commodities trading, banking, healthcare, social care... All are systemically racist, they all have a proven disproportionately negative effect on minority groups. So is everyone who participates in such institutions complicit?
I've no problem at all with the answer being yes. I think it very likely to be true. But if it is, then what is the advantage of one undoubtedly complicit group of people speaking so disparagingly about another undoubtedly complicit group of people. Why not simply look to fix their own affairs?
Systemic oppression of minorities is ultimately about greed, a bigger cut for a smaller group of privileged people. So it's not that hard to see who's benefiting most from it (and therefore most complicit in its perpetuation). It's not the head of the police force who's sitting on his own private island sipping margaritas whilst all this happening...
That wasn't really where I was going with that. In fact, the point I was making was more like depending on how you frame it, the question "where are the good cops?", is in a sense unfair. Anyhow, working now, but I'll get back with more on this later.
Quoting Baden
That pretty much answers my point with regard to the quote. It makes more sense from that angle, but I didn't get that from your original post.
The wider point still stands though, I think. I don't see why anyone (who is undoubtedly complicit in some systemically racist institution) should even really be taking part in the dismantling of another before setting their own house in order first. The feeling is of vacillating capriciously between whatever institution is the bogeyman of popular media at the time. Nothing ever really gets done because that particular devil becomes old news too quickly to really get substantially reformed, and any progress that is made is often held back by the inevitable defensiveness the 'us vs them' framework generates.
It's a lot easier to turn up to a few hours of protest than it is to change one's job, shopping habits, social life and personal habits. And I'm talking here about the 'solidarity' of those privelidged enough to make such changes, not those who are straight jacketed by poverty.
https://youtu.be/G8Vy7OrHR50
I think that's what I'm trying to say (though re-reading I can see how it might come across as divisive).
The solution is that we collectively say "we're not going to be complicit in this anymore".
That's not what I see happening here, what's happening here (and has happened before in my country after Stephen Lawrence) is that one institution is pilloried for its part (and the police were shamefully responsible in that case), for just as long as it's in the news, never long enough to get the job done properly (the Macpherson recommendations still haven't been fully implemented). Meanwhile, the problem silently shifts elsewhere (technology manufacturing, for example - see Nigeria's experience with mobile phone companies).
If everyone is primed to join the latest social movement we get great benefits in terms of solidarity and vocal power, but it comes at a cost, it's too fickle, fizzles out too early, and often the very single-issue focus which gives it its power is what allows those very institutions to sidestep the real problem.
Maybe policing reform really will make a huge difference to the lives of minority groups in America, but as I said to Baden, it's not the chief of police who's sitting on his private island. So whatever function the police played in maintaining the flow of money and power from these groups to that guy only need shapeshift to some other institution.
We need to learn to recognise the pattern, not just the instantiation.
If it was even possible for White American authorities and capitalists to have rectified the situation regarding former slaves in the years after the civil war ended is a debatable point. (How much is one human life worth? Existentially and in terms of money? How about a million human lives?) But the clear fact is that the overall situation was definitely NOT made even remotely fair for those of African ancestry at the time by “those in power”.
From that point in time and space to the present moment in the USA, there was and is a lot going on. Some improvements, some backsliding or regression, some of a “mixed-bag” situation regarding race relations and “equal treatment” or whatever term one could use to express some basic standard of fairness. So to get a view of the “big-picture” (stretching over hundreds of years and many continents), some abstraction (or imagination, if you prefer) is perhaps necessary or helpful.
One could (unfortunately and sadly) name dozens of racially unfair practices. From redlining to “profiling” to voter disenfranchisement to lower pay for the same job, etc. And also sad to say, these are not historical aberrations from the distant past. They are current realities and issues.
To sort through this pile of unfair (to put it mildly) practices, one could perhaps put them into two large groups or “piles” for purposes of trying to understand the overview in an abstract way, as mentioned above. Both “piles” describe the continued exploitation of blacks* or people of color (and those of other or mixed races who may consider themselves as part of a “black family”) after the supposed end of slavery. The two prongs to be described offer a type of dualism, or of a “one-two punch” (so to speak) against blacks in the USA as a whole.
For the sake of simplicity and clarity, I will call these extremely broad classifications of racism “The Goodies” and “The Baddies”. These two names do not necessarily denote whites as “good”, and blacks as “bad”. There is however, a strong element of that thought throughout BOTH prongs of systemic racism.
So now, some definitions of the terms The Goodies and The Baddies.
The Goodies. By this I mean (in a blanket statement) all that The Powers That Be (TPTB) (mainly white, male, and wealthy... to be perhaps overly general) wanted, but simultaneously judged to be illict in some way, particular activities and goods. It is the “forbidden fruit”. From sex to drugs to gambling to guns, the list goes on. This refers to whatever was forbidden by law or Bible or social conventions (or some combination of those), but still greatly desired. In a nutshell, this is an example of the classic “not in my backyard” NIMBY thinking and acting. The black ghettos were over time made into a de facto nighttime amusement park for those from so-called proper backgrounds and positions. Keeping the white bedroom communities pure, and going slumming in the less-developed poor Black areas whenever the mood struck.
The Baddies. Of course, the existence of the activities described above are unfair and hypocritical enough. But (not surprisingly) it doesn’t end there. Everything has its price. The Buddha described ignorance as an unending cycle of greed and aversion, of desire and hatred. So comes the flip side of the systemic racist coin. The Baddies refers to the punishment meted out to those involved in the business of supplying and satisfying the eternal and repressed lust described previously. Because, despite the overwhelming demand and the continued existence of these “illegal activities”, they are by the standards and laws of TPTB worthy of punishment.
Hence, a “justice system” (the term would be laughable if it didn’t have such tragic effects) that is OVERWHELMINGLY and DISPROPORTIONATELY focused on people of color. From police officers to lawyers to judges to prison owners and operators and the millions of others (of all races) employed to assist the process. It is an actual and literal INDUSTRY. This much is indisputable. Now, of course there are the truly guilty and dangerous individual criminals (of any and other races) prosecuted by this system. That is obvious. This gives the institution its validity and understandable authority. No problem with that aspect, for the most part. But the problem comes from the legal institutions made into FINANCIAL INDUSTRIES, feeding on the bodies of people of color, and those in their families. There are indeed good police officers, lawyers, and judges. But they are swimming upstream against a strong current. And it is difficult not to be infected when swimming in a river of garbage.
Now, obviously there is no ABSOLUTE distinction between Blacks and Whites here. There are millions of mixed race. There are White drug dealers and pimps. There are Black Federal Judges. This is so obvious that it hardly needs mentioning. We are trying to get a relative view here, not an absolute rule.
One could also draw many parallels between the internal American-USA forms of exploitation and racism, with the externally and outward-directed phenomenon of US Imperialism, especially after WWII.
It is like slavery never ended... it just changed form.
And has spread with little resistance or regard for whom it hurt. So that now, this is not a Black* American problem. It is a virus threatening the health of the entire global population.
( * I have never been completely comfortable with the terms “black” and “white” to describe entire races of people. These terms are simplistic to the point of being problematic. Personally, I have never seen a completely white nor a completely black person. But that is for another discussion).
Had to look it up, this was what I found.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0162243920923087?journalCode=sthd#
https://www.pennlive.com/opinion/2015/05/poor_blacks_looking_for_someon.html
I had to go back and check, to see if I was understanding it right. The prevailing social vision in America has the same result as the welfare state in the UK. So the thesis is that the problems in America are due to too much welfare? Now I think an argument can be made along these general lines, that welfare can be disempowering, and especially when it is done in a top-down patronising manner, but that the US suffers from an excess of welfare or that any kind of socialism has prevailed for the last 50 years is complete lunacy.
And you might think I was reading too much into this, if I did not mention the title of the piece:"Blame the welfare state, not racism, for poor blacks' problems."
Yeah, that's a decent one. The way I tend to think of it is along these lines too:
Quoting tim wood
Another way to put that would be doing anything predictably in response to a stimulus or following a method can be called 'systematic' and this can easily be applied to individuals, but 'systemic' (in any social context) refers to the characteristic behaviour of organizations and institutions. Anyhow, thanks, I hope everyone gets this now.
(E.g. an example of systematic racism could be someone crossing the street every time they saw a black person, in which case the 'systematic' part becomes rather superfluous. Just call it racism. 'Systemic racism' is a phrase worth hanging onto though, particularly as what it describes tends to be much more subtle. And too subtle for some apparently...)
Indeed.
And based upon the idea that a property owner(or the group rather) ought get to choose who all is allowed in the community... Liberty and freedom and 'right' to choose one's neighbors by virtue of being a landowner.
Gather a group of racists and Viola! systemic racism.
Not really sure what response youre looking for here...you found a criticism. It was controversial, as expected. No one thought the Grievance studies people would go “youre right, you got us, we are full of shit and service ideology over true academic truth.”.
Look harder, you will see that the criticisms are very weak and if you don’t, look up “confirmation bias”.
Also, I referenced Sowell as an example of an academic who doesnt buy systemic racism to show that its not foolish to deny it exists. There are other examples, plenty of reasonable people question the claim of systemic racism. I wasnt positing Sowells body of work for argumentation.
Anyway, not sure what your point is.
Yeah, but based on what he says, it is foolish. Not just a poor example, but a negative one. And that matches the criticism I quoted of grievance studies: politically motivated, and rather showing the opposite of what it claims. So I'm not really looking for any response, merely flagging up what looks as though it is a waft of smoke being blown on your part.
Well Ill leave it for readers to figure out which of us is blowing smoke. Hopefully they put more effort than you did.
I wouldn't say either of you are, that is to say not earnestly arguing opposing viewpoints with relevant information to consider. However as it stands, you seem to be the one who is stopping short in this particular exchange. :)
Anyway. I believe there is both systemic and systematic racism in human society everywhere. The majority or status quo wants to maintain itself. It's human nature. A white (or black) majority doesn't want to be replaced by any other group, black, Asian, or whatever.
Obviously there is more than that going on when it comes to race relations in the US. Someone posted something along the lines of "a rich black man in a suit will be viewed/treated the same as a poor white punk". I want to doubt that as a common view as I certainly wouldn't but again I'm sure some would.
I just think it's important to distinguish an officer being uncharacteristically hostile (as in he's normally not) toward a respectable looking (all we can judge about character/danger is appearance) black man walking down a random street and an officer being on a hair trigger when facing someone blasting violent music, wearing "street clothes" that could easily conceal a gun, maybe having gang or teardrop tattoos, and speaking rude or in an unintelligent manner in an area that has a high murder rate and gang activity. It makes all the difference. You don't want to be the boy who cries wolf. You definitely don't want to make it where criminals can torment and destroy black communities unabated simply because they happen to be black. Actually. Perhaps some do...
That quality has a political dimension where the Buchanans can talk about preserving "Western Civilization" instead of race. But that trick works only because of a dynamic where the unifying principle of many very different groups is that they are not black.
But what Ellison observed, along with Martin Luther King Jr., is that there is a psychological dimension to the problem of identity. If it is based upon a negation: Only the difference can connect a person to what is happening. The "race" in that picture is not a picture at all. Just an empty frame.
In order to deny that the USA is still "a racist society" you have to also deny her well-documented, 231 year history of LEGAL slavery, segregation, militarism & incarcerationism, as pointed-out here, which is delusional and/or (deliberately) racist.
[quote=William Faulkner]The past is never dead. It's not even past.[/quote]
Much respect for the black people on PF and other online communities taking the time out for educating us on shit we should've figured out on our own years ago.
Better question for this thread is, is questioning the existence of systemic racism in the US, an act of racism itself?
However, the more commonly proved determinism demands that systemic racism exists in our timeline of history. All the events against black people and communities for over 400 years has a deterministic line of causality that cannot break free from the consequences we see today.
Free will is an illusion and so is the idea that because black people and communities now have total free will agency in society, they will just break free of the deterministic consequences of what has happened before.
Believers in free-will and many liberals advocate for this line of thinking, but that thinking is rationally just plain illogical. So the conclusion is that systemic racism does exist and anyone who says otherwise needs to actually prove the consequences of determinism to be wrong.
Quoting Baden
The misunderstanding is yours. As I already have stated, we have a system that favors blacks, as you need to have a certain the color of skin to obtain certain handouts paid for by all taxpayers, to say certain words that others can't, to ignore the plight of others in favor of the plight of "your people" as if "your people" matter more, and to make assumptions about individuals based on what clothes they wear (police uniforms) and the color of their skins (whites are racists).
So who is it with the privilege?
Quoting Benkei
Is it not also well known that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites?
If it is okay for blacks to use the fact that some police are corrupt to then make the assumption that all police are corrupt, then how is it not okay for police to assume that blacks commit crimes?
You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. If it is wrong to make assumptions about an individual based on the interactions you've had, or heard about, with other individuals that share some characteristic, then it is wrong for others to do.
So blacks are doing the same thing that they are accusing the police of doing. When you get two individuals that already have negative assumptions about the other, then it is no wonder that the we have the events that we do. Where does it stop? How do we stop it? It seems to me that it is incumbent upon both parties to make changes in the way that they think about each other.
Quoting Benkei
Not only questioning it but pretending it's the opposite of what it is in some cases, apparently. Anyway, I'm out. I'll leave someone else to deal with the right wing tinfoil hat brigade.
The amount of ignorance and lack of education in this comment is too low quality for me. Maybe you should be educated by someone who actually knows her shit about all of this, and look at the video with Kimberly Latrice Jones above that Benkei posted.
Quoting Benkei
I would say it's a form of appeasement of it. I also think that many people will defend against the idea of systemic racism because acknowledging it would mean that their world view of individualistic free-will has problems. They do not defend their view with facts, but out of the necessity to deny any form of systemic or structure since their ideology cannot exist if such systems and structures exist.
For them, the very notion of a structure and systemic thing is an attack against their worldview, that's why they abandon facts and knowledge in favor of empty phrases and low-quality arguments.
I'm not making assumptions about individuals in the police force at all, systemic racism isn't about personal agency. It's how society acqueisces, or worse has people like you excusing it or denying it, that causes systemic racism to endure.
The comparison between police and blacks ignores historic causes and the continued effects they have to this day. So apples and oranges.
Weird. Even chaotic systems, eg. where everyone would be a self sufficient atomised unit in society, patterns emerge. Even if hardcore individualism and agency was a thing, you can still have systemic racism as an emergent property of the whole. That's why even when there would be no racists, society could still be racist.
E-X-A-C-T-L-Y
I don't think it would be fair to say this. One has to remember that the kind of education we get - not only in school, but in the media, and in our social lives more generally - militate hard against acknowledging it's existence. The atomic individualism fostered by neoliberal ideologies makes structural analysis really hard to see. It makes class analysis even harder still.
In fact one of the most positive aspects of to come out of all the recent events is the legitimation of the very vocabulary of systemic racism. The fact that people take the pains to even deny it is already miles ahead of the utter silence and indifference to it's coherency as a concept. That people can begin to think 'racism' and 'system' together is already a boon for thought more generally. That's how we win. We take over the vocabulary and shape the terms of the conversation. The right has known this for a long time. It's nice to see a left effort at this taking root.
Quoting Benkei
I wanna agree with this, but I also want to emphasize that the nourishment and sustaining of those properties are collective acts of political and economic decision making. I want to be careful not to naturalize this stuff - one can trace back moments of decision where such structures were given life and then entrenched due to the protection of interests that arose in the wake of those decisions. Path dependency is real, but that we are on this particular path and not others is a question of politics.
The racism of South Africa or the United States was explicit and enshrined in law. That kind of racism was overt and concrete, made real in the countless interactions between the individuals involved insofar as they were motivated by racist ideology. I refuse to conflate that sort of racism with the "systemic racism" being put forward here.
But when the institutional racism has finally vanished and the racist ideologies have been discredited and proven dangerous, what can account for the disparities in the results whenever we view them through a racist microscope? Why is there a wealth gap between races, for instance? Since we cannot find any company or institution paying blacks less than whites, and whites less than Asians—it is illegal to do so— there must be something other than personal choice and will perpetuating these disparities.
I take the "systemic racism" theory to mean that there must exist some racist algorithm inherent in the "system". Racism has left the human brain and has found a new home in “systems and structures”, though it is not clear what those are. Any state that had its genesis marred in slavery or racism no doubt carries with it a shameful past, but is also cursed to perpetuate it. Even though the slavery and institutional racism has all but vanished it’s “legacy” remains. It's in our DNA. It exists in our individual thoughts, compelling the countless interactions—political, economic, cultural—between individuals in a given society, especially as they are demarcated on the basis of their phenotypes. We ought not just oppose individual acts of racism, but we should also oppose the system that allowed them to happen in the first place.
But I suppose it’s a testament to the “system” that we have shifted from talking about the overt racism of slavery, apartheid, or segregation to a “subtle” more invisible racism that no one can really point at but are certain is there.
The problem is this shift maintains focus on the least racist societies while doing little about the most racist. Meanwhile there is still slavery in Africa and the Middle East. There are more than three times as many people in forced servitude today as were captured and sold during the 350-year span of the transatlantic slave trade. There are concentration camps and ethnic cleansing in communist China. And there are no marches for their victims.
Do you think that's what systemic racism is?
The politics of responsibility
If people cannot understand the deterministic consequences of 400 years of racist legislations and behaviors, they aren't really doing philosophy but liberal ideological evangelism.
Kathryn's analogy of monopoly in the video Benkei posted shows pretty clear why things are bad. I recently also saw the movie "The 13th amendment", which is a seriously dark mirror into an almost Lovecraftian overview of the racist systems in place.
What's ironic about discussions about economic redistribution based on race is that it parallels the very same racist policies that it is trying to help undo the consequences of. The government recognises your right to specific economic and social advantages by virtue of your race. They are specifically crafted advantages based on your race. It's not comparable to interpreted advantages based on statistics on race.
I'm very much for increasing economic redistribution, I think America is doing far less than it should but none of the benefits of economic redistribution should be used as an argument for doing it based on race.
The history of racism is a history of tribalism and ignorance, where people justified cruelty and hate based on something we now know is only slightly less superficial than the colour of one's hair. The way forward is to reject this thinking. People of all races are capable of great cruelty because people are just people and their skin colour doesn't matter. The continuation of this emphasis on race is a curse given to us by the past. All forms of its perpetuation are wrong, sharing a skin colour with past evildoers is nothing, how can it be anything?
The responsibility of economic redistribution is a true and real one but the history of America must be shared by Americans, skin colour can't be the most prominent thing that comes before anything else.
Anyway, the way that you use terms like "the white man did this" is absolute nonsense, it's like you're just simplifying all of history for convenience. White men don't fucking agree with each other, the way you talk about group responsibility is utterly asinine. The way you say "we" when talking about white people is asinine. There's a real good chunk of your OP that is so out of touch with reality that it's scary.
Quoting Benkei
Why do you do it? Why do you simplify history by talking about race and gender and then hyperbolize in this way about it? What's ironic is that you only demean slavery by saying this, how can you possibly compare the freedom of a slave and a black person today, unbelievable.
Well put.
I dare say that one cannot be murdered on an everyday basis.
You are one of the funniest posters I've ever come across. To so consistently be such a moron is really quite something.
Well put.
What number of black people have been confronted with negative consequences as a result from the colour of their skin in the past 450 years in the USA?
What number of women have been confronted with negative consequences as a result from being female?
Should damages be repaired or not?
Who benefitted from the damages caused?
What has been done to address these injustices?
You can barely get grammar right and you want to talk about race?
Come back when you've crawled out of kindergarten.
The final argument of the left.
It's a rhetorical point aimed at those who consistently wish to deny historical and contemporary reality no matter how much it's explained to them. The equivalent of putting their hands over their ears and shouting whenever uncomfortable facts are made clear. What systemic racism actually is has been explained in detail elsewhere in the discussion and these explanations have largely been ignored or misunderstood. I guess because it's existence is incontrovertible and some here just can't handle that.
And in the end, I'd rather live in anarchy than barbarism.
You've come too late, there is nothing you can do for those people, they are gone. The individuals who have suffered in the past due to racism and sexism whether it's 100 or 400 years ago, they're gone now. You can't repair their damages, it's pretty childish of you to think you can.
You cannot address the injustices done to them.
As for people who live today, racism and sexism are inexcusable. We must do what we can.
Quoting Benkei
I gave you the benefit of the doubt and decided not to simply call you a racist but there's no need for me to refrain. You are no different from the people you claim to hate, racism is justified under your worldview.
Quoting StreetlightX
Isn't "those" referring to me? I know I haven't been murdered on a daily basis but please don't try to undermine my views just because of that.
It's a nonsense point is what it is.
But if people are saying that there's not a shred of systemic racism in the US then I'd suggest your description of them is accurate. It just seems to me that the term is a bit vague to some people and it's hard to really confirm or deny it. I don't think denying systemic racism necessarily means they are denying all of the things that you might infer but I'm not sure since you didn't name anyone specifically.
Quoting Benkei
What’s moral about that? Everything gets burned down, black property too. We’ve seen that already.
No we’re getting closer to the truth.
If you'd read the thread, you'd see that was the case from the beginning. Have you read the thread? It's only 4 pages long...
Quoting Judaka
Which was why it was explained many times over to the point where it's impossible to deny it. Back to point one. My description is accurate. They don't want to hear. Which is why some are getting frustrated here.
It's OK I'm sure your mommy will teach you grammar one day.
Quoting Baden
That’s untrue, . I don’t think there’s been a denial of racism, only a questioning of your position.
Edit: you’re one of the few insisting that you’re absolutely right.
You’re getting there. Keep going.
I like how you don't understand the thing that you wrote. You are consistently hilarious, never fail to make me smile.
:heart:
Quoting StreetlightX
Oops we’ll pretend we didn’t see that.
We're talking about "systemic racism" being denied. The very first post:
Quoting Sam26
So, now we've advanced to the point where what actually happened in the thread is being misrepresented and denied. Not exactly progress, is it?
That's what "undoing the consequences" means though, right?
Quoting Judaka
Why not? It seems very obviously false to say that no problem can possibly be solved by doing something based on race.
Quoting Judaka
Including redistribution based on race to reverse it?
I don't really get why other people being stupid justifies you saying something stupid. StreetlightX isn't saying stupid stuff because he's agitated he's always like this. I'm going to be honest and say that I put you in the same boat as him, banno, fxdrake and other suspect posters on this forum. Adding Benkei to my list now.
I did read some of the comments, I just don't think you appreciate what makes what you're talking about difficult. It's against the law for systemic racism to exist, I think that for some people, that alone makes it hard to say that it does. I just haven't read anyone saying anything like "big picture, there's no difference between how the police or courts treat black people and others" or similar absurdities. Maybe some of the posters are making those claims, didn't read every post.
#Squad.
It's a 5 page thread. Go read it all before clumsily inserting out-of-context criticisms.
What does the rest of the thread have to do with you comparing systemic racism to the aftereffects of slavery and the subsequent injustices?
Anyway, I'm sorry I made your naughty list, Santa. If I'm good for the rest of the year, I hope you'll reward me by reading the stuff I wrote. Thanks.
Quoting Baden
Is that really indicative of the general posts though?
You don't need to give me the context for why you were frustrated and said something silly, you can just say that you misspoke and didn't mean it.
Quoting Baden
No, unfortunately it’s not.
I answered your questions, you just don't like the answers. Suffering happens to people, not groups, the people you are talking about are gone and there's nothing you can do for them.
You want to say "black people should do this" and "white people should pay" and have me seriously respond using your asinine framing? You must be joking.
You came into a discussion you haven't fully read to pick out one (justified) rhetorical point amongst all the other substantive ones as a means to mount a misguided attack on those who of us who, in this thread, are arguing: Systemic racism exists. Because that is the reason the thread was set up:
Quoting Baden
So, maybe you didn't read the OP either. Anyhow, seeing as you've said you agree with my description of those who think there's no systemic racism in the US then we're actually expressing the same substantive point. If you want something to argue with, feel free to address this:
Quoting Baden
You cannot "reverse" racism and sexism, you can only stop it. Economic redistribution based on race only reinforces the narrative of racial histories while excluding poor people from different backgrounds in the name of an irrational interpretation of fairness based on group identities. The benefits of economic redistribution cannot be used to justify doing it by race.
Quoting Benkei
OK, you don't understand what it is either. Read up on it. Systemic racism can and does occur within the boundaries of law.
Quoting Judaka
Murder is prohibited too. Yet it happens. But then maybe you were trying to say that because it's prohibited, people find it difficult to accept it exists and therefore have problems admitting to its existence.
Systemic racism isn't prohibited. That's a large part of the problem. E.g.
Quoting Baden
But of course both have long lasting economic consequences, and those you can reverse.
Quoting Judaka
Presumably we agree that if it were the case that the only poor people were of one specific race, doing it by race would be justified. Helping all poor people is of course always preferable, and there might not practically any good reason not to do that. But it's still better to do something rather than nothing, no?
My post doesn't become a monologue just because you refuse to read and deal with what I'm saying. I understand your argument perfectly fine, I've articulated my rejection of it, I'm not surprised that it went over your head but I'm done responding to you. OP is getting annoyed at me derailing his thread by responding to your garbage.
I do not acknowledge the long-lasting economic consequences in the way that people want me to because it means continuing to treat black people as having a separate history because of their skin colour. I reject it, people are people, they aren't Africans, they're Americans, who share the same history as all Americans as Americans. Slavery was people hurting people, I won't view history the same way that the slavers we call evil did.
I'm not American, I'm Australian and for me, once you're Australian that's it. There's no "white Australian history" and "foreigner Australian history" because that's a dumb, racist, exclusive attitude that makes it sound like you need to be white to be Australian which is bullshit.
I'm a fan of people such as Andrew Yang and UBI, let economic redistribution be a way of reducing divisions between Americans rather than highlighting them.
I am not saying that laws cannot be interpreted (unambiguously) to be beneficial for white people or unfairly implemented in a way that hurts coloured people but rather that the language of the law does not specifically mention race. Honestly, the emphasis on historical racism is unhelpful because here, today, racism exists and among many areas of society. I think that because historically, the law has mentioned race and treated people differently based on race, there's some confusion about whether that's what's being talked about.
It's just a term to me, I'm no expert on US law but systemic racism is not as overt as it was in the past, it is not an open secret. We can simply see it and analyse it and that's how we know.
What are you unsatisfied with? Don't ask me to respect your intelligence, I'm convinced that you are an idiot. I cannot debate someone who simply ignores what I write, what insurance do I have that you won't simply ignore what I write in the future as well, calling it a monologue? lol It is a waste of my time.
What do you mean you don't "acknowledge them in the same way?" It's a question of fact, not of acknowledgement. Either there are economic consequences or there are not.
Quoting Judaka
The thing is that one of the criticisms of UBI is that it's not going to do anything to address the inequality that's already present.
States and economies acting in ways that disproportionately disadvantage non-whites is bad.
That's exactly the stuff pointed to by systemic racism critique.
If you make policies that address the needs of the poor and disenfranchised, you will make policies that effect people differently along race lines if the demography of poverty is already race skewed. It is already race skewed.
It would end up being race skewed even if articulated in non-racial terms.
I didn't word that as well as I could have, what I mean is that the emphasis on recording inequality by race is optional. There are wealthy cities and poor cities, poor parts of town and wealthy parts and there's a reason behind the wealth and the poverty and the history of racism has a large role in it, that cannot be denied.
As someone who hates to see poverty, particularly as widespread and unaddressed as it is in the states, it's a really sad state of affairs. I want this issue of poverty to be addressed in a humanitarian way that doesn't inflame and emphasise racial differences. I see this as separate issues, economic redistribution and then reducing the importance of race. I don't accept economic redistribution that reinforces racial histories and inequalities. The racial inequality is fact but it's overly emphasised and promotes racialised worldviews.
That's all I'll say because I am derailing this thread and OP complained about it. If you make a thread on this topic then I will probably post there but otherwise I'm going to stop posting here about unrelated topics after this.
You might persuade me by telling me what you're unsatisfied with but you want me to just pretend I failed to answer all of your questions and reanswer them? That appears unreasonable to me. I'm also interested as to whether you think that I also have failed to understand your position, Your questions are also really stupid, I don't know how you don't see that but you actually seem kind of proud of them? Okay, since you asked like three times, I'll answer them again but this time I'll number them and answer them directly.
1. I don't know
2. I don't know
3. I don't know
4. The dead are dead, I'm an atheist and a pragmatist, for these people who have suffered due to sexism, slavery and racism 100-400 years ago, you are too late. You cannot compensate them or help them in anyway. But I do understand what you are trying to say and it's complete nonsense. You are trying to say that because slavery affected black people and sexism affected women, that this has something to do with black people and women who are alive today. However, take slavery, individuals suffered horribly. They were degraded, humiliated, harmed physically and psychologically, deprived of freedom and dignity. Then they died. It's sad but you cannot help this individual and helping people who have the same skin colour is to my mind, an absolutely outrageous and absurd way of trying to help. A total insult to the actual person who had a name and character, they're not just a black person who can be helped by helping other black people.
If someone claimed they could help me by helping other white people, I'd flip my shit.
5. Again, the landowner who owned slaves and his wife, got to live better lives by having slaves. They didn't have to do the chores and hard labour nor pay their workers. You want me to say white people but you should already know that I won't say that. Is it complex for you?
6. You can't hold the dead accountable as you know nor can you help the dead, the injustices cannot be addressed. If you want to address injustices, then there are plenty of people today who aren't having their injustices addressed.
Yes, it would, what's your point?
Just that you agree with everything substantive the people you're criticising are basing their arguments on.
I'm of the opinion that how things are articulated matters as does the reason for doing it. I'm not interested in the colour of the people that are being impacted by economic redistribution because I don't care what your skin colour is.
No one disagreeing with you is saying that you care about skin colour.
Everyone disagreeing with you is simply saying that poverty does. The policies, history and institutional practices that make poverty and disadvantage continue to split along race lines - that's systemic racism.
Not about you and what you do or do not see.
You don't know whether in the past 450 years many white people were enslaved or not based on the colour of their skin?
You don't know whether in the past 450 years white men were not allowed to vote because they were male?
That wasn't your question you utter moron. You asked:
Quoting Benkei
Look at what you just said now.
Quoting Benkei
You went from what number of white males have been confronted with negative consequences to whether or not they were enslaved. You want me to respect your intelligence? You are out of your mind. You're a real piece of work.
You misrepresented both my arguments and the arguments used against me. You never fail to meet the expectations I've got for you fdrake. I wouldn't dare deny that slavery and racism have ripple effects that are hugely responsible for the wealth gap today. Nor would I deny that there is contemporary systemic racism in many large institutions both public and private which sustain or increase the gap. Nor did I ever utter such nonsense.
I never said economic redistribution alone would solve the problem of systemic racism. I replied to Benkei's post about how economic redistribution for the purpose of repairing damage whites have caused blacks. You can read his thread and make what you want of it. Another piece of work giving me grief.
I take it you agree then that white men, compared to women and black people, were in fact not disenfranchised or discriminated against in any meaningful numbers?
A ballpark figure? Of how many black people were confronted with negative consequences due to their skin colour over the last 450 years? And how many women suffered from sexism? You give me a ballpark figure, I won't talk to you anymore until you do. I want you to appreciate at least a little how stupid your questions were rather than trying to put on a show.
Quoting Benkei
That’s a pretty sleazy sentence. And a lame answer.
Right? I was half joking with my insults towards him but I actually didn't go far enough. He nagged me to answer his questions and I answer them. He tells me I didn't and changed his question completely, ignores half of my answers and then ignores my question while pretending like he didn't do anything wrong. I'd be mad if it wasn't funny.
Policies, history, institutional practices perpetuating poverty and disadvantage splitting along race lines is a current reality and a major problem.
Y/N?
Is that perpetuation of poverty and disadvantage splitting along race lines an injustice?
Y/N?
Are the people who are in positions of power actively administrating the perpetuation of these injustices and otherwise failing to address them almost exclusively white men?
Y/N?
I read @Benkei's essay and his posts in this thread. I think you're being quite uncharitable. If you're happy saying that poverty and disadvantage split along race lines, there's the other end of the split; wealth and advantage, and they're white men. Non-whites disadvantaged, whites advantaged. I'm pretty sure you agree with that. And I'm pretty sure you'd say Y to those things above.
What matters for the thread topic is whether and how state-economic conditions behave like fractionating columns for skin melanin content. And you seem to agree that it does.
It just seems you're getting angry that Benkei's called a spade a spade.
It's extremist quotes like this that just don't reflect reality and ignore the fact that more whites have been killed by cops,(which means that if one black is murdered everyday, then two whites are murdered everyday), is the reason why the solution will turn to violence rather than talking about it. Your posts are equivalent to what I see on FB and Twitter.
Quoting Benkei
How religious. When a white person disagrees with a black person on anything, the white person is racist. This is like saying that if you don't agree that God exists you are a sinner.
The problem is that you haven't defined your God - the systemic racism that exists. If you can't define it, then how do you expect anyone to know what you are talking about to agree with?
Alright, so why do you two bother? I'm curious what you hope to get out of engaging with the levels of dishonesty and delusions you’ve been confronted with. That Benkei guy couldnt have been more clear about how useless it is respond to his dishonest nonsense yet you persist.
Why are you bothering? Nothing productive will come from this thread or the other on race, they arent discussions they are echo chambers. I mean, Judaka even said it was a waste of time to resoond but kept doing it. What are either of you getting out of it?
I'm done talking about Benkei, I was more charitable with what he wrote until he made it worse in this thread. That being said, I would have expected you to more or less agree with him based on my opinion about you. Yes to all of your statement/questions.
Systemic racism is a separate problem than what I was discussing with Benkei, you've misunderstood and you aren't trying to address it but I don't want you to address it, you should just drop it.
As for systemic racism, I think I know you well enough, you're smart enough to understand the very complicated set of problems but you decide to simplify it into "evil white men" anyway. You'll offer lengthy paragraphs about the issues which sound really good until the inevitable narrative re-write of these complicated issues into identity politics orientated around the all-important all-encompassing gender and race categories. This time I even agree with you on the lengthy issues and I'm bored of arguing against identity politics so let's skip this round.
I'm done with him now but I found it to be really funny at the time. It's all for entertainment anyway, I visit the forums until I've had enough of it and then I take a break.
I understand, sir, whatever happened to me, I deserved it for being too shallow to understand it and a over privieleged white fuck with a useless degree from a shithole called oxford, so a series of assaults, 4 robberies, shooting my cat, and vandalizing my car is obviously what I deserved for that.
I started on this in an attempt to understand why the Minneapolis city council wants to disband the police. It must know hundreds more black people will be murdered without police intervention to stop it, as In Baltimore after the Freddie Gray case. So why is it in favor of disbanding the police?
While it took a long time to figure out, it transpires Derek Chauvin is unlikely to be convicted of murder at all, let alone 2nd degree, because Floyd did not inform the police he was high on fentanyl and meth at the time he was arrested. This drug combination is frequently lethal by itself, and in Floyd's case, the drugs aggravated two existing but untreated conditions: arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease. It was quite difficult to find this information, partly because no mainstream media has reported that the autopsy had even been done, and I found out about it deep on forum comments about Minneapolis closing its police dept down:
https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/george-floyd-cause-of-death-autopsy
The prosecutor will have a hard time proving intent to kill, considering Floyd's unknown condition.
Additionally, it transpires Floyd also had a substantial criminal history, with eight arrests, five times in jail, the last time for holding a gun to a woman's stomach while his friends plundered her house, after which, he turned his friends in for a plea bargain to reduce his prison sentence to five years. This information was almost impossible to find, as no US paper has reported it at all. The Daily Mail provided photos of all the records, remarking that the police wouldn't have known about it. However, that's not true, if they had his ID, which I don't actually know is true, then the police have been able to look up all records about any person from their squad cars for some time, as I learned in 2018 when they offered me to join a federal protection program while they nailed some murderers in a black gang just after they also tried to murder me. The Floyd criminal history was published in the UK here:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8366533/George-Floyd-moved-Minneapolis-start-new-life-released-prison-Texas.html?fbclid=IwAR3Trprcp17WZ_qSiieFB2tfDWCYOL5jCFXDS0LoqNtIX_MLV1810JigOKE
With his existing known medical condition while on lethal drugs, with such a long rap sheet, the jury won't be able to find Chauvin guilty beyond doubt.
Unless Chauvin pleads guilty, or the autopsy is shown to be flawed, the riots and lootings are now likely to get even worse, just as after the acquittal of the police arresting Rodney King in Los Angeles, 2012. Disbanding the police seems to me a last-ditch effort to circumvent complete and total annihilation, at this point, but maybe you think the rioting is over.
That's not what Black Lives Matter says. It has made clear, ONE more instance would be enough to trigger complete destruction of the entire nation, which no one could claim is not a terrorist threat. Also, Black Lives Matter has been particularly disinterested in protecting the lives of blacks who will be murdered, at the rate of about one a day for two years, without police intervention to stop it in Minneapolis. I regret to say, given what it has said and done these last few weeks, whatever it was in the past, it is now no more than a terrorist organization that really could not care who dies at all, black or not.
Which is rather moot if you do remember what the Rodney King riots were like, and one can see some folks with itchy fingers in the shadows of Macy's across the country, just hoping THAT happens at a national level.
Neither preexisting conditions nor a long rap sheet make kneeling on someone's throat for 8 Minutes any less intentional or any less deadly.
I didnt ask you. I actually think your a fucking liar, if you’ll remember. Ive got nothing to say to you.
Fair enough.
This is difficult, and I urge you to caution. It was before my time that Britain declared war on Germany and plunged the world into a conflagration that cost millions of lives, mainly on the basis that "Jewish lives matter." I don't want to say that Churchill was a terrorist, or did not care about the lives to be lost. Did the war save Jewish lives or cost Jewish lives? I don't think it is knowable; we only have the war happening, not the alternative. Not to mention all the other lives.
But that is not the calculation that should be made even if it could be made. Ask first what is right. Consequentialism fails because consequences are both infinite and unknowable. So I resort to principles and virtues- truth, fairness, and if the police are corrupt and there is no justice then no life has much value. Putting up with that to stay safe-ish is not morality, but expediency.
It is a judgement whether or not to disband a police force. I would hope that some other policing arrangement would be made, and it could be that reform could be managed without disbanding, I cannot judge from here. But at least allow that those protesting are not trying to kill black people or promote anarchy but to make a safer fairer place for everyone, even if there is a high price to be paid.
I've addressed this point multiple times in this thread. If you lack the literacy or the ability to understand those points, then I've nothing more to add.
Get over yourself. I tired to give you a fair shake in your thread, which you all but ignored. At this point you're just a bitter bloviator who is, by your admission, uninterested in discussion.
If you dont find the Sapir whorf hypothesis worthy of your attention, thats not my problem, and certainly does not mean I am disinterested in discussion. I merely know my limits, that I am an over privieleged white animal with a useless education from oxford who is too shallow to understand anything, thats all
No, it was because the Nazis invaded Poland.
Funny how the only one playing the victim card in this discussion is - would you look at that - a 'white animal'.
Your words, not mine.
I have no anxieties about describing demographic features of the wealth and power distribution when it fits and is well evidenced. If you need this to feel comfortable: it is not the fault of "individual white men" or "the white race" or whatever and "white people are not inherently evil".
Quoting Judaka
How I see it is ultimately in terms of class. Historically white supremacy is a vouchsafing for imperialist expansion, modern day gigantic wealth+resource transfers out of the political south, a justification narrative for the disempowerment of racialised subjects in the imperial home territories through economic-political exclusion and the colonies through apartheid + puppet statecraft. There is also a media climate that allows it to grow as an ideology; literal outright Nazis (just one form of white supremacy) get invited on the news and Muslims are branded as not just terrorists but a threat to "Western" values. It pays to strategically cultivate white supremacy; an ideological vector of indifference towards the working class that part of the working class will enthusiastically buy into because they're pissed off (from their living conditions), badly educated and media illiterate, or given a genuine economic incentive to (oy you Londoner, good job here, just beat the shit out of strikers and victimise the poor, you'll even get to wear a silly hat!). Divide and rule.
The economic gains of slavery and imperialism were left to "trickle down", effecting very many very little in the home countries, until redistributive measures (like nationalising industries, ensuring very high employment within them, welfare, subsidised education and high progressive taxes) split the blood money slightly more equitably in the home territory because no one wants their reserve army of labourers getting uppity on their doorstep, it's bad for business.
We can both agree that "identity politics" isn't critical enough, I just think it's a start; if you start to question the social construction of identity and its relationship with economics, you start to look into how that works too.
Ultimately; if you're pissed off with how the economic conditions are rigged, support those who the conditions are rigged against as effectively as you can; you share resonant economic and political interests with them as they're in the same boat as you - they face more extreme forms of the same thing and acts of outright, personal racism.
Very few people ask that question of themselves. The evidence is, no, it didnt save many lives, nor did it really change history that much. All other conquerers like Hitler--Alexander the Great, Caesar, Khan, etc--- had their empires dissolve between warring generals almost instantly upon their deaths, after which, things usually returned to much as they would have been anyway. And frankly, I have been wondering for several years now how much better things would be if California and Texas had seceded already. But I dont think thats the objective of the current riots. Im not afraid to say, I dont beleive they are being governed by some super fantastic ideal of racial equity, it all sounds very pretty the first time, and after that, it just begins to sound exactly all the other bids for power by every other similar movement since forever.
What exactly about my questions is sleazy or dishonest?
I'm trying to establish whether we are even talking about the same historic facts and how to classify those. If people keep responding with hand waving and stuff they think implicitly answers those questions it invites miscommunication. If it is dishonest to demand explicit answers, then you really need to explain why, because I'm not seeing it.
So far I think I've been rather mellow about being called sleazy, a racist, dishonest, stupid and a moron. But yeah, YOU guys definitely have the moral high ground here.
Honestly, I have no idea what you're talking about. I like to talk about simple issues. Crime, drugs, fatherlessness, investment opportunities for small businesses, landlord-tenant power relations, lack of social security, automation, increasingly expensive and necessary education demands and whatever else. Black people have to deal with being poor, in a country that doesn't much help the poor and then on top of that there's racism.
So when someone talks to me about white supremacy, imperialist expansion and capitalists manufacturing the political landscape for profits, I don't know how to respond.
As interesting as your story of graduating from Oxford, then moving to a poor black neighbourhood and being victimized there before turning into a white animal is, it's not really relevant to the question of whether systemic racism exists (nor is it in any way verifiable), so, at the risk of being accused of totalitarianism, I would ask you to save your personal stories for your personal story thread in the lounge rather than post the same thing in every discussion regarding race.
Yes. It reminds me most of the suffragettes. There was, and still probably is, a dispute between the peaceful, legal suffragists, and the militant property damaging suffragettes. My feeling is that nothing will change unless you make such a bloody nuisance of yourself that giving in becomes easier than resisting. Literally bloody, whether the blood of the demonstrator or of riot control.
Yes it is wrong, and I won't defend it. The morality was not that straightforward at the time, and the extermination camps became a justification after the event. But aside from the strict truth of the example, there is the principle that I sought to illustrate, and if that is acceptable, my poor history is relatively unimportant to this discussion.
We're both Bernie supporters. However, not all racial issues are corrected by class focus, since racism is not about class.
The war certainly saved Jewish lives - not just Jewish lives, but also gypsies, homosexuals, the disabled, etc. Without the war there would have been no limit to Hitler's regime - no counterforce. Hitler would have just continued unopposed into more and more countries and Europe's Jewish population would have been virtually wiped out.
I'm willing to accept the disproportionate murder or Jews but certainly not the systemic murder of Jews. Don't make everything about race.
Maybe I was mistaken.
The way Jews were treated in 1930s Germany is not remotely comparable to the way blacks are treated in the US currently.
Additionally, it transpires Floyd also had a substantial criminal history, with eight arrests, five times in jail, the last time for holding a gun to a woman's stomach while his friends plundered her house, after which, he turned his friends in for a plea bargain to reduce his prison sentence to five years. This information was almost impossible to find, as no US paper has reported it at all. The Daily Mail provided photos of all the records, remarking that the police wouldn't have known about it. However, that's not true, if they had his ID, which I don't actually know is true, then the police have been able to look up all records about any person from their squad cars for some time, as I learned in 2018 when they offered me to join a federal protection program while they nailed some murderers in a black gang just after they also tried to murder me. The Floyd criminal history was published in the UK here:[/quote]
Floyd's criminal history does not, and should not, play a role in whether Chauvin is convicted of murder. What's at stake is rather whether Chauvin's act meets any of the criteria specified in the Murder section of the Minnesota Penal Code. After taking a cursory glance at that section, I can say that a jury will have a difficult time convicting Chauvin of murder in any degree.
Murder in the second degree requires either, (1) intent to effect the death of a person without premeditation, or (2) causing the death of a person without intent, but while committing a felony offense in the first or second degree with force or violence.
The prosecution will probably contend that the criminal elements of 2 are met, because Chauvin was committing a felony assault in the first or second degree "with force or violence." Here first or second degree assault requires, respectively, 'great bodily harm' or 'substantial bodily harm.'
The coroner conducting the autopsy was unable to identify any "life-threatening injuries" other than minor bruising to the face, and trauma to the face, elbows, and hands, consistent with being handcuffed. The official cause of death was listed as "cardiopulmonary arrest, complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression." There were no signs of aphyxia in Floyd's body (*with that being said, the absence of any sign of asphyxia in the body does not license the further conclusion that there's no way Floyd could have died of asphyxiation).
At this point the defense will contend that Floyd's underlying conditions made the possibility of his death much more likely. The prosecution, in turn, will want to seek out additional autopsy reports that include "traumatic asphyxia due to neck compression and restraint due to law enforcement subdual," or something to that effect. I don't think anything the prosecution does will be enough to establish this charge though. This is because criminal convictions require not merely a preponderance of evidence, but guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. I do not see the jurors being presented with much robust, non-speculative evidence from the prosecution; and speculation is not adequate to meet the aforesaid criteria. Thus it looks like an acquittal is in the cards (for murder in the second degree anyhow).
Of course there are many variables to consider in these kinds of cases, including who the judge and jury are, and how well each attorney makes her case. But bear in mind that the U.S. criminal justice system is set up such that letting a possibly innocent person go free is considered better than convicting a probably guilty person. Furthermore, bear in mind that a criminal jury consists of 12 jurors, and all 12 jurors must agree UNANIMOUSLY to successfully reach a guilty verdict.
The charge of second degree murder is meant mostly for show. It's a charge that is politically motivated, and prosecutors know gaining a conviction on this charge is very unlikely. That's why the initial charges of third degree murder and second degree manslaughter remain.
Actually, I don't think third-degree murder will be an easy conviction either, because prosecutors will need to establish that Chauvin acted from a "depraved mind." They will probably do this by looking into his personal history and scrutinizing his record as a police officer; for example, by bringing up the 18 complaints he had filed against him. None of this will likely be sufficient to establish depravity of mind. Btw, 18 complaints in 19 years is not extraordinary. That's a little less than one complaint per year, and when you keep in mind that anyone can file a complaint against an officer for virtually any reason, that makes those complaints look not so alarming.
Manslaughter in the second degree requires that, through a person's culpable negligence, they "create an an unreasonable risk, and consciously takes chances of causing death or great bodily harm to another."
This is the charge that Chauvin will be convicted of.
Yeah, no, absolutely, why in the world would I make that comparison? Not like they get lynched by state apparatuses on the street on a regular basis. That would be insane.
White men get lynched by state apparatuses on a regular basis as well. Cops must hate white people.
Are you familiar with the Wannsee conference? Are you familiar with the official racial policies of Nazi Germany? They didn't even try to hide it.
Ok.
When the US has explicit policy forcing black people into ghettos or encourages the boycott or destruction of black owned businesses you let me know and I'll join up with you.
Fair enough. I'll give you something of a worked example of how I see it. After emphasising common ground, I've tried to start somewhere concrete and domestic, and the end of the post is more abstract and international.
Some common ground we already have; systemic discrimination against non-whites. I think we imagine the same kind of thing by that. That's also a form of white supremacy; an interlocking series of incentives and disadvantages that simultaneously affords most whites relative advantages and some whites gigantic relative advantages. Prosaically, the chances of being in a position of economic, social and political opportunity depend heavily on whether one is white or not. That's a systemic effect; in this aspect white supremacy is a name for systemic racism that works against non-whites. It's well named, as it engenders socioeconomic power for whites relative to non-whites. In this sense, if you believe that an economy and a state discriminate against non-whites, then you believe that the state and economy are white supremacist; white supremacy as a practice rather than as a political opinion.
White supremacy as a political opinion was used to justify the continual deprivation of slaves and their descendants. It was also used against the Irish and the Greeks and the Italians, who were later welcomed into the white race when it became politically convenient. Who is and is not white was a matter of great political significance; non-whites who are most palatable to those so empowered were and are more likely to be more included.
That sense of palatability relates to the political issue of which crimes are pursued, which are punished, and how they are punished. A black kid selling weed on the streets to eat gets fucked up by the police, a white kid in a private school gets a slap on the wrist for the same. And even if they were both convicted of the crime, the sentences would be worse for the black kid. You may disagree with the specifics; but we both know this is a thing.
Notice; the crimes that police police are crimes that poor people do; like selling drugs to eat in a community with few legal job prospects. They are supposed to keep "neighbourhoods safe", but they don't prevent crimes in those neighbourhoods which are heavily policed (poor non-white) nor do they address the conditions that lead to those crimes being a thing there. Most of what they do is disproportionately imprison or brutalise people of colour for minor offences or nothing at all; a kind of forced eviction into prison labour.
The crimes which effect those communities every day are like wage theft, discriminatory housing policies, discriminating based on race for business start up loans. But that's not what the police do, if they "keep neighbourhoods safe"; they must do so in a way that disproportionately leads to brutality and conviction for minor offenses while doing nothing about the crimes that their denizens are subject to every day.
The power filter above being what it is, that's also a form of white supremacy; the crimes that prosecutors and investigators could work on to help those communities are not the crimes which are punished, and that's even before we start talking about the ludicrous police violence against POC's and that it's not punished, and that institutional reform was so distant it's taken a giganting uprising to force politicians into even considering it.
So then we gotta go to those politicians; they're not dumb, they know the majority of people live in a way more similar to the subordinate poor than their wealthy and educated fellow politicians. Why is it that it takes a gigantic uprising for institutional reform of the police to be on the bargaining table? But all it takes is someone to fact check the president on Twitter for his administration to force through an unconstitutional executive order. Why is it that politicians don't seem to care about the issues that effect most of their potential voters, but they intimately care about bullshit like that?
Why do they make it easier for vigilante debt collectors to intimidate and traumatise already struggling families of their own accord, but it takes an uprising to consider the obvious condition of oppression POCs find their way in?
So what decides what policies can be brought to the table? Well, "vote with your dollar", thing is a tiny minority of interests has the vast majority of the money; and they leverage it to buy influence - it's a threat. The same flavour of threat that most workers and unemployed face every day; behave adequately or lose what little livelihood you have. People respond to that on a gut level; don't do this or BIG else, "big else" for recipients of large corporate donation is "you lose loads of fucking money". There's another pressure put on; corporate doners will only fund those who are close to their interests; vote with your dollar. So it pays to be an advocate on political issues in favour of the corporate interests that have "voted" for you. Those with the money to fund politicians can shape the policy-advocacy landscape, and they do; a representative politics functioning as it should - those who are represented shape policy with their votes.
That institutionally cultivated indifference of politicians to the concerns of their voter base; that falls along race lines too, just like poverty. The issues that can practically be brought to the negotiating tables of policy are not the issues that need to be addressed for a more functional democracy and a more equal society.
That's all domestic though; and policy isn't just domestic, it's international. When a policy is adopted, it's going to be in a truly represented party's interests. Whose interests did the UK and US trained and sponsored coup of the democratically elected Mossadegh represent? Those who previously owned the oil or relevant company shares, which Mossadegh nationalised. Whose interests did the UK and US trained and sponsored coup of Allende serve? Those who owned the mines and agriculture and their company shares, which he nationalised. What of Lumumba, democratically elected to free Congo of the remnants of colonialism? US and Belgium sponsored the coup. Notice that the same adage about white supremacy being the flavour of our countries' systemic racism applies; the effected people are mostly POCs from the political south. The old power imbalances between colonial countries and colonised countries are still there; but the benefits are accrued through business, and the suppression of their national interest by our agents of corporate interest we call democracies.
If you look at locuses of power; who is truly represented in our "democracies" with their dollar voting regimes; it's corporate interest that shapes policy, both domestic and foreign, and it takes people burning shit down to get domestic reform out of those people.
People look at this stuff, like race separate from class, domestic separate from foreign, when the institutions that drive policy are international agents who use states as international vectors of subjugation and extraction; to the negligible benefit of those in the home territory, but mostly to the benefit of the interests they're payed to represent. If you're a member of the colonial power or its race in a business network of colonised countries; the difference between you and the subjugated is payed in interest on blood money.
And if you say "what about China", the CCP can go fuck itself too.
Disproportionate murder of black people by police or just in general? Blacks in the US disproportionately commit murder, and when they do murder they disproportionately murder other black people. If a given group commits a greater share of the crime in a country then you'd expect them to have disproportionate contact with the police.
We could still have a problem here - it's hard to get clean statistics - but we're leagues away from the holocaust unless you believe that there is a universal covert plan in police departments to just murder black people. Is this what you believe? Do police departments have secret plans to kill black men?
There's no plan! It's all been a happy accident.
Ok great, we're on the same page now. If there is such a plot then we live in a horribly disgusting racist state. Or maybe it's just the police department... or does the policy go higher? In any case you being able to recognize this plot indicates an enormous degree of insight that I just haven't attained yet.
This is kinda a sidenote, but do you think it's a problem that we apply the same term, e.g. white supremacy, to a worldview, a movement and a systemic effect? I get the feeling it causes negative gut reactions in a lot of people who might otherwise be sympathetic.
No. But I do agree it can make it a harder sell. In my experience, white people often get uncomfortable whenever whiteness is brought into view in any way, then treat it as someone else's problem.
Edit: ultimately I think it comes from inappropriately personalised guilt - I mean, I'm white, it's easy to start getting uncomfortable when people point out defects tied to my sense of compassion. But the "systemic" part means that, really, unless you're a member of the 1%, your actions are only going to be influential to the extent you can collectivise/organise them - we're so saturated with narratives about the individual, especially with regard to prejudice, that "oh god what if the entire history of colonialism and continued subjugation of the political south is on my shoulders because I'm white" seems more immediate and gripping than "Huh, I guess I've benefitted a lot from those injustices, but ultimately my compassion and my morality side with addressing them"
We're talking about the US, I take it? In other countries I take it we could talk about black or Asian privilege? Did you know that Asians actually have higher median household incomes than whites in the "white supremacist" United States?
Whole world mate.
Sure, if we took the entire world in aggregate I would rather be white but if we were to confine our discussion to a given community or country you'd often choose not to be white in our pre-birth scenario.
:eyes:
Let me clarify, sure, if I was told "hey, you're about to be born somewhere in the world, would you rather be white?" I'd say yes. If I was told "hey, you're about to be born into such-and-such a country or community, would you rather be white?" My answer could very well be "no." Sometimes strongly no.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Three things that means;
(1) You acknowledge the reality of global systemic racism.
(2) You know that it's almost always white supremacist in nature,
(3) You are aware that it's a social-political-economic matter, and the proximate cause of it isn't anything in "our nature".
Looks to me like you have no substantive disagreements with what I wrote.
Some think they have the luxury - das herrenvolk privilege - to forget their crimes and/or those committed in their name. Well, history teaches that 'karma' is a MF :point:
https://youtu.be/VIGqdOJ2cuc
re: institutional racial violence
Btw, "What happened to the Black angels ...?" :halo:
https://youtu.be/7eXdt1eGgCA
re: symbolic racial violence
I appreciate you're trying to make the point that police brutality is sufficiently enough about race that it's appropriate to say black lives matter without identifying other groups who might also be affected, but the analogy to Nazi Germany hardly applies. The oppression faced by blacks, even characterized at its must hyperbolic, is dramatically less than the systematic gassing of Jews. When you compare today to Nazi Germany, you don't maximize the sympathy for blacks, but you minimize the concern for Jews. I say this not to chastise, but just to point out where other sensitivities lie, considering the ultimate goal is greater empathy for all.
'Acceptable' collateral damage - besides, only a mere fraction of total police lynchings :wink: - for the paramilitarized Operation Niggerization of the proletariat, precariate, undocumented and other others.
The creation of historical record is full of white supremacy. Professionalised epistemic injustice.
Well, not Caesar. While after his death effective power was held by the second triumvirate, followed by the contest between Antony and Octavian, Caesar's adopted son, soon to be Augustus, once that was resolved Augustus established the Principate and Rome's empire was expanded. The Principate lasted (if you include the Eastern Empire) about 1500 years. The names Caesar and Augustus came to be titles which, in the case of "Caesar" was held even into the 20th century.
Not Hitler, either, of course. No warring generals succeeded him. I don't know much about the Khans, but only in the case of Alexander was an empire divided by his generals.
The protesters are arguing about how to rearrange the chairs on the Titanic.
Of course racism exists in the US, and lots elsewhere. In affirming that, though, I would like to take most individuals off the hook. Most people are not individually responsible for the various 'isms' they display -- racism, classism, bodyism, ageism, ableism, sexism, etcism. The 'isms' in our baggage were/are constructed over time and place, solidified, and widely distributed. We take on the 'isms' through our participation in the culture. We take on many positive and negative values, some serving us well, some not.
Individuals are back on the hook when they practice 'isms' against others, are conscious of doing so, and continue doing so. (Example: being aware of how much they dislike fat people as a category and the refusal to consider a fat woman or fat man for a job they are qualified to perform.) The book WHITE TRASH The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America by Nancy Isenberg traces the disgust the ruling classes in England felt for the poor and menials, and how they installed their values in the colonies, and continued on into the present.
Racism in America has a history too -- well enough known, I think; we don't have to rehearse it here.
Officer Chauvin's hard core race hatred isn't unique. I don't know how many people in Minneapolis share it: 1%? 5%? 10%? Ballpark guess: Probably somewhere in-between 5% to 10%. There are about 250,000 white people in Minneapolis (63% of the population); 12,000 to 25,000 citizens sharing officer Chauvin's view are a lot, even if 225,000 don't.
I have no idea how many people dismiss out of hand people who are obese, disabled, poor, sexist, old, and so on. It's probably a large number, sweeping every prejudice up together.
You meet my expectations fdrake, when it comes to eloquently and soundly articulating the facts about the problems, you do so excellently. I agree with Echarmion though, your insistence on provocative terms comes across as belligerence and considering the political state of the left, it's even easier to write you off that way. That being said, I think writing you off that way is correct, it's just that you make it easier.
I don't think you've hyperbolised the problems, truly, that's pretty much how it is. I won't echo what we've both already written about. The thread is "does systemic racism exist in the US" and that's been answered.
However, I hope you are able to separate interpretation from fact, maybe even that you can see interpretation as having important implications. That we can strive to be pragmatic in our approach. Race is superficial, the causation behind our problems shouldn't be charactered by the pettiness of our nature. Race is responsible for nothing, it is nothing, that's the truth beyond our pettiness. How can it be any other way?
Things are the way they are because of human nature, the nature of power, economics, technology and so on. I know you can articulate the problems using these terms, you've shown it. Yet you insist on using the petty language made important by the stupidity you should abhor. Which of the real problems can be resolved by any solution orientated around race and sex? What are the benefits of the perpetuation of the focus and how do they compare to the potential for harm?
It is all true, white men hurting coloured people, rich men hurting poor people, people hurting people. So I say people are hurting people, because I believe the focus on race and sex is harmful and unpragmatic, I think it leads us towards further tribalism. It's not a practical solution, it's angry hate, passion towards injustice should be tunnelled towards only pragmatic problem-solving.
So your terminology and insistence on emphasising racial and gender differences shouldn't be found guilty of being factually incorrect. It should be found guilty of fanning the flames of hate, spreading the very poison that you're embittered about. Impractical at best but more likely harmful and politically unsound. I think you're smart enough to know that, people will show resistance to help based on the reason.
The amount of distress caused by a drive-by shooting is probably not significantly less than a police killing. Of course, your run-of-the-mill drive-by-shooter isn't representing civil society. There's a difference there, but when you're dead you're dead regardless of who brought about your death.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-2018/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-6.xls
Meanwhile... From 7 p.m. Friday, May 29, through 11 p.m. Sunday, May 31, 25 people were killed in the city, with another 85 wounded by gunfire, according to data maintained by the Chicago Sun-Times.
Sure, but that's not the salient point of comparison that I'm trying to bring out. What I do think is exactly the same is this clearly absurd idea of trying to 'smooth over' the distinctions and claim that 'bringing race into it' is a distraction or, as with the post a couple above this one, 'fanning the flames of hate'. The holocaust was not just 'people hurting people', and it would be absurd to suggest it was - or that it was only that. So too the systemic injustices visited upon the black community. The scale, intent, and rate of violence is immaterial to that.
As far as I'm concerned, resistance to understanding things in terms of race comes out of nothing but a deep anxiety over it. Black people - and basically anyone who is not white - always get pinned down to their race: being black means you are a 'black writer', a 'black lawyer', a 'black actor' or whathaveyou. Being white just means you're a writer, lawyer, or actor. The resistance to race is nothing but the terrifying idea that one might have to be a 'white writer', etc etc. It's self-anxiety reflected outwards. "Pragmatisim" means: I don't want to have to deal with race - only they need to.
There has been some discussion here about the 'uncomfortableness' of using terms like white supremacy. Gosh I hope it makes people uncomfortable. I hope it makes people squirm. Because that's what minorities have to deal with every bloody day.
Whether they deserve it or not, police become the cause celebre, and bear the weight of all injustices.
The 0.01% they protect and serve should bear it instead
Quoting StreetlightX
That’s completely untrue. Publishers, writers, artists and curators use those terms to help promote their work. Women writers are promoted as addressing womens’ issues, or black issues, or transgender issues, or issues of race. It’s the left who play with issues of identity. In fact conservatives, the right if you like, very rarely play that game.
The MPD, like other PDs, has friends and they are themselves a capable political operation. Dismantling or pruning the police is by no means a done deal--even a started and then stalled out deal.
Some programatic changes a city council can and should be instituted right away.
Social workers and mental health intervenors should attend to most domestic disputes -- along with a police officer (in support, not in charge). Restorative justice programs should be established in neighborhoods where there are numerous misdemeanor property crimes (shoplifting, petty theft, etc.). Homelessness must be addressed with Housing First, then social services. Drug/alcohol addiction needs to be addressed with treatment, not jail time.
There are plenty of activities which the police can and should attend to: speeding, running red lights, murders, robbery, fighting, and so forth.
For some that is clearly the case, I won't deny that... but for some (and I would count myself in that categorie lol) it's not so much that we have anxiety over race or that we want deny moral responsibility, but more that we think that race is not the most important aspect of the problem. And more importantly that we think that dealing with it as purely a race issue won't really solve it long-term. The way people perceive the problem will have its consequence for the measures that will be proposed ultimately. And like I said in the other thread, I think poverty is the real problem here. In the end those lone-sharks, slumlords, etc... that are the agents of systemic racism care about money, and they will make decision based on criteria that they think are an indication for that, like race. No amount of measures that deal strictly with race will change that it seems to me... and so the whole movement risks ending in something that only superficially deals with the problem, cosmetics.
There's only so much political capital and momentum to change things, and if that is spend on race-issues and identity-politics... chances are that poverty or more fundamentally the whole skewed capitalist system will not be dealt with. Another related point that I want to make is that I think time is running out. In marxist analysis, workers have the potential for political power because they have economic leverage... that is about to change rather fast as AI and automation become more mature. If it's hard to change the system with economic leverage, it's probably not getting any easier without it... and so from that perspective this seems like a bit of a wasted opportunity.
More than that, though: the "resistance to race", as Street puts it, even if it's a luxury, is no less progressive for that. One can hardly advocate for a world in which a black writer is a "writer" and not a "black writer" by self-identifying as a "white writer"--and feeling faux-guilty about it. I think the focus on whiteness here is entirely regressive.
No one is arguing - or at least I'm not arguing - that these issues are 'purely' race issues. If anything my line of argument has been the exact opposite: that race issues cannot be understood without implicating them into economic, social, and historical ones. But this recognition must be a two-way street. To understand racial issues as, say, economic, is equally to understand economic issues as irreducibly racial. You can’t have one without the other. As I said to someone else here - maybe you already - economics and race are not in competition with one another. They must be thought through together, and each can only ever be conceived more poorly without the other.
@Brett got confused earlier when I said that something can be specifically racial without only being about race. Another way to put this is that not even racial issues are themselves purely racial. “Race”, isolated from its social links, is purely imaginary (how could it not be? Race is a circumstance). But again, this means that the social is directly racially implicated. You can’t have it both ways. You can’t say that race issues are ultimately economic issues, while aiming to minimise any discussion of race in economics. If anything, the exact opposite holds.
Yes I know you get it, more than most here probably, and that you are not arguing that point... but what form political action will take, will likely not be decided by your or my understanding of the problem, but by how it is perceived in the public. And the way it has played out so far, it seems to be predominately about race, which I don't disagree is a part of it, but it does risk missing the other aspect, especially in the measures that will be taken ultimately.
So I guess my point is more about strategy of political action than the 'truth' of the matter, which feels kinda dirty saying aloud, but still worth saying I think.... maybe not so much on a philosophy forum :-).
But then the point would be to encourage a more expansive and robust notion of race than to rail against its very mention. Now's the time to do it, if any.
Yes, maybe that is a valuable endeavor in itself... but don't you think the nuance will be lost on most, short attentions spans and all that? Or is that to cynical?
My English is lacking I think because I don't seem to understand this comment. Can you give an example of "focus on whiteness here is entirely regressive"? Or if somebody else wants to be helpful?
Yes. In many ways the call to defund the police doesn't go far enough. It needs to be coupled with the equally important call to re-fund the public, least it simply play into the neoliberal imperative to privatize everything. Comparisons like the following have been making their way around for various cities (here's another one for Columbus, Ohio), and I just pulled the most recent one I could find:
All the other programs you refer to can be paid for precisely by redistributing or reorienting what a progressive society wants or ought to value.
Maybe. But you can only try. And if you fail, the point is to fail better each time.
No, I don't think this is right at all. Its either naive or obfuscatory. There's only one front page, and it's full of outcry over the police. There's limited room in public discourse and limited bandwidth in people's thoughts. It matters tremendously that we use that limited space to discuss the issues which will have most positive impact on people's lives.
I think it's discraceful that the newspapers and socialist discussion groups are dominted by outcry over the deaths of a thousand blacks at the hands of their police when nearly a thousand times that amount of children (virtually all of whom are black) die from poverty in the same period due directly to our consumer choices. Why? Because 'make poverty history' was last year's headline, its boring now and none of the cool kids are talking about it anymore.
And it's absolutely evident that it's not enough to say "we can have that discussion too, it doesn't have to be one or the other" because we are absolutely not having that discussion. It is nowhere in the papers, it is the subject of no protests, it is being discussed by no city councils, hell even my attempts to discuss it here have been met with stony silence.
We have limits to the scope of public discourse. It really does matter what we choose to fill it with.
There's a market for fairphones, but it's small. There's a market for fairtrade coffee but it's small. What actions, other than what companies are already doing and have dedicated PR departments for, should you and I be doing to get more people on board?
Also reminded me about this: https://www.instagram.com/p/CBKyYVzg0mQ/?igshid=kf2e6mf3o519
Then why not articulate the two together? If these issues are as systemic as I think you would concede, then police violence functions as a metonym for wider issues which are not just supernumerary but integral to understanding both police violence and systemic cruelty. Police violence is a lever, a crowbar by which to open the door to issues which 'really matter'. You're right that this isn't being done in the main. Then do it and stop complaining about it. It's no good playing the agonized more-progressive-than-thou when frankly, many people simply don't care - not their fault; they're inured and politically incapacitated. You use what you get, and be smart about it.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2018/07/12/baltimore-police-not-noticing-crime-after-freddie-gray-wave-killings-followed/744741002/
it could be reasonably argued that your position is complicit with the hundreds of murders that will result, although it seems rather obvious no one wants to think about it, so Im not criticizing you for your view, Im just asking that you take a more balanced view and consider the huncreds of lives that will be lost as a consequence of this. I talked with unenlightened, and I have to agree with him, it is a matter of balance, and the problem it seems to me is that defunding the police is a very unbalanced response, in my opinion, because it will kill far more people than the police do.
If you in any way thought the looting was wrong, it was nothing compared to the number of people who will now die because of domestic violence and orgnaized crime, the latter of whom are extremely pleased with you.
I like congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, chairperson of the House Reform Committee, who proposed all police must wear bodycams at all times. They did it in Europe, and colleagues from Oxford tell me there was a marked reduction in complaints about the police afterwards.
Firstly, they're not even more expensive, just less cool. It's partly a matter of generating social norms which requires a change in the way people think about tokens of social identity. As usual, the mechanism for doing that is behavioural change and ostracisation, the more influencial in society you happen to be the better.
Quoting Benkei
Talking about it. Which, difficult though it is, involves not talking about issues which detract from it. And here I don't mean literally say nothing else, I mean simply to ensure the discourse is balanced in favour of those interventions which can have the most impact.
I mean, look at what you're already doing to highlight the injustices done to black communities in America by their brutal police forces. Did you have the same trouble working out what more you or I could do there?
Because apparently...
Quoting StreetlightX
This is the central issue, and I know I'll get pilloried for putting it in such crude terms, I hope there's some degree of understanding that I'm not talking in absolute terms here, but... Supporting the protests against the police is cool. Talking about more ethical consumer choices is not cool. Your own characterisation of my attempts to do so demonstrates this as well as any. Shut down the boring guy talking about phone brands, we've got riot to flag-waive over.
I think using what we can get disenfranchises those who cannot get a space in the realm of public discourse. If we use what we can get, when is it going to be the turn of the 35,000 children working for less than 50 cents a day down mines to make mobile phones. Are we just to wait until they have a riot big enough to get in the papers? Will we only back them once they've shown themselves sufficiently camera-worthy to make the front page?
The issue you're talking about is poverty, right? You bought a fairphone because it buys materials from non-conflict zones and uses manufacturers that pay their employees better. If not-buying from non-conflict zones or not having manufacturers that pay their employees well wouldn't cause prices to rise, everybody would be doing it. So your phone costs more than a similarly specced phone from a different brand would. The Google Pixel 3 is quite similar (slightly better) but is 60 euros cheaper.
Now, if I'm poor. That 60 EUR makes a large difference and I probably wouldn't be willing to part with 60 euros to give some abstract Chinese worker a bit more money. It's too much.
I have sincere doubts about the effectiveness of trying to shift consumer preferences as well and suspect there are better, policy driven, approaches to combat poverty. Once out of poverty people will have the time and luxury to worry about the climate impact of their purchases or the effective slavery that exists in those countries to which we've outsourced manufacturing of goods.
I think DISBANDING THE POLICE will turn the USA into USSR,
yes. Im sure the funding could be used for better things, but I am not such an idealist. I have to agree with Aristotle. The greatest problem with democracy is defending ourselves from ourselves.
Pogo: we have found the enemy and he is us.
It would be very nice to live in a romantic fantasy, but the reason romantic fantasies are so appealing is that they are impossible.
Well there is your problem. If people are not willing to spend another 60 euro to avoid supporting the use of children as young as 6 years old down a mine then what's the point? We live in a democracy. If people are so unbelievably selfish that they think 60 euros is worth a kid being sent down a mine for then any policy aimed at reducing poverty will be undone or voted out the moment it yields a net loss of 60 euros or more.
Quoting Benkei
You're missing the point of much of the cost of goods. A large part of Google's phone costs go on development and advertising. Google spend nearly 15% of their expenditure on product development and a similar amount on advertising. So your 60 euros is almost entirely the cost of making the phone look cool. And Fairphone are a social enterprise company, so they don't need to make 15% profit for their shareholders.
Similarly about 15% of the cost of a pair of Nike trainers is to cover the cost of paying some sports star to wear them, and then another 15% paying the executives shareholders etc. Another chunk (though I can't find the amount) goes adding new features that aren't even needed (again, just to make them seem more cool than the competition). Not paying all these extras frees up money to spend on paying workers properly.
The main reason Google phones are still cheaper is mostly economies of scale. It takes more people to commit to ethical choices to undermine that.
For a good example, take a look at Rapanui (I won't link in case it counts as advertising). They've manged to build up a social enterprise, renewable-energy powered garment supply chain with zero exploitation, all living wage employees and their t-shirts are cheaper than Nike.
Quoting Benkei
This is kind of offensive to people in poverty. I know you didn't mean to be. A few years ago I had the great privelidge to work with a local co-op in an area of my country so poverty stricken it was on the European Objective 1 zone. They were struggling to afford good food, so they set up a worker's co-op, met with local farmers and wholesalers, organised distribution, negotiated deals and ended up with a supply network of organic locally grown vegetables (and even a few wholesale items). The idea that poor people cannot help but support oppressive or environmentally damaging practices because they can't afford otherwise is really just a way of perpetuating them as a market for large corporations to profit from selling cheap crap to.
Ad homs are the multiple "points" you have made in this thread.
You're delusional if you think that you, or your side, is the only one with an open-mind. Casting insults does not endear others to your way of thinking.
If you want to have a conversation, then let's do so, but it seems that your emotional state prevents you from doing that.
I'm not sure you read what I wrote, or are even in fact replying to me at all. I didn't try to shut you down talking about phone brands - I don't think I even participated in that conversation at all. On the other hand, I'm encouraging you to use this momentum to talk about the links between police violence and the kind of thing that gives rise to child labour. That's what 'articulate the two together' means. I don't understand why you feel to need to turn violence into a competition. I don't see why leftist whataboutism is any better than conservative whataboutisms.
Can also serve as a reply to @Judaka.
There's one form of it which I agree is regressive; if we end up talking about white individuals and guilt rather than institutions and oppression, that's not good. Australian aborigines know the value of a sponsored apology; it's just symbolism... It is conceptually extremely stupid to see inherent racial differences, or to essentialise them. A life condition where race has been made to matter is itself a form of injustice against the truth of our common nature. A resistance to race in that context shows solidarity and affirms mutual class interest. But that class solidarity is premised upon acknowledging the reality of systemic discrimination; that what keeps the disenfranchised down disproportionately keeps the disenfranchised racial category down, but it keeps most of the privileged race category down too. Just happens to be whites that built empire.
If you wanna look at how class works in a colonial power - it's going to put the colonised "in their place", as it used to be put in Britain. That members of the colonial power's privileged racial category end up in the same place shows it's not just about race. So there's a discussion of class interest in that.
There's also the other left angle where we talk about how white supremacy and its fascist actors are consistent with the function of capital; even being efficient disciplinary mechanisms for it. And further how the rhetoric of white supremacy and fascism are extremely effective in shifting centrist politics. The legacy of colonialism in a capitalist economy puts everyone in the same economic pressure cooker, it also promotes racism within the pressure cooker. Systemic discrimination being what it is, it keeps the colonised more "in their place" than the privileged race over time.
I thought I'd explained that, but I'll try again. There is limited space in public discourse. We cannot maintain outrage at every injustice. There's only one front page and it carries only one story. Celebrities only jump on one bandwagon at a time...
I get what you're saying about using this momentum to carry forward arguments about other issues of systemic rasicm, but such a principle is premised on the fact that this issue is being driven by the same concerns that would drive changes in consumer choices. I'm making the argument that the very history of public discourse around these issues is proof that they're not.
Quoting Baden
I am perplexed by the point of unconscious engagement in ‘systemic racism.’ Many people do not publicly exhibit or privately express any recognizable features of racist behavior or racist beliefs and consider themselves non-racist, tolerant, and multicultural. They do not perform any conscious acts of racism. Yet, some of them are regularly involved in professional activities that could be qualified as maintaining systemic racism according to the above definition (cops, journalists, politicians, etc.) Therefore, individuals may exercise acts of systemic racism unbeknownst to themselves, or even contrary to their intentions, if alignments of power or culture subtly orient their actions. Consequently, despite their personal views and qualities, these people may be called racists or systemic racists. Please correct me if I misunderstood or misinterpreted the quote.
Isn't that what you're trying to do? What about this injustice? And that injustice? It's precisely because we 'cannot maintain outrage at every injustice' that one needs to work with momentum where one finds it.
And frankly, now that you mention it, I'm not convinced that I want - or anyone should want - 'changes in consumer choices'. Capitalism is driven by the need to offer ever more shades of alternatives, each of which does nothing but entrench the power of capital. Every capitalist wants a 'change in consumer choices' - towards their brand. You need changes at the level of political economy, not just choosing this or that ethical phone or whatever - although all power to you if you do that. And one of the ways you do that is by showing just how interconnected all these issues are.
No, systemic racism refers directly to systems not people. For example, being a prison officer in a systemically racist justice system doesn't make you a racist.
Possibly. The fact that the momentum is with issue A might be a reason to let it dominate discourse. I'm saying that it isn't a very good reason. We should choose the issue where the degree of progress we can expect will have most impact, that's not necessarily the one that currently has momentum.
In fact, I'd go as far as to say its almost certainly not going to be. The issue currently with momentum has had to get through a lot of filters, none of which have anything to do with the injustices it's opposing. It has to gain media time and media are influenced by big businesses. It has to be popular, and popularity is tightly controlled by big businesses.
I'm not saying the current waves of protest are fake, I'm saying they've been 'let through' the filters in place to control public discourse and we shouldn't take that as a means of deciding which injustice to work with.
Quoting StreetlightX
Needless to say I disagree with this analysis, but it's probably off-topic here to debate the extent to which 'green' choices are simply another niche for capitalists to exploit. Broadly, I think they are, but I think we'd be dangerously unpragmatic to say that just because an organisation is profiting from the new niche for living-wage clothing, that hasn't made a massive difference to real lives of the workers now being paid twice what they were. It would take a special kind of inhumanity to put one's ideological objection to capitalist opportunism in the way of any method of getting children out of mines. Yes we can do so by legal action, but consumer action is quicker and, if it can be culturally integrated, more sustainable.
I think this is much too cynical and much too naive. The media powers and their unwitting lackeys - sprinkled all over this thread - have gone into overdrive in trying to reframe these protests as 'looting', and 'going too far'; police brutality is on display on every street corner, and Trump has even tried to stomp all over posse comitatus and the 3rd amendment just to try and "dominate" these uprisings. These are not filters that have been 'let though': this is the total failure of filters at work, with the State going nuts to try and reinstate them. And that's to say nothing of the evidence of small wins - still too small by far - achieved by what's been going on.
Quoting Isaac
Again, I'm a big tent person - let's get children out of mines and defund the police and refund public goods.
I think we've reached a point where we might just have to agree to disagree. I completely agree with what you say about the mainstream media, but I don't think that in any way proves there are no filters on what cannot be trashed. The media doesn't get together and plan in advance how it's going to suppress news of injustices. Some will trash it all, some will focus on one injustice to detract from a worse one. The existence of one tactic doesn't disprove the existence of the other.
Quoting StreetlightX
And again, I think the evidence shows that we simply do not do both, the police will get defunded and the children will stay in the mines because there's virtually no social group pressure either way regarding the details of police funding, there's massive social group pressure to have the latest phone. Until we change that, the children will stay in the mines.
Depends on the definition. If we say a given policy - even if not intended to be racist - can have consequences which disproportionately harm a minority group then sure. If we're talking about explicit racism then I don't think so. I'll agree that people tend to favor their in-group.
This is a difficult discussion to have since it's extremely broad and we need to take into account social, political, and economic factors. You could have one without the other: For instance, in South Africa while whites are likely to be richer due to historical injustices today they will never attain political power as a disliked minority and they are subject to racial attacks at a fairly high rate. You also have strong affirmative action laws which systemically disfavor whites. In China a white man may be able to find a job, but I would doubt his ability to enter into positions of real power. Same with Japan. This topic is extremely complicated partially because I don't consider the world as having really even a unified system. I think it's more plausible to just to consider it a collection of countries each with its own unique culture and perspectives. To call India or China "white supremacist" seems silly to me.
I'm not sure it's selfish. I doubt most people know about it and even then, the really poor can't afford either the Pixel 3 or the fairphone 3.
Quoting Isaac
Totally fair to call me out on that. At the same time what you're describing isn't the norm either.
From what I understand, the poor are so consumed with money problems that they actually don't have time to think about much else. Which is why they are often notoriously bad in making decision that will benefit them in the long run. This is why personal debt management by another person is so effective in helping them as it frees up time in their minds to think about other things.
They don't have an emoji of someone nodding with resigned assent and an ice pick in their head, just imagine one for me!
Which is exactly what I'm talking about. Who doesn't know about the riots in Minneapolis. Air time matters.
Quoting Benkei
True, I should be clear that I'm talking mainly about the people responsible for the prevailing discourse, most of whom could probably afford both. The actual poor might well buy second hand which doesn't harm anyone, but even there, social group pressure pushes for new crap rather than second-hand quality. There's still a small amount of responsibility (even a second hand Nike t-shirt does their advertising for them) but I don't think the extent to which the choices of the really poor might exacerbate their own situation is really a fair discussion, so I'm not going to go there.
Quoting Benkei
Have you read a book called Scarcity by Sendhil Mullainathan and Eldar Shafir? If not I highly recommend it. It talks about this exact thing, plus goes into all the limited bandwidth stuff I've been talking about.
Responsible enough?
Probably not the place for a long discussion on this, but I tend to think the social acceptability of exploitation is the elephant in the room of most discussions about strategies to address it. I really wouldn't be seen dead with an Apple phone, not because of the actual suffering involved in their manufacture (as you say, that can be avoided by buying second hand, end-of-line etc), but because they, as a company, knowingly exploited 6 year old children for profit, I don't want to be associated with them.
Obviously the cost of the alternatives is part of the decision and many options will be out reach, but we'd be foolish to think that fact is the main determinant of people's purchasing choices. The second-hand Nike's are still chosen above the second-hand Ethletic because they are considered much cooler. Why is a brand which exploits children considered cool? That's the problem, I think, basic human decency seems to take second place to group identity.
~Jonathan Pie ("our man in London")
Black Lives Matter too. (video)
[quote=Toni Morrison, interview (2002)]If the racist white person - I don’t mean the person who is examining his consciousness and so on - doesn’t understand that he or she is also a ‘race’: it’s also constructed, it’s also made, and it also has some kind of serviceability; but when you take it away - if I take your ‘race’ away - and there you are, all strung out, and all you’ve got is your little self - and what is that? What are you without racism? Are you any good? Are you still strong? Still smart? You still like yourself? …
If you can only be tall because somebody is on their knees, then you have a serious problem. And my feeling is: white people have a very, very serious problem. And they should start thinking about what they can do about it. Take me out of it …[/quote]
Your 'race' problem ... "I'm not a victim!" (video)
In general I think artful commentary is usually ahead of the curve. Even "mainstream" art like tv shows. Here's family matters from 1994 that I came across:
EDIT: not to say that it wasn't highlighted often before. But it's difficult to find commentary like this in "mainstream" tv shows. And it shows the lack of progress in 25 years.
In 1990, when I was in primary school, the focus on the Dutch slavery past was on how violent the slave revolts were and how many Dutch people were killed in them. Not cool.
So here's all the academic work from the Leiden University by the African Studies Centre for anyone who is interested in Dutch slave history:
https://www.ascleiden.nl/content/webdossiers/dutch-involvement-transatlantic-slave-trade-and-abolition
Quoting fdrake
It's pleasing to hear you say this. However, in the past and now, I have felt that a major issue with you is that you highlight race in a way that makes it matter. How am I to react to someone who favours language that highlights race and then also says that this is an injustice. Is it a necessary evil for you then?
Racism is a word that gets thrown around meaninglessly, the word has become quite political. So, what is real modern-day racism? I think this is the heart of it, "calling a spade a spade" as you put it. A narrative on race differences that assigns attributes, intentions and actions to races. Which elicits, promotes and validates opinions on races - and racism.
That's why people like Benkei are rather unforgivable, this kind of attitude can only lead to discrimination. We can justify hatred towards a race if what the race is, isn't just a skin colour. So what if what's said is true? That doesn't justify bringing it up in the wrong context or emphasising it as something important and especially not using it in your arguments. Modern-day racism is pointing out that white civilisation has done better than others, it's about judging Muslims as potential terrorists or being distrustful of black people due to crime rates and poverty.
So what if white people benefited from past and current injustices? Aren't they just people? The perpetuation of this is unacceptable, systemic racism is bad for everyone and immoral. Anger towards the inequity, which is the result of past injustices of which nothing can be done, only leads to an increase in the significance of race. It is not conducive to helping people and only hurting people. Undoing the inequity necessitates further the act of the government and the people to distinguish between the races, to acknowledge racial history and continue the injustice of race as a significance.
As I said previously, we can identify an existing problem and identify a practical solution. That's not what this is about, it's about the narrative, the framing and the dramatisation of race differences and race histories. Luckily, the best political option is also the moral one, which is invalidating interpretations on race.
This is the modern-day left, they complain about race being of significance to people in some contexts but in many contexts, they take it to be extremely important. Can't really have it both ways. Any conversation with someone like StreetlightX or Banno is like that, "oh no black writers" but then they have no reservations blaming either the whole West or an entire country for the actions of a handful of people or less.
Highlighting that race matters when it shouldn't is much different from making race matter when it shouldn't. It's not my rhetoric that's causing systemic discrimination, is it?
You've used a lot of words to say "he who smelt it dealt it". How would you prefer the issues to be talked about?
I'm sure you do that but I meant that you highlight race in a way that makes it matter and not that you highlight that race matters. You deny this? Calling a spade a spade, isn't that what you call it?
I can find common ground with lefties on some issues but as for identity politics and emphasising race differences, you alone might not do anything but these ideas will have devastating consequences in the future.
I don't really know what you're talking about. Give me an example of something I've said that has done more harm than silence and ignorance on the issues.
Quoting fdrake
He’s trying to tell you that by making race an issue you make the idea of race important. When it would be better, as everyone keeps saying, that there was no issue of race, that it shouldn’t exist. But you perpetuate the idea of race by making it an issue.
That's completely absurd. You think a social shut in who spends his time arguing on the internet is making race important to the extent you're criticising me for speaking about it rather than criticising the racist state of affairs. Like all this shit that's been going on would be so much better if I just shut up about it.
I’m not criticising you, I’m just clarifying what Judaka said. I might be wrong of course.
You know you really are a couple of thugs.
Stahp.
Heh, I'm not sure what you say does any good or any harm, you aren't in a position of power. I'm not sure what you want me to compare you to. All I can say is that your insistence on proactively bringing up race and gender is not conducive to making these things less relevant. You've even said you see identity politics as a start to something useful, what do you think identity politics is and what does it do? You read Benkei's essay and thought... he's calling a spade a spade?
I'm arguing about ideas on a philosophy forum, your impact on the world is a complete irrelevance.
I think he is talking about the lense of identity politics, where race is always a huge factor in any interaction with different races involved. (Especially with white and black people in the states). It adds to the problem because its creates a race issue where there isnt one (potentially, obviously race can still be a large factor it just shouldnt be assumed just because different races are involved).
Also, I think that Judaka means is talking about your personal impact on the world in the first quoted portion and talking about the identity politics Idealogy in the second quote.
Im not sure if you subscribe to identity politics in the way Judaka indicates but Im pretty sure thats what hes accusing you of.
You've misunderstood me, I didn't address "your" narrative, I spoke generally about how racism can be a narrative. A story that gives life to race and makes it more than an aesthetic.
The second quote isn't talking about you. Even if I disagree with some things, you quite obviously are not racist and you've already gone to some lengths with your language to show that.
As for your words, I don't know how this needs to be said but this philosophy forum isn't active enough for me to think you can have an impact here. Unless there's something I don't know about and you're involved in politics, I only discuss ideas and if there's a discussion about their greater impact it's because your ideas aren't just held by you. As is the case with identity politics and the continued emphasising on race and gender.
I don't need to care about race to oppose racism, discrimination, unfairness, bad policy or to consider solutions to problems that disproportionately impact a race of people. It's not that if you don't care about race then all those issues go away, it's that you don't create resistance to solutions by angering people. Not only white people who get angry because they feel attacked but people also get angry about the issues surrounding race and racial histories and they become angry and hateful rather than helpful. Then they further create resistance by being angry and aggressive. It's a sensitive topic.
Being angry and disgusted with racism isn't necessarily helpful at all, it depends on where that anger is channelled.
What kind of allies are so pathetically self-involved and care about their snowflake feelings? That sounds like most people to me.
The first I heard of them was in the opening of the first episode of the Watchmen TV show. At first I assumed it was a historical difference in the alternate timeline of that franchise, but then I looked up what “really” happened in Tulsa as I figured there must have been something significant if that was a point of historical divergence they chose to highlight... but nope, that’s what actually happened, holy shit, why didn’t we learn about this in school.
Upsetting people is easy and people are selfish, you want to argue otherwise?
James Baldwin makes two points in the fragment between 7:14-8:04.
Baldwin thereby shows a sense of self-awareness that is utterly lacking in today's protests.
No I agree systemic racism is pretty upsetting and if anyone gave a shit about their own self well-being they'd want to do everything in their power to see the end of it.
Very well, but what do we see as the predicted outcome of the current awakening to racial inequities? Is it that people will do as you suggest and throw their very being into its elimination, or will they march while the marches take place and then go back to business as usual, or will they hold their breath until all this passes, or will they recommit to protecting the institution that they never thought racist in the first place?
My prediction is that they will not do as you think they should, but that it will likely be one of the other approaches. Leaving aside the question of how bad and systemic the problem truly is, unless you are the one oppressed, it is unlikely you will spend the time trying to resolve the problem, whatever it is. Will the white middle class Democrat from the mid-west really vote for the person who wishes to defund the police department or who stands in unity with the person who riots in the streets? Will they kneel when the flag is raised? I seriously doubt it. What do you expect the Asian immigrants will do or even the Latino immigrant? Trump did not win the last election from just stirring up his base of FoxNews Republicans. He won by taking states like Wisconsin, Michigan, and Ohio.
There's all this talk about how much progress these riots have brought about. My point is that it is far from clear what the final result will be. The opposition to the riots has been largely silenced to where it has become politically incorrect to object, so much so that people pretend to care more than they do. The 2016 polls showed Trump didn't stand a chance. It's because those folks don't speak except at the polls.
The New England liberal, the black southerner, the west coast environmentalist, the union worker, and the Latino immigrant are all cobbled together under the same party. What is going on here is not a unifying issue, and how it plays out might be very different from how is expected.
As I stated in the post that you're responding to, public education is free for everyone and if you do well you can get a scholarship. There are so many different scholarships if you take the time to look. They're are even scholarships where the only qualification is that you have a particular color of skin - black.
If this isn't enough then what else are we asking for? We already have specific handouts for minorities and free education. So be specific in what else is needed. All I see are accusations, ad homs, generalities and platitudes, and no one is responding to what others are saying. Hypocrisy in cherry picking is what is dominating conversation.
Quoting StreetlightX
Your choice of words are so off the mark they fail to really exhibit the problem you are trying to get at.
It's not about race scaring off potential allies, it's about race being too narrow of an issue. Police brutality and corruption is a humanitarian issue, not a race issue. Racism is only a small part of police brutality. There are many other ways and people that police are corrupt, brutalize and take advantage of.
Take for instance some of the solutions currently being proposed.
- Banning chokeholds
- Banning no-knock warrants
- Establish a national database to track police misconduct
- Lower legal standards to pursue criminal and civil penalties for police misconduct
Notice how none of these are so narrow in scope as to address ONLY racism. These proposals are meant to address police brutality against all. These are the solutions I'm not "scared of", precisely because they are inclusive and not exclusive.
It is wrong to bite people. Lions don't know the difference between right and wrong. Biting is part of their nature. They are not held to the same ethical standards as humans that do possess this knowledge.
Is stereotyping part of a black person's nature so that the rest of us humans hold them to a lower ethical standard than the rest of us?
I am tired of the systemic Asian Supremacy of the United States. We need to stop the systemic Asian supremacy immediately.
I didn’t call you sleazy, I referred to your post as sleazy because it was elusive and deceptive in its meaning. Maybe not on purpose, though it seemed worded to combat previous posts.
Quoting Benkei
You say white men and women weren’t disenfranchised or discriminated against, then add “In meaningful numbers” which is so subjective I couldn’t imagine being able to address your post. Nor could I be sure what was meant by disenfranchised.
At the time I was thinking of the tenant farmers and sharecroppers who most definitely were disenfranchised and victims of an economic plan that did not benefit them. Both white and black were caught up in this. Which is why I regard the issue of racism more in terms of poverty. All races are victims of greed and financial manipulation.
Quoting StreetlightX
You aren't compelling or logical but if you get even angrier perhaps all of your political opponents will just yield in fear.
On the basis of their skin colour?
I'll clarify by saying that my article did not preclude class injustices.
Don't get me wrong, I think you're exactly right. I have no expectation, none whatsoever, that things will play out how I think they should. But I dare myself to be surprised. That's all. Everything I write is a a dare to be surprised. It's absolutely the case that 'the final result' will more than likely look different from what anyone expects. I'm under no illusions about that. No one expected these protests, the kinds of conversations they opened, the political atmosphere they birthed, the scale of what they are bringing about (perhaps never to be substantiated). Radical politics is not about fulfilling possibility so much as transforming what is possible - literally doing the impossible. The best I do here is keep a space for that kind of thinking alive. A better world is possible. If you think that's viable, then anything's on the table.
Quoting tim wood
Exactly. Blacks are allowed to discriminate against whites and cops.
You mentioned four possible future outcomes, and you rejected the first one as least probable, because
Quoting Hanover
Your first option may become much more probable if the momentum of the movement
“defund the police” can accelerate and bring the crash of the police as well as various affiliated
institutions. Likely, the whole movement is not just about the elimination of racial inequalities.
When we look at Seattle Autonomous Zone, it is difficult to imagine that we witness the radical
rupture, the “break with causality,” and the beginning of the revolution. So, all in all, you are right in your predictions. What will be the tangible broad social outcome of the current civil unrest? Will it break the framing of the one more large-scale media event? So far, as you mentioned, there is just one apparent result: the intensifying of political correctness. It is not clear if another decisive result will be Trump’s re-election. The domination of systemic racism
discourse makes Tramp's "Make America Great Again" rhetorics meaningless, so his campaign has to invent different one asap.
We're not taking about history. We're talking about right now. How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it?
You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race. If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.
No predictions are really clear. It's all speculation, but I really can't see middle America finding anything acceptable about defunding the police. In fact, there is tremendous support for the police nationwide. It's just been silenced for the moment. I don't even think the African American leadership is totally comfortable with these attacks on police departments. Most big cities are Democratically controlled, meaning the mayors and police chiefs are typically Democrats and oftentimes minority. I'm not fully convinced that even inner city minority citizens want to see police withdrawal from their communities, as I've heard their complaints in the past were that it took too long in their communities for the police to arrive, if at all.
What is poised to take place is that in inner city communities with high crime rates, they will have fewer police, but in affluent communities where there is strong support for police, there will be more enforcement. How is it that this is a win for the inner city? It sounds like turning the clock back to me and abandoning those most in need.
The domination of systemic racism
discourse makes Tramp's "Make America Great Again" rhetorics meaningless, so his campaign has to invent the different rhetorics asap.
What Trump needs to do is double down on his MAGA platform, and he will. There will be zero Trump supporters who will change their vote due to what you see as a major change in ideology.
We will see. So far, we witness the complete pause. Trump, as well as GOP leaders are completely
silent for 9 days. Therefore, it is possible to assume that they are busy with rewriting of their regular
rhetorics. However, most likely, you are right again: rhetorics, as well as ideological platforms
are not important today.
Imagine if I put angry white faces in this thread.
It's really difficult to find any solutions to the present problem in this thread. It is mostly emotional rhetoric without any clear explanation of where the problem exists (system-wide or specific individuals who might or might not wield political power).
It's like asking a theist to define their god and they attack your for even questioning it's existence.
Quoting Harry Hindu
These are some of the solutions in the Democrat bill. Notice how there isn't a qualifier that these only apply to blacks or police actions against blacks. It is an All Live Matters bill.
If mandatory body and dash cams don't make it through then it is up to us to keep using our cameras every time we see police engaging with the public. You can even take out your camera and record your own interaction. "It's for your and my safety, officer."
If twice as many unarmed whites are killed than blacks then why aren't we seeing twice as many videos? Hmmmm?
That is a fallacious statistical request. You should look at the statistics of how cops act towards black people.
Quoting Harry Hindu
They are scared of state police violence. They aren't scared of white or black people, they are scared about being killed based solely on the color of their skin by the violence monopoly of the state. In the worst neighborhoods, you could fend off violence with defensive violence, but you are not allowed to defend against the violence of the state. That's why no one can step in and save someone like George as he is slowly dying under the police officer's knee. If that had been done by someone else in the street, the people would have been able to save him.
"Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population."
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
Quoting Harry Hindu
The differences in crime rates in terms of race is not an excuse for police killings. It's also ignoring the reasons for high crime rates within those communities. You seem to think that police violence is a detached form of systemic racism from the rest of society, but the very nature of systemic racism is that it exists throughout society. It's the systemic racism over the course of decades or hundreds of years that keep the segregation going, even though direct racist laws were abandoned decades ago.
You are arguing out of a notion of free will, when the deterministic nature of society is a proven fact. You cannot act or be acted upon in society without a deterministic causality link throughout history.
If the wealth built up in slavery is distributed among a majority of white people; if places like Tulsa, the "black wall street" gets destroyed, people killed in a massacre and their wealth stolen into the possession of white people: if housing laws segregated black people into parts of cities where the lack of wealth never increase the quality of life and no industries want to have shops... and so on, you will have a society that is built upon systemic racism since the system itself is governing how people "should" act within it.
A police officer is able to not be racist, but still enforce a racist practice of handling the job, because of the underlying systems.
To just claim that because crime is higher in black communities and because of that it's more common that black people get killed and that this is somehow a proof of there not being any systemic racism... is an extremely fallacious argument that ignores so many complex aspects of what systemic racism is about.
Your writing reflects a lot of what other people write, the surface level analysis of this issue. But in here, on this forum, I think there should be a demand for much better scrutiny of these questions than how the surface level Facebook-debates usually goes.
So first, are you a determinist or believer of free will? Do you think society acts separately from history and that history has no effect on the present events? Do you think that laws and regulations are the only forms of guidelines on which society behaves? Do you think that socioeconomic factors over long spans of time affect the conditions in which society acts and exists?
I see no such dive into these issues, only attempts at proving a point with biases and fallacious ideas. I think the discussion should get back into philosophical praxis, instead of these surface-level outbursts.
99.9% of white people are racist? Are you white? If so, then you're basically admitting that you're racist. Why should I listen to a racist on the subject of race relations? If you're not white then how do you know that virtually all whites are racist.
Quoting Harry Hindu
How many are still tRump supporters? At least that many.
:clap:
You're asking the same question. What percentage of cops are racist?
Quoting 180 Proof
Evidence? No. I didn't think so. You surely would have provided it if you had it.
You're so much more capable if you'd just remove the politically patisan glasses.
You're like a top tier evolutionary scientist that still believes in creationism and intelligent design.
Quoting tim wood
Racist.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
He may say that he's part of the 0.1%. But it is still racist to generalize and stereotype individuals of any race. No matter what race you are.
Quoting Harry Hindu
A stupid question deserves a stupid answer. And evidence? Well, MAGAt, you certainly qualify (as per your racist apologia post history). :shade:
https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/06/09/national-poll-finds-low-support-for-defund-police-?fbclid=IwAR2PcrEuMEk9d5RFKeWI8GiM8OeXgZObwpbU9flrb5D1OGzDQLwZj2_Un0c
"When it comes to party lines there is not much difference, with 16 percent of Democrats responding saying they support it while 15 percent of Republicans do. Broken up into races you begin to see some more divide but no race overwhelmingly supports the idea.
Defunding police has the strongest support among Blacks, with about a third of respondents saying they support it, a third of respondents saying they oppose it, and a third do not have a strong opinion on it one way or the other. That’s compared to 17 percent of Hispanics answering they support the idea and 12 percent of whites."
I also note, since May 25, UFO sightings and complaints from flat earth theorists have entirely stopped, when they were at unprecedented levels, but given the sudden silence after public support is not found for defunding the police, I expect them to be restarting in a few days.
In the UK a radio host was suspended when he questioned his white privilege. A former Canadian cabinet minister was forced to resign from 3 positions for denying systemic racism exists in Canada. A chief reporter from the Western Mail was axed for opposing the protests. NYT Op-Ed editor James Bennett resigned due to the outcry over publishing an opposing opinion. A top Philadelphia Inquirer editor was forced to resign for daring to write the headline “Buildings Matter, Too”. Alexander Katai was dropped from the LA Galaxy because his wife made unpopular comments.
The irony of the corporate world becoming the propaganda wing of an arguably anti-capitalist movement isn’t lost on me. But the suppression of any dissent also hints at the weakness of the ideas being put forward. Truth does not require protection from the withering powers of criticism.
Well said, and history shows us pretty clearly that its true. ideologies that later turn out to be very weak almost always have censorship as a primary trait.
It's a very poorly chosen slogan, IMO.
Quoting DingoJones
The problem, as I see it, is that the argument can be applied to any position. "I am getting fired because of my swastika tattoo? Clearly you're just afraid of an open exchange of ideas." There is always going to be a sliding scale of what views are sociall acceptable. And when it's a hot button issue, it's likely that there are going to be bad calls made. That's not some form of organised suppression of dissent though, and the conclusion that the ideas supposedly "protected" by the suppression is weak simply doesn't follow, as my initial example illustrates.
Thats a good point, but surely we can find a more reasonable cut off than the examples NOS used but that do include the example you used. What gets compared (and shut down) to your swastika example is pretty egregious.
I never said nor implied the suppression is organized. In fact I think it’s capricious. But the sheer volume of people being coerced into silence and conformity is frightening. If dissent isn’t suppressed to protect the orthodoxy, why is it suppressed?
Yes, but at least one of his examples isn't remotely accurate.
Quoting Baden
If your wife is an out-of-control racist calling for people to be killed, you better disavow that shit quickly or you can expect some blowback.
People punished for the crimes of their family. That’s something you find in tyrannical societies.
[quote=Donald Trump] Take out their families [/quote]
This guy must really be a scumbag then. But we can make the US less tyrannical by dumping him in November.
Oh Trump. That didn’t take long.
There are probably hundreds of ways to expose your ridiculous levels of hypocrisy. Quoting Trump is just one.
I guess they should expect some blowback.
Your position as a Trump supporter appears to be that censoring someone for what their family did is tyrannical, but murdering them is OK. My position is that some blowback (e.g. someone loses their job) is not necessarily tyrannical, but execution would be. That's the difference between a perfectly reasonable and consistent position (mine) and an utterly ridiculous one (yours). The only way out for you to be consistent is to condemn Trump as tyrannical. So, go ahead.
If you find an instance of me firing someone because their spouse made comments I didn’t like you can rightfully call me a hypocrite. Until then bringing up irrelevant info about unrelated events doesn’t convince me that I’m being unreasonable or inconsistent.
You're not very good at this, are you? Sometimes, I wonder if your real job is just to make Trump and his supporters look bad. If that's it, I commend you. Onward and upward...
It doesnt matter to you that the person punished didnt do what they were punished for? I understand you are saying its bad for him to not disavow the behaviour but are you saying thats why he was fired? Cuz He didnt disavow it (or didnt disavow it fast enough rather)?
It seems like he was fired by his association, how did you determine it wasnt?
I don't know the ins and outs so it depends. But if you say nothing that sounds like tacit approval. The way I would deal with it would be to contact the guy and tell him he better disavow and give him a chance to do so before getting fired. That would seem the fairest way to approach it to me.
Strange times. Here’s Katai’s pandering apology:
I would love to see his wife’s full quotes, because I suspect that they are being portrayed as more than they are.
Maybe? Seems pretty clearly unfair. Tyrannical Ill grant is a stretch but there are uses of the word that dont mean murderous presidents so it doesnt seem that over the top to me.
I don't know if he was given a chance to disavow or not. I agree he should have been.
Lol, ya but you openly admit you dont trust the source so your suspicion is automatic isnt it?
I dont think he should be fired for not disavowing. Do you think thats why he was fired? How did you determine that was the case?
I don’t think these people have a just bone in their body. Either way, systemic wokeness is becoming a fearful reality.
I dont think it is. Its mostly on the loud mouthed fringes, most of it is either harmless or results in positive change. Its certainly a problem in specific areas, but the population at large doesnt seem effected enough to call it systemic.
Looking into it, turns out he eventually did disavow and was fired anyway. So, maybe it was unfair. But my capacity for caring about some millionaire footballer and his pathologically racist wife is kind of limited.
Ok.
People who support the move ridicule me for saying that, and frequently call me racist too. I dont know why they make themselves appear so convinced that they make themselves tacit accomplices to those murders. I have good reason to doubt their motives are sincere. That also includes 'Black Lives Matter' now, which has threatened to raze the country if there is another event it does not like, which is a terrorist threat.
So thats all I have to say now.
Uh huh. Like e.g. that lawless hellhole Camden, NJ?
It's the focus point of the much broader, deeper anger of the frustrated "consumer". To be consumers is to be cattle being fattened up for the slaughter. Discussion about sexism, racism, classism and so on is just "rearranging the deck-chairs on the Titanic". The frustration is on account of the apparent impossibility of coordinated action. We affluent ones are all beneficiaries of the enslavement of others; it's just mostly geographically far away enough for us to remain comfortable.
We are all being screwed (to varying degrees) by the financial elites, in a system in which we are all hopelessly complicit. We expect our politicians to do something, but our politicians are too cowardly, or stupid, or "in the pockets of the plutocrats" or just plain impotent to do anything, other than make vague promises, about doing "something".
The angry outrage is the outcry of systemic impotence; it's all noise in a deadly vacuum. Predictably, once some degree of the customary comfort is restored, we will settle back into, as much as resources allow, "business as usual", and we'll do that until resources no longer allow. That is what is coming; whether next year, or in five, ten, twenty or fifty years.
The greatest problems we collectively face are resource depletion, destruction of habitat, species extinctions, destruction of soils by the industrial agricultural machine that is needed to feed our absurdly over-bloated numbers. But these much more dire (than mere "racism") problems scarcely get a serious mention by our, themselves mostly ridiculously comfortable, public intellectuals. (I'm not excluding myself; I'm ridiculously comfortable too).
I know this could be thought to be off-topic; but the bigger picture is more sorely needed now than ever before. What are we prepared to sacrifice to address the primary problem of overpopulation? Is there any measure which could be acceptable? Are we even able to talk about it?
Split this off into another thread if you like: I'd love to hear what the brightest minds have to say about our greatest problems and the one greatest problem that is behind them all; overpopulation.
Is it even worth talking to you people any more. Its pointless. Unless someone actually says something besides 'you are wrong because I say so' and make easily falsifiable claims, Im not bothering to respond again.
Talk about easily falsifiable claims. About 100 from 460 were rehire.
Who are these?
Lol, that's not a good example, it's an unreasonable comparison. Rejecting Nazism isn't a contentious issue, you can't compare it to the very many far-left ideas which aren't even accepted by most of society and how censorship works there and compare it to a fucking swastika. The censorship isn't even democratic, social influencers on twitter threaten businesses and get people fired for exercising free speech. Left-leaning universities and education boards make rules without needing widespread support.
Side note, this happens every time, systemic racism isn't about identity politics and the far left but somehow this topic ends up dominating the conversation. Unnecessarily inflammatory statements on both sides that just supports my claims about how we get distracted. You can't even have a serious debate about the issues, because the inevitable inflammatory remark about race, racial histories, identity politics or what have you is made and people get angry about it.
That's the rut we're in.
Most relevant for this particular thread:
https://jacobinmag.com/2020/06/black-lives-matter-blm-protests-george-floyd
More agitation, more divisiveness, more disunity, more unrest.
Quoting StreetlightX
But the last line of my post is about questioning the status quo. If that is unclear then hopefully this corrects that.
So your complaint really should be explained as "Ernestm is against preventing crime and rather locks people up". And put that way, it becomes clear how stupid your position is.
There probably is a better way. We'd have to look at the examples in detail. As I said, when a topic is a hot button issue, bad decisions are more common. I just don't think it's evidence of some sort of organised suppression of dissent. For one, if it was, the people doing the suppressing wouldn't report on it. Rather it's society grappling with changing views on this issue and settling into a new normal. That inevitably means people that used to be within the acceptable mainstream no longer are.
Quoting Judaka
I wasn't intending a comparison. The post I - indirectly - quoted was framing these firings as evidence of suppression of dissent in order to protect a "weak idea" from criticism. The example was intended to point out why that doesn't follow.
Quoting Judaka
I think framing this as a conflict between free speech and censorship is a bad approach to the problem. The actors you note aren't state actors and the way trends spread online isn't analogous to a central authority deciding on what acceptable speech is. There is also the complication that the people involved in "censorship" are utilizing their own right to free speech to various extents.
I think that this is therefore more of an issue with how society is becoming more partisan than an issue of free speech as a traditional freedom from state interference.
Quoting Judaka
I think this lines up nicely with approaching this as a problem of social dynamics, rather than one of censorship.
Well, they have been arguing on talk radio for several weeks now whether religion is racist for depicting jesus as a white person. It was only when a listener was abducted by an alien and wanted to know about alien abductions in the bible that they thought something else had come up which was more important.
So depicting Jesus as a white person must be a good example of something worth examining in detail. From the sounds of it, if it hadn't been interrupted by alien abduction, they could have argued about it all year.
It's a necessary, modern approach and it's going to become increasingly important to focus on how the state protects free speech rather than how they interfere with it. The state has a role in both censorship and giving protection against censorship and both must be addressed. Honestly, censorship has very little to do with this topic and I understand now the point you were making with the swastika wasn't what I thought it was, my mistake.
Quoting Echarmion
It's an extension of the same problem I was talking about earlier with race and racial histories, they're basically indirect disagreements. If you ask people about what sounds fair and reasonable versus about how black people have been mistreated and deserve compensation, even if you're selling the exact same policy, the result is different. My issue with some of the posters here is that they don't care about that at all, they stand by what they see as the pertinent facts and interpretations and couldn't be damned if they're making the topic politically complicated, even when it's just to satisfy their own anger at the expense of greater widespread agreement.
I fully expected this from the start, the newest post when I started looking at this thread was Baden saying how more people would accept systemic racism exists if their race had been enslaved and brutalised for hundreds of years. Then StreetlightX saying more people would think more like him if people of their race were getting murdered on a daily basis or something. How can you be simultaneously upset about opposition and resistance to your ideas while making every effort to make such controversial and inflammatory comments? It's so stupid that it makes me laugh but it's really quite sad when you look at the bigger picture.
Yes people are definitely accepting it. I never heard people comnplain so much of depictions of Jesus as a white person before, especially as he was Middle Eastern, and therefore a possible terrorist too.
Quote me, go on.
I even paraphrased you without making fun of your grammar, gotta give me props for that.
The policeman cant be proven guilty because the man on lethal drugs and had two bad heart conditions, so he could have died anyway. So the policeman will be acquitted. You better start complaining about 'innocence without irrefutable proof' now.
I meant to paraphrase you, not give a thesis, if I've done you wrong then please feel free to clarify what you meant, doesn't matter much to me as there is no interpretation of your comments that can't be used as an example in my post.
I have had some heated disagreement with some posters in the sister thread to this one, even though we share (I think) a broadly similar outlook on the issue. So I am inclined to agree with you insofar as left-wing activism seems to have a problem of being unnecessarily confrontational. I characterised that as an overwhelming concern with ideological purity over "realpolitik".
There has always been a revolutionary school of thought in left-wing academia. And I am not saying they're wrong. Perhaps the only way out is an ideologically pure one. But so far I haven't been convinced.
For example, I noted earlier how "defund the police" is a really poor slogan to use for what an overhaul of policing. Very easy to use to evoke fears of the lawless anarchists.
Err, that's not what I was paraphrasing. Nor do I have any idea what your meme is talking about, please don't tell me that's your understanding of my argument.
Australian
Yeah, I agree with all of your statements, not much else to say.
No, asking for actual statistics is one thing, asking for pseudo-statistics that is argued in a form of fallacy is another. Did you even check the statistics given? Or are you just going by this in a biased form without even knowing it? For you are either biased and not knowing about the fallacies you're making or you know about it and are actively trying to hide it through nonsense arguments. I did a full argument for which you replied only a short replay of the same things you already said.
So, if you want to be taken seriously, stop acting like an alt-right appeaser if you aren't one and start doing unbiased arguments.
If you are speaking about activism specifically, then yes, antifa is a confrontational movement of activism. It reacts to fascist movements and development and act against those developments in a confrontational way. Doesn't have to be violence though, they infiltrate alt-right movements, lobby governments to restrict white supremacy meetings etc.
There's nothing outside of being confrontational since an anti-movement can only act upon the existence of what they are anti about.
If you, however, are talking about leftist politics in general, then the confrontational notion might come from the fact that the world's status quo right now is global neo-liberalism. Any politics that question the status quo will be confrontational.
So, be very careful to label political movements as "confrontational" just because they oppose the status quo. Anyone in Nazi-Germany who had different political views than the Nazis were looked upon as "confrontational".
It doesn't mean anything more than questioning the status quo, but can easily be made into a fallacious argument against leftist politics.
Quoting Echarmion
Defund in this case has to do with the balance between funds for things that help people in the community which the police are governing. If the police have more funding than all combined active organizations that try to help the poor, trying to increase the quality of life and get people out of unemployment, you know, helping people to actually end the socio-economic conditions that will eventually breed crime, then that funding is unbalanced and not based on rational reasons.
Much of the funding also has to do with how the prison system works. You should check out "The 13th Amendment" on Netflix if you want a deep dive into the problems.
Also, who are the lawless anarchists? Anarchy is a political ideology and I don't seem to recall any of that in this.
My own experience, which has been ridiculed of course, is only in San Jose, where I was wrongfully arrested and put in jail for a while after I evicted a room mate for taking cocaine in my house, after explicitly telling him I would not tolerate it, I had to physically force him out the door, so he filed assault charges. I was acquitted, but not being familiar with the process at all ended up being put in prison while I found someone to pay the bail and a lawyer.
During that time I could rather unequivocally say there is NO racism. They are equally nasty to all people who have been found criminal, right or not. They dont really care what color people are, it just happens to be true that some cultures do not fare as well as others in a capitalist society.
If I were actually trying to make a valid rational argument about it, I would point to the eskimoes in Russia. For thousands of years they have lived in very low temperatures, so they have very short limbs, because that reduces heat loss. If I were to be like those complaining of racism here, I would get angry and even violent over the fact that eskimoes cannot play basketball as well as other people. I would demand laws to enable eskimos be included in basketball teams despite they tupically being 5' or less. And an occasional eskimo would appear who is much taller and good at basketball to validate the point that basketball authoriities unduly discriminate against eskimos.
However, the issue is not rational, as far as I can determine. It matters not what facts are, nor what people do, once it has reached the point of emotional and phsyical violence, people are not persuaded by rationality. Instead they are persuaded by physical force, and fear of physical force.
I illustrate the lack of rationality as follows. A gang of people on this forum has been ridiculing those who say disbanding the police would result in more crime and murder. While its certainly true the police have insufficient reasons to treat potential criminals, or actual criminals, with greater dignity, on the other hand, the call has been to disband the police entirely, in order to save livesm, in particular, black lives.
In the USA, the police interrupt ongoing acts of physical violence about 300,000 times a year. If the police were disbanded, all those people would be at greater risk of death, and many would die. When the police were merely ordered to pull back, and not completely disbanded, in Baltimore after the Black Lives Matter riots there in 2015, the murder rate tripled in all-black communities. These are rather undeniably facts, but none of the people saying the police should be disbanded care at all about those deaths.
Thus it is rather clear, empirically, even in the philosophy forums here, that many people are incapable of accepting the basic facts of reality, or even acting with compassion towards their own kind, because they are overtaken by blind anger, and racism just happens to be the nom du jour for its justification.
Ah I see, now you get to tell me what I meant too. Guess its par for the course with you.
I was highlighting your ridiculous, distracting remarks in a comment about ridiculous, distracting remarks. Your argument wasn't being addressed, I don't discuss serious topics with you only a bit of banter.
Maybe because many people think they are doing philosophy without having the knowledge of the actual praxis of what philosophy is. A forum like this invites people who like to think about stuff, but only a handful are actually philosophically educated in how to argue rationally.
It's the biggest problem with open forums like these, educated philosophers and biased nutcases doing dialectics, what could go wrong?
You mean this autopsy?
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/01/us/george-floyd-independent-autopsy/index.html
Or what are you referring to?
You're so funny, after just mocking me for saying "race has nothing to do with racial injustice", where'd you pluck that idea out from? And then misunderstanding why you were quoted in the first place. To top it off, the actual quote is apparently a response to something I didn't even say. Or is the actual top off that your comment doesn't make any grammatical sense? Hard to decide but it really is great of you to choose to complain about my literacy skills after that whole debacle.
I wasn't talking about Antifa specifically. Antifa activism is in some respects a special case, and I understand the arguments around why, say, pacifism is not viable when confronted with facism. I don't want to argue that certain tactics are off limits. The broader context of my position is one of effectiveness.
Quoting Christoffer
Perhaps I should have chosen a different word, but I did say "unnecessarily confrontational". I don't mean to imply confrontation is never warranted. I don't even ascribe to the position that violence never is. It's more to do with messaging.
Quoting Christoffer
I know all this. I consume left-wing media. The thing is that not everyone does. I feel that left-wing politics and activism have a communication problem. The stuff we're talking about is complex. And much of the vocabulary is as well. If the slogan you chant needs a 30 minute explanation video to be properly understood, that's a problem. And "defund the police" is not the only case where that applies.
Sure, perhaps people are intentionally misunderstanding because they just don't care about or don't want change, and misunderstanding is an easy way out. But perhaps better communication might help.
What Im saying is that this report does not provide conclusive evidence that floyd would not have died anyway, and the fact that the coroners are arguing about it means the policeman will have to be acquitted.
https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/george-floyd-cause-of-death-autopsy/
Freedom of speech in the way that everyone has the ability to participate in saying their opinion, yes. However, for a democracy to work, you also need to channel the collective knowledge into debates and arguments that actually moves things forward. The only way to have a dialectic or an argument between two opposing ideas, that will not just end up in a biased stalemate, is to have rational arguments done properly.
Arguments that minimize biases and fallacies is the only way to do it if the truth is what matters. So while all can say their opinion, the fact that not all know how to argue without biases and fallacies means that not all are capable of discussions that furthers knowledge that informs good decisions.
Just like anyone can voice opinions on medical issues, only doctors can voice educated conclusions.
Philosophical discussions need a method thinking and without method, you will only have opinion, not truth.
I'm not sure it's necessary to graduate from kindergarten to understand your abysmal one-liners. I'm sure they've heard some of the older kids use similar styles of argumentation.
Russia seems to be doing much better. Its even expanding again, its now got the Crimea properly annexed, and we let Puerto Rico suffer through devastating storms doing virtually nothing because Intel and others make a fortune by paying workers there two dollars a day. I don't see it getting better, is the problem here, nothing seems to exist to reverse the trend.
I see nothing in this that concludes a cause of death being anything other than the acts of the police or the combination of health issues and the act of the police. It seems rather clear that the act of the police, since the way of putting the knee on the back as he did isn't allowed as police praxis, and that the fact they didn't intervene when he clearly wanted help, concludes that they are responsible for his death.
If you make your own personal conclusions based solely on the fact of drug substances present, without regard to any other factors, then you are making a biased conclusion.
You think they are doing better because they have a better system? Like Putin slowly changing the forms of government into dictatorship-like power systems and opponents are snuffed out?
I agree that there's too much of mud throwing praxises in politics today, but I rarely see proper arguments even from the so-called intellectuals. Sometimes I would just wish for Plato's philosopher-kings to just take over.
Are you a medical doctor? Can you conclude this amount and combination to be the cause of death? How can you rule out the cops actions being the reason for his death based on this? He wasn't unconscious before he put his knee on him, so if that were a lethal dose and combination, wouldn't he already be dead?
You sure you are making an unbiased approach to this thing? Because reading the whole thing, it is not really the conclusion being made.
The US position is that russia and china's single-party systems result in corruption, particularly, the USA has charged russia and china with croneyism and nepotism that does not happen in the USA.
Well thats ludicrous. Did you hear trump's stepson announce all coronavirus and racial problems have now been fixed? I think that was Monday.
But since leftist activism is acting against fascist developments, it will always be Antifa, since Antifa isn't an organization, but a movement under the idea of anti-fascism. So all activism from this political realm of thinking will be Antifa activism. It is also effective. Media and right-wing politics often label Antifa based on the ones doing violence during riots, but everyone who opposes fascism is being part of Antifa whether they like it or not. Infiltrating white supremacy movements, sabotaging alt-right propaganda channels etc. is as much part of Antifa as anything else. I think there's a big misconception about what Antifa is and the right-wing is taking advantage of that lack in knowledge people have.
Quoting Echarmion
Agreed, but how do you define confrontation? If a society's status quo is mainly liberal right-wing, how can any voice of the left, not be confrontational?
Quoting Echarmion
But it's not though. By saying: "Black Lives Matter refers to how the police act as if "Black Lives don't matter", that would be enough for "all lives matter" people, but it isn't. Somehow, 30 minutes is needed to explain something that rationally should be quite logical and crystal clear.
The problem is empathy and normalization. People today don't seem to have empathy like before. Because communication is held online and in text form more than eye to eye, people lose the empathic connection you have when you speak to someone right in front of you. https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/sites/liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/files/psychology/research/okdie_guadagno_bernieri_geers_mclarney-vesotski_2011.pdf
Since racism has become more normalized through people like Trump and it's less taboo to speak racist thoughts, while interactions is held mostly online and people don't have as much empathy against the opposing side of the argument, then the side that is less status quo in society will be looked upon as "unnecessarily confrontational".
This is why I argue for unbiased arguments without fallacies. Because the only way to debate two sides of something without it becoming that brawl and lack of empathy online is to stick to facts outside of your own biased opinions.
But thats not going to be said right away, by all evidence of this and prior cases, first the defense will point out that he was in jail eight times before, the last time for holding a gun to a woman's chest while his friends plundered her house, for which he was only in prison for five years because he cut a plea bargain with the police by handing in his friends. His prior arrest history has also not been reported in national news, and I did eventually find an investigative reporter for the Daily Mail, in the UK, had obtained images of his court records. So first of all they will say that, which no one in the USA wants to hear, and then they will probably have a mistrial if they can possibly do so while the public absorbs the fact that he was on drugs at all. Which most people still dont know.
If the autopsy finds that even though the medical condition is part of the cause of death, it is still initiated by the act of the police. The fact that he wasn't dying before the police arrived and then he was dead is quite clearly pointing to the fact that the police is responsible for the killing. Otherwise, what evidence is showing that he would have died anyway?
With the facts that the police used praxis that isn't allowed (the knee) and didn't help when he pleaded for help, they can still be found guilty, whatever substance he had.
Quoting ernestm
But that is a fallacious argument. It doesn't matter which history he had. Time served is time served. It doesn't warrant killing him in the street. Or should we accept police killings as long as people the people killed have a record? Sounds more like a "let them die" argument than anything related to facts.
If a trial found the cops not guilty because George had substance in his system and that he had a previous criminal record, then that is not based in law or in law praxis.
As I said, the other stuff is ancillary, but when courts are on such public display as this one will be, they will not want the fact that murder can't be proven be the first bad fact about Floyd that the public has to confront.
You wouldnt know I started working in gun control because, in 2014, I asked some members of a revived Tea Party group, who were part of the new wave of gun lovers, if they'd shoot someone in the back yard for stealing an apple from an appletree. Alot of them said they would, so I asked, what if it turned out to be a child you had shot? And they all did the same thing. They all called an attorney to defend their right to shoot a child. I was surprised about it, so I did ask alot of people. About 1,500 in total. Of the people who said they'd shoot a child, all of them said they were entitled to do so, so it was the right thing to do.
If I wanted to argue about whether it was the right thing to shoot children, they said, I could argue with the attorney who had told them it was legal. Then their attorney would show me snippets of prior cases proving it was perfectly in their clients' rights to shoot children for stealing an apple off a tree in their back yard. Many of the attorneys then scolded me for upsetting their clients who had thought there was nothing wrong with killing children for stealing apples like the attorneys had told them.
I did try to raise it as a moral issue, but that didnt count.They said, it was in their cleints' rights to shoot children, so it was the right thing to do.
Since that time, the gun lovers don't argue with me any more. This year, people of that mindset just insult me. So its now become an established fact, perhaps because of me in part, that shooting children to death is morally good when in 'justifiable circumstances.'
I never actually wanted to get into arguments about when people are 'entitled' to shoot children. Now it seems to me people have already decided they are entitled to judge policeman, usually based on 10 seconds of videotape, as racist murderers. On the whole, policemen are rough, because they deal with rough people. They have reduced the crime rate from 4.5 million in 1990 to <3 million last year, with an inverse increase of people in prison. This appears too much for people of whom a substantial number not only believe its in their rights to shoot children, but also, the right thing to do.
So I don't think its a legal issue. I think Americans have decided they know everything better than the experts. Americans think they know what they should do because they have rights to do it, and therefore do not need morality. Americans think they know what their rights are because they have decided what their rights are.
Americans are taught in first grade that their natural rights are 'self-evident.' In fact, they are not. France has different natural rights, and France thinks its own natural rights are self-evident too. So rights of individuals are not self-evident. It transpires Jefferson chose life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness because:
* taking a person's life imposes our free will over the ability of God to judge that person, hence, we have right to life.
* we must be free to make our own choices so that God can judge us too, hence we have right to liberty
* acting for the greater good, rather than for our own, results in the greatest joy, therefore, we have a right to pursue happiness.
But when Americans hear that, they have physical revulsion. Ive seen it. its like they are about to vomit. Its so contrary to the purely selfish motives they had assumed their rights self-evidently entitled them, they get physically ill just hearing it.
So authority was meant to promulgate from natural rights to constitutional rights, but it has God in it, which is even more offensive. I could say alot more on that, but by then I am referred to attorneys, who these days argue the law is true because it says so, not having any better argument left.
Its the same as what people say when they say obviously police should be disbanded. When I say that would cause alot more deaths and crime, they say crime and murder would not go up because they say so. So in the end, it turns out I actually agree with you. I dont particularly think there is anything so sacrosanct about what the law says should happen either, because the USA has entirely given up on concepts of the promulgation of authority from higher principals, and regards everything in terms of some kind of self-aggrandizement game and nothing else.
However, the fact remains, the law says, Floyd could have died anyway, and could have been out of breath anyway, so there is no way to prove that the policeman is guilty of murder. Sorry.
Its like watching one of those giant marble machines, which has no idea what it is doing at all, chew itself to pieces. All the marbles carry on bouncing around, but none of them have the faintest idea what they are actually doing. Floyd--of course he could be on the verge of death when he was arrested as a result of his own behavior, but according to current opinion, that no longer matters. Its like we are just marbles or something. Likewise, we are not responsible for the murders that would happen if we demand the police be entirely disbanded. It's like we don't actually control our own lives any more.
We are driven by drugs we can't control, and hatred we can't stop, in a world whose evil justifies any action we decide is right because we think so, without even understanding how we had those rights in the first place, and if we learn wny we have those rights, we are so repulsed we get physically ill.
In that respect, the police are really no different than anyone else.
He lost consciousness because of the knee and later died. Or do you mean that if someone is shot and then they die later at the hospital because of an infection in the gun wound, the shooter isn't liable for killing that person?
Quoting ernestm
This is grasping at straws. It's like saying that if someone dies of a heart attack after being shot, the shooting had nothing to do with it. How can you rule out that the acts of the police weren't a catalyst for his medical condition? The act of putting the knee is banned by several police forces specifically because it can be lethal.
https://en.as.com/en/2020/06/06/other_sports/1591442963_890018.html
To argue that he "might have dropped dead anyway" and it's a coincidence that he died right there and then is extremely weak as an argument. You could free any manslaughter case based on this reasoning.
Quoting ernestm
You are making a bad argument against their guilt and conclude that "it will only be public pressure that would judge the cops guilty." You have false premises to back up a speculative conclusion that would be speculative even if the premises were true.
Where's your philosophical scrutiny?
Quoting ernestm
Yes, a perfect analogy of the reasoning behind systemic racism. If the system allows something to be divided out of race and there's nothing that guides morality outside the regulations, the people of power in that system can act as racists without even knowing it. Just like people in Nazi-Germany were conditioned to accept violence against jews.
If there's a system that entitles people to act in a certain way, it will normalize behavior through cognitive dissonance.
Quoting ernestm
Systemic racism is more than a 10-second videotape, and there are more cases than just those 10 seconds of videotape. You also use an example that could be an analogy for systemic racism, in order to argue that people who stand up against police violence are the "entitled" ones who can't be reasoned with... do you see how ironic and ill-conceived that kind of argument is?
I would recommend you to view "The 13th amendment" on netflix in order to see the broader perspective in this issue. It's very good at showing that side of the argument.
Quoting ernestm
That is a strawman argument. They aren't saying this, they are saying that the police has more funding combined than all organizations that work to improve life in areas where crime rises due to socioeconomic issues. If you put money into building better lives for people, crime will go down. Crime doesn't happen in a vacuum, that's an illusion often perpetrated by right-wing politics to justify police brutality. And thinking crime happens in a vacuum is also a low-quality argument in terms of philosophy.
Quoting ernestm
The law doesn't say that.
Quoting ernestm
The acts of the police is still wrong. You cannot argue against that with his medical condition and a speculative idea that he "would have died anyway". There's no legal validity to that argument and there's nothing that change the fact that the police acted out wrongfully. Here's a quote from the earlier link:
So because it's not taught and because the police officer used a chokehold not sanctioned and because the result is someone losing consciousness and then dying, it has nothing to do with public pressure if the police officers are found guilty.
There is enough evidence to argue them guilty. Previous criminal history is irrelevant and a speculative conclusion that Floyd would have died "anyway" is not conclusive enough to warrant a dismissal of guilt.
You have to first prove that "he would have died anyway" before using such a conclusion for dismissal of the police officer's guilt in the matter.
Then you haven't been reading my posts. Questioning the assumptions that you are unwilling to question doesn't qualify as "racist apologia", just as questioning theist beliefs isn't "atheist apologia".
And if I had made racist comments then I would have been banned long ago - unlike others on this forum making racist comments from your side stereotyping whites and cops as being racist. The rules aren't being applied consistently. If racism entails stereotyping others, then that is what tim wood is doing, and should be banned, but he isn't because he tows the line of the "left-leaning" forum.
What is the difference between asking what percentage of cops are racist and asking what the statistics are of cops being racist? Stop trying to avoid the question. If you, or someone else has provided the statistics/percentage, then post a link. It is very difficult to find valid information in this thread, as it is mostly trolling and racist rants against whites and cops.
"Hundreds and thousands" of people thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, but that didn't make them right. It made them the subject of a mass deluson.
It seems to me that politics and religion are the branches of philosophy where logic is thrown out the window.
Because that is not real statistics, it is speculative statistics that can never be achieved, hence pseudo-statistics. Statistics of police killings on the other hand is quantifiable and verifiable.
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
It also ignores everything about what systemic racism is, which is not about which cops are racists, but a deeper issue.
And "avoiding the question" after you avoid to tackle a long post of arguments is quite an ironic statement point.
What are you talking about? I said that statistics that can be used are those that are quantifiable and verifiable.
But you are still just red herring the entire thing. You do not involve yourself with the arguments and conduct proper philosophical praxis to it. That is my point here. You are just blasting a biased opinion and ignore everything that doesn't fit that narrative.
Arguments have already been written down, if you ignore them, you haven't proven anything or given any conclusion to the contrary.
No, that is what you are doing.
The link you provided is skewed - psuedo-statistics. It never mentions that twice as many unarmed whites are killed than blacks, even though blacks are killed at a higher rate relative to their percentage of population. I'm trying to account for that discrepancy with the statistics of blacks committing crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.
It implies that all cops are racist without specifying what percentage of cops actually shoot unarmed blacks, and what percentage of those same cops also shot unarmed whites. That is where you are failing to understand. You are the one basing your arguments on psuedo-stats.
No, because such statistics is impossible to verify and quantify. We can use statistics of acts, we can look at laws and legislations, we can look at socio-economic issues, history, we can look at the prison system (13th amendment on Netflix) etc. in order to spot systemic racism.
Quoting Harry Hindu
It doesn't matter if there's something else, that's the point about systemic racism. It's integrated in the system to such a degree that a single person can individually be non-racist but enforce a racist act as an agent of the state.
Quoting Harry Hindu
So you didn't ignore the entire post and just answered on the first part, essentially just red herring everything past it? Need a reminder?
Quoting Christoffer
So, can you please conduct philosophical praxis or are you unable to do so?
Re-read the arguments (quoted as a reminder) about systemic racism before asking people to re-read yours.
Statistics can inform rational arguments, but you don't provide rational arguments in favor of the conclusion that there's no systemic racism. You only make statistical claims as if they were rational conclusions. That's a fallacy.
I have yet to deny the existence of systemic racism. Asking for the definition of systemic racism is not denying its existence. It is up to you to provide a definition that fits observations and is logically consistent, as you are the one asserting its existence, not me. I'm willing to accept that things exist that I can't see, so show me where to look and what I should be looking for, so that I can see it too.
The fact that police shoot unarmed whites indicates that there are other possible reasons that police shoot unarmed suspects, other than racism. How do we even know that the reason the police shot the unarmed black person is the same as why they've shot unarmed whites? Why does it always have to be racism when it's a white vs black?
You're right, in that it is probably impossible to know the answer to that question because you have to know the motives of the person at that moment. You're already assuming racism when the color of their skin is different. That is assuming your conclusion. That is a fallacy.
Ernestm is talking nonsense. First of, Floyd's criminal record is totally irrelevant as they are not factual circumstances that contributed to his death nor can they be interpreted as exculpatory facts for the defendant, or worse, suggest "he deserved it".
The defense needs to prove that drug-use and heart conditions are underlying conditions that pass the but-for/conditio sine qua non tests and were the proximate causes. These are not intervening causes and in tort the frailty, weakness, sensitivity, or feebleness of a victim cannot be used as a defense. I don't see any reason why this "Eggshell-rule" would not apply to criminal cases. At most this will have effect on mens rea but not actus reus.
Even so, given the time Derek Chauvin had to change tactics on this defenseless, hand cuffed man and despite please from Floyd and bystanders he continued to sit like that for 8 minutes, clearly establishes mens rea to me.
I don't know the racial composition of the admins, mods, and owners of this forum, but I would assume that you're calling many of them racists.
I don't understand what your definition of racism is if what your doing isn't it.
I have, we all have.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The statistics of the higher likelihood of black people being killed over white people shows that there is systemic racism in play. If that is because crime rates are higher in black communities, that is not counter to that conclusion, but supporting the existence of systemic racism, since being black is not the reason for higher crime rates.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Can you just watch "The 13th Amendment" documentary and return here please. See that and then return with some counter-argument to it. It perfectly describes the underlying systemic racism at play in US society.
It's important to be skeptical, but if you don't even attempt to take part in the perspective that argues there is systemic racism in play and concludes there to not be enough evidence, you are just ignorant. You've been provided with enough.
I think you're short-changing antifa by saying any leftist activist is automatically antifa. To me it would at least take a conscious effort to be antifascist, rather than be, say, pro socialised healthcare. It has to be a major part of your motivation for the particular activism.
Quoting Christoffer
Well, based on opinion polls about the current protests, we see that a majority of americans agree that there is systemic racism and that there is a problem with police brutality. That's a lot of common ground. But only a tiny fraction support anything that sounds like "defund the police". So, instead of making something that doesn't appear to resonate outside a very narrow group your rallying cry, start with something like "demilitarize the police". You can fit very similar policies under that heading.
Quoting Christoffer
Black lives matter is not one of the slogans I consider problematic. But look at how many different meanings the phrase "white supremacy" has. It's not surprising you get kneejerk reactions when you start out by calling ordinary people part of "white supremacy", not matter how justified that assertion is given your specific definition.
Quoting Christoffer
I think what the online discourse mostly does is split people into different camps with increasingly deep ditches between them. The lack of empathy you describe leads to less desire to seek common ground, and more desire to reinforce your own values by way of negative idenitifcation. And I think this happens to everyone. The problem is that the extreme right wing already knows how to operate in such an environment. I feel that the left has a bit of catching up to do.
I don’t know if that definition works. By assuming all members of a race to be the same the racist proves himself to be indiscriminate. He can discriminate against groups, but that’s where his discrimination powers end. He is unable to discriminate between individuals.
At most, the phenotypes of a person hints at what his parents look like. Nothing else, I think, can be derived from it.
Recently there was the student who petitioned Merriam-Webster to change their definition of “racism”. It is no longer just racial prejudice and discrimination, but racial prejudice and discrimination combined with social and institutional power.
https://www.theguardian.com/books/2020/jun/11/merriam-webster-racism-definition-revise-kennedy-mitchum
That sounds absurd to me.
I think we should just go back to a simpler definition: racism is the belief that the species can be subdivided into “races”. Race-ism.
Ok, I'll define it as someone who holds the belief that one race is superior to another. I'd also include in the definition the idea that racial groups inherently possess certain qualities that their members exhibit.
I believe race is to a large extent socially constructed, but I can't ignore biology entirely: It's no mistake that our greatest athletes and fastest sprinters are black. That relates to fast twitch muscles, but I don't think there's an immutable biological basis.
I am. The taxonomy is a false one. I repudiate it and I do not think it should be used as a lens through which to view the species. That is not to say that people are and have been unjustly “racialized”, thrown into such categories and treated in accordance with them.
Tim, it's not just American blacks. Blacks from all over the world dominate sprinting; it's not even close. You have Jamaican blacks, Canadian blacks, doesn't matter.
In any case I agree that race is largely socially constructed and even if one race tends to be better at athletics or any particular area on average that doesn't mean that they're "superior." Genetics is not fate. The Irish, Greeks, Italians and Jews were at one point not considered "white" and to me the question of whether they really are "white" is ridiculous.
If they are mouthing off about infringements on their liberty, they clearly are not entitled to them from a philosophical stance, because that is not why they were given the rights in the first place.
It seems to me highly ironic that Locke conceived a society for us where we could be better judged by God and act for the greater good, and people use those rights to complain about racial prejudice against them.
Given that you totally ignored that point, and were only interested in arguing about a system of justice which as I already stated was flawed, I dont see you are capable of understanding my point.
I dont think its your fautl. It seems to be a cultural prejudice against trtuth that has become so deep, its irreparable, and thats why I think its time for the USA to end as a democracy.
The entire nation is insane. It has no idea why it is doing what it is doing, acting on primcipals it destroyed by removing God from the basis of its law, and is lurching along like a Frankenstein. What uis remarkable is that one can see thousand sof posts now on the horrific wrong done to this man when in fact the rights claimed to justify protecting his life are not honored for the purpose they were given. We have taken a beautiful theory that no one even cares to think about and twisted it into a selfish ghoul, then parrot on in dead and mechanical ways about how we are entitled to things in a dead parody of actual thought.
The reason blacks are faster is because they have I think on average a higher amount of fast twitch muscles. That's just the case. I'm pretty sure even sociologists accept this explanation. Of course there are plenty of slow blacks too.
Do you have an alternative explanation for why blacks dominate sprinting?
From memory blacks have greater or bigger bone structure than whites, which means they can carry more muscle. This is also the reason they don’t make great swimmers.
Higher bone density, more fast twitch muscle fiber. Thats where the better average athletics come from for blacks.
I feel like there’s almost a determined effort by some to insist that there’s no difference between blacks and whites because it might unleash something uncontrollable. It does seem a little disingenuous to insist or pretend there’s no difference. And how can we address the issue successfully if it’s not addressed honestly? Even within the confines of law and social mores blacks have quite obviously developed a culture of their own so much different from white culture generally. Culture would suggest deep seated attitudes and experience that lie behind the forms it takes: music, dance, language, etc. so there is obviously a difference. Part of what makes America so interesting is the influence of black culture. In those areas where things are shared the coexistence seems to happen naturally. Why and how does that happen?
Quoting tim wood
In no way am I suggesting this is a simple topic. But I personally would like to look at the issue through genuine ideas of difference.
Edit: and what is black is probably right in front of us.
Well everybody knows what Im talking about when I say “black” or “asian” or “white” races, so its obviously a useful categorisation. Useful categorisations are useful because they are based on something real. Denying that categorisations existence is silly. To argue that race isnt a scientific term of some kind is to argue against a strawman. Most people use race to refer to these categories except (as far as I can tell) racists and people who are obsessed with racists/race.
It seems obvious to me that what people arguing race doesn't exist are actually concerned about how people interpret the differences in race. Their problem is actually with people who think that differences in race have any meaning or bearing on ones humanity or value. Racism. Thats the fear, which should be obvious but some people get silly and try to commit to race not existing. Social and environmental conditions that resulted in certain cultural and biological differences...that exists, and that's basically what people mean when they use the term “race”. The people who do not are the racists and the people who think everybody is a racist.
Quoting DingoJones
Exactly. And how can we move forward when every generation has to stop and argue and redefine every group of people. Which has happened so badly that now everything is stopped in its tracks over the meaning of a word. There’s no moving forward in that.
There are two possible reasons for people refusing to accept that black exists: one that they are compensating for their own uneasiness with other races, or that race is a tool for other agendas.
If someone refuses to admit that their are differences of race then it seems to me they’re denying the other race the autonomy to be what they are. What are they meant to be instead of that, what we claim they are?
Quoting tim wood
This seems reasonable;
“ Human races are distinguished by anthropologists on the basis of anthropometric traits. Geneticists delineate the races on the basis of gene frequenciesshared within the group and as different from other “racial” populations. The classification of “races” is compounded by social and cultural factors. The main human races are Caucasoid, Mongoloids (including Chinese, Japanese, Koreans, and American Indians, etc.), and Negroid. Khoisanoids or Capoids (Bushmen and Hottentots) and Pacific races (Australian aborigines, Polynesians, Melanesians, and Indonesians) may also be distinguished.” https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-1-4020-6754-9_7931
Quoting tim wood
It may have lost its meaning but it appears genes aren’t listening.
I think the root of it is identity politics. Thats the conversation that needs to happen before discussing race. Without that lense the issues get much more clear and easy to parse.
That’s why it goes around in circles.
Those are not the statistics. You have to remember there are two different stats - how many vs rate. More whites are killed than blacks, but relative to population more blacks are killed. If it were truly racism, then blacks would be at the top of both stats, but they aren't. You have to account for things like this. You can't just compartmentalize your statistics if you want to really acknowledge the truth of the problem so that you can get at a solution. Otherwise, you wouldn't be intellectually honest.
There are also the stats that show blacks commit crimes at a higher rate than whites. It's not racist to say that. It's doing the same thing you're doing to show that cops are racist - using statistics. The difference is that it doesn't necessarily follow that black deaths at the hands of the police is a consequence of racism, if there are other possible reasons for being killed by police, like there are if you are white. Why blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population isn't linked to their skin color. It is linked to a common feature of a deprived family dynamic that exists in all races and produces the same result in all races - poverty and the inability to move upward economically.
Quoting Christoffer
Why don't you go and find the evidence that shows that the vast majority of blacks in prison don't deserve it for what they were found guilty of. Some of them were found guilty by black jurors, prosecuted by black lawyers, and sentenced by black judges. It's so easy to shout, "Racism" when you ignore so many facts.
Are there instances where racism did play a role, yes, but those instances aren't as common as you're claiming them to be. You have been programmed to see racism everywhere there is an instance where the skin color is different, as if that could be the only reason for the conflict.
What percentage of blacks that are in prison are innocent, given that you know all the facts of each case?
Quoting tim wood
Then you're saying that even blacks are racist. Are blacks exhibiting their racism (there metrics for telling differences between individuals) by accusing all whites and police of being racist?
Noticing distinctions isn't racist. If it were then accepting diversity is racist. Focusing on your skin color as a defining part of your identity would be racist. Black Lives Matter would be racist, and All Lives Matter isn't. So you definition seems to be in conflict with previous statements that you have made.
Noticing distinctions isn't racist. We notice the distinctions in the color of our eyes, but we don't associate any causal relationship between people with blue eyes performing better on the job. We don't hire more people with blue eyes than those with brown eyes. Hazel eyes don't run faster than blue eyes. There are no causal links between these physical characteristics and someone's job or running performance. Noticing eye color is only useful in certain contexts, like describing someone to someone else that has never met the person you're describing.
The same goes with skin color. Skin color is just another type of variation within the human genome. Racism is a category error where one's skin color is inferred to have a casual relationship with some other characteristic where it doesn't - like one's performance on the job or on the track, or in this case - that if you have white skin then your white skins makes you hate blacks. If that were the case, then do we really have any control over ourselves, if it is our skin color that makes us do what we do, and not our minds and how they interpret things, then what would the solutions be to solve racism?
I like what you're saying here but I don't think the world is ready to hear it. Maybe in another 100 years.
I don't think it's skin color strictly speaking, but why do blacks dominate on the track? The most straight-forward, common reason relates to the quantity of fast-twitch muscle fibers and bigger bone structure we see in black athletes.
If you someone wants to deny this then I guess they'd need to argue that white runners, hispanic, runners, and asian runners apparently just don't work as hard or it's not in their culture which is stupid.
In any case it's important to look at the whole person rather than just immediately define them by a superficial aspect of them. I think that's what a lot of racism is - considering race as central to identity.
Nah man. Even if there were genetic propensities, they don't explain variation like that. Reasons are cultural.
We clearly live in a world where Indians have a cricket gene, Americans have a lacrosse gene...
The African Pygmies are black so they must be great basketball players. That's my essentialist logic and I'm sticking to it...
Watch both parts, part 1 is mostly an intro.
BTW, I haven’t been able to keep up with every post in this thread, so if this has already been posted, direct me to it.
Take a look at the top 100m sprinters in the world. They come from all over the world - not just Jamaica, but also the US, Canada, Africa, even Great Britain and France. It's actually a relatively diverse group from various cultures.
Do you know what they all have in common though? I shouldn't even have to say this because you already know.
By all means, lets look at the list for the 200m record holders or 400m record holders.
Did you watch the videos?
No, I'm not going to take 50 minutes out of my day before I'm allowed to respond. What then, do I need to address every point in the video? I have 3 books on the subject in mind that you can read in the meantime.
Yeah, also JADCO was/is basically corrupt, and Jamaican athletes could dope with impunity while officials looked the other way.
"The commission has been under fire since former senior JADCO official Renee Anne Shirley told Sports Illustrated in August the authority had carried out just one out-of-competition test from February 2012 to the start of the London Olympics in July."
Jamaica won 12 Olympic medals in 2012, all in running sports.
Quoting tim wood
I’m writing this as I think, so bear with me.
I can see where I’ve gone away from even my own train of thought in previous posts.
There are no races, there is only the idea that there are groups of people different than us. Therefore there is no race only racism. The only difference lies in cultures, but cultures are constructs. So there is no real difference between people. Even if you looked at this through language and the way people use language differently it still doesn’t indicate that people actually think differently from one another. How could that possibly be true? Attitudes of cruelty or perceptions of others, or art, literature or politics is still cultural not a difference in reasoning.
So at our centre we are all the same. But cultural differences will never go away. In all civilisations the culture mutates and creates new perceptions, which alters laws and moral behaviour. The idea of culture still overrides everything.
So instead of race we would have to accept that tensions are cultural. That’s not so unusual. Could we possibly live without culture? Isn’t that what Pol Pot tried to do? Who wants to live in a world like that? We are obviously cultural animals.
I don’t really want to live without those differences. But it’s the cultural aspects that make life interesting. I don’t want an all white bread culture.
I know there are racists who just do not like the way people look and apply negative attributes to those physical features. That’s all cultural, learned. But isn’t it also just one aspect of culture and common to all cultures? It doesn’t necessarily represent that culture. Unless that culture is absolutely racist, like Nazi Germany.
My perception of America is that it is not a racist culture, despite its past. Historically America is very young, a lot has happened, good and bad, the development towards better things is slow but it’s there. To me the problem now is the growing poverty and the way the pieces that make up America are been moved about on the board to suit a few. We might call that issues of class, or the creation of new classes and the destruction of existing classes. Issues of black lives are caught up in that, their position makes them more vulnerable, but they’re not alone there.
Edit: on reflection “construct” is not what I should have used in relation to culture but it doesn’t alter what I meant.
Regarding elections, elections are not expected to bring about much change at the federal level in the USA due to the tripartite system of government adopted from Montesquieu. While it's well known to have flaws, and has more flaws most people who are not educated in it do not know, on the whole it has proven more resistant to corruption than other systems. But the downside is, it does not allow for rapid change. The slowest moving of the three divisions is the department of justice, and it has a Republican majority now, so democratic concepts are disadvantaged. When both divisions of Congress and the president are republican too, there are very big changes now.
Will this new concern of the masses last? Will the officials accomplish everything they intend (like defund, dismantle, or abolish the police department)?
My guess is that it will last for a while, and will then gradually fade. The iron is hot right now, but iron cools off. Achieving liberty and justice for all is a very complicated project, and remediating wrongs which have been perpetrated and maintained for many decades is going to be very tough.
Eliminating racism will be about as difficult as eliminating capitalism. Not saying they are the same thing, but they are both deeply, deeply entrenched.
At any rate, it's a job for young people. They have to carry out their projects and live with them. Us old folks will be exiting the stage before long. And as one old leftist said, "Revolution is a young person's game."
On the political rhetoric that people have substituted for philosophy here, I have nothing to say. I treid discussing the Sapir Whorf hypothesis, and I tried discussing the social contract, and no one who replied except baden even knew what they are. while ridiculing me as an imbecile.
Well, "the headline" is the wrongness that have police killed another unarmed black man, so that's why the arson was treated as a "sidebar" (you saw the video though - what else is there to say about it? No casualties.)
Agreed. But tell me: what should a community do with their rage at repeated acts of terrorism by the police directed at them? Yeah, two wrongs don't make a right; but the rage of the Oppressed isn't as unjustified as the hate of the Oppressor - considered otherwise, at minimum, would be a false equivalence, no? (C'mon, like IDF snipers versus teen rock-throwers in Gaza, right?)
What should they have done in the heat of another police killing in lieu of venting their impotent rage at this latest injustice? Especially in the historical wake of many decades of peaceful protest and activist engagement with police and politicians here there & every fuckin' where that has not ended predatory paramilitary policing of black, brown & poor communities. What's the alternative to indiscriminate violence against "soft targets" when nonviolent pleas are answered only by continued, state-sanctioned violence?
Should affluent (mostly white) communities and private property remain whole and safe in the midsts of populations herded and hunted like cattle and sport by law enforcement (& white vigilante thugs)? Should anyone be safe in a society wherein a significant fraction of the citizenry, in fact, is not safe from state-sanctioned killers - even in their own homes (e.g. Breonna Taylor, Botham Jean, Stephon Clark, et al)?
Don't fuck with the police. That man deserves every bullet in his body.
Replies to him, not me.
Why should anyone believe that there is a large effect on sports performance related to whether a body is black when there is so little genetic variation between black bodies and non-black ones?
Probably because they're still thinking about the black guy being chocked by a cop for eight minutes. If you think that the priority here is Wendy's, fair enough, but understand that's a very peculiar way of thinking, so mainstream media is unlikely to reflect your viewpoint. Niche media do exist that reflect niche viewpoints. You'll find ample outlets that agree that the story here should be Wendy's but you shouldn't insist that we all have to have media that prioritises the lesser concerns of white people over the greater concerns of black people in America.
thats called shaping truth as you want. Sure have it your way. There is no law then, except what you approve of. Other concerns being less important are dismissed. So people then dismiss you, as will happen over time, not unsurprisingly, just as you dismiss them. Dont expect any change because you believe you are right but havent thought it through.
This is your conclusion from the observation that "prioritising the lesser concerns of the white Wendy's owner over the greater concerns of black people dying at the hands of racist white cops is a niche way of thinking"? Care to show your working?
The answer to both questions is: enough to know that a white man out of a job is not more important than a eighty-eight dead black men this year.
Why do you ask? It seems irrelevant. Do I smell an ill-advised ad hominem on the horizon?
Yes, that happens whenever I don't tell some random weirdo on the internet my age, I'm used to it by now. I appreciate that, according to you, my withholding my age did create injustice, and that might include systemic racism, but I still feel we're going way off piste. Have a safe life, Ernest. Don't kill anyone.
Well thanks for at least considering not wishing me dead. That was probably about as fair-minded as I could expect.
Quoting ernestm
I am sorry to hear that, that must have been terrifying, especially if you already had a fear of black people. I don't condone violence at all but, as with Wendy's and Target, one can at least try to understand the reasons for violence. Surely a philosophy Master, even one on the downward trajectory of life, can reason that it is both irrational and immoral to a) hold all black people in judgement for this one misdeed or b) hold no violent white racist in judgement for their misdeeds, to the extent of weighing the recent unemployment of one white man more heavily than the 88 dead black men killed by racist white cops this year, a conservative context for the George Floyd murder?
This has been without doubt the most random and weird conversation I've ever had. I sense you're not done yet, but, my morbid curiosity notwithstanding, I think the right thing for me to do is to not encourage you further down this trajectory. I'm sure I speak for most when I say I don't like where this is going. Remember: Be safe. Don't kill anyone. And for the love of God don't join the Neighbourhood Watch.
I read somewhere that of the top 200 times in the 100m dash all of them are held by black men (this was a few years ago but have things really changed much?) Would you like to see the stats for the 200m? Or the 50m? I'm more than happy to go through the stats here. Just curious, is there any point where you'd like "hey, maybe there's something up here...." It's not just Jamaicans, you've got blacks from all across the world but what I believe they have in common is west african ancestry.
You're not repeating yourself, you're contradicting yourself.
Quoting tim wood
Quoting tim wood
Are black people human beings that possess characteristic human behaviors, or no?
There is very little genetic difference between chimps and humans, yet their seems to a larger difference in morphology and physiology, even psychologically. Small differences can lead to big differences over time when small variations in genes coupled with the fact that these different groups of humans were dispersed without any interactions with different racial groups for 1000s of years, once humans moved out of Africa and began and our genes began to drift in different directions.
I have a 10 hour video for you to watch on race. I'd like you to watch it and then respond with an 8-10 page paper properly annotated (MLA format). Until then I refuse to engage you on this topic!
A little variation can matter a lot between species.
I was referring to a little within species; humans. The race categories we're familiar with have no genetic support for their biological relevance.
No. It's logical.
Quoting tim wood
Then it can be possible that blacks are being racist against whites. When it is black on white crime, is it necessarily racism on the part of the black person? It doesn't seem that we are applying the same rules to all, equally.
If race is arbitrary, then why are we so concerned about black representation in government? Just as I should see a human being, not a black person, on the ground with a knee on their neck, blacks should see themselves when unarmed whites are being shot by police at twice the rate, and protest when it happens.
Intelligent human beings can see the contradictions - the hypocrisy - and ignore it. It's a shame because we really do need change in law enforcement - for all. Even if you are breaking and entering, stealing cars, or other petty theft, you don't deserve to be assaulted physically or shot in the back while running. Cops can assault you without fear of you fighting back because to an "assault a police officer" is a crime.
Quoting tim wood
How about I just feed you to my pet lizard?
Differences between species are merely differences between "races" built up over longer periods of time of being isolated from each other. Humans were isolated geographically and genetic drift had begun to take effect in the human genome. It just so happens that we have found each other again before complete genetic isolation happened where the changes that built up prevented us from sharing genes and producing viable offspring.
Comments, please.
Moved here as this is the thread focused on questioning the existence of systemic racism.
"Racism has the power to hide and when it hides, it's kept safe."
I had a much older cousin who lived with his wife and children in an unpainted house in the woods of Alabama, complete with a hand pump in the kitchen sink and chickens and coon dogs in the dirt yard. He was a Klan member, and barely scratched by doing manual labor jobs. After a brief visit as a child I had no contact with him for years.
Upon leaving the Air Force in 1962, my wife and I paid him a visit. He no longer lived in a shanty, but in a nice brick home in a residential area. When he opened the door we saw a middle aged man, neatly dressed. He invited us in, and introduced his best friend, a black man who was a colleague at the nearby BF Goodrich plant which had opened in the late 1940s.
The transformative power of economic progress and equality should not be underestimated. But of course there's more to it than that.
Rolfe enters the scene.
Rayshards claims he was brought to Wendy's. Rolfe refuses to believe that, except he doesn't have proof to the contrary. Rayshards does the sobrierity test and while they wait for the result, Rayshards offers to walk to his sisters house. Which is quite reasonable and a good solution to the current situation. Perhaps a fine would be in order but since nobody got hurt or any damages were caused and there's no direct proof of wrongdoing, a warning probably would've been best.
Instead, Rolfe wants to cuff a guy who, at that point, can only be said to be a nuisance for falling a sleep in the drive through. It's not clear to me why Rayshards is arrested. What Rolfe says "you shouldn't be driving" can't be grounds for the arrest, because at this point he can only be suspected of doing so. For DUI, especially first time offenders, jail time is normally waved. So the handcuffs are really a "wtf moment" for me. And that's where it all goes down south.
I think Brosnan up to and during the struggle acted reasonable. He explicitly states "you're going to get tazed" in the heat of the moment, which is a good warning and he doesn't draw his gun when Rayshards runs. It's once Rayshards has been shot, he too seems callous towards him because neither cop offers any medical support for Rayshards, who is still alive.
It's a damn shame, this entire situation, if you feel how relaxed and respectful the situation started between Rayshards and Brosnan.
It stands to reason that the anti-racist answer is NO.
[quote=Letter from A Birmingham Jail (1963)]Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.
Agreed.
Quoting Harry Hindu
According to you. The history of my parents, as well as my grand-parents and their parents and so on tell a different story.
Quoting Harry Hindu
White lives do matter if we take a historical comparison of the judicial system in their conviction between white men and black men (and women). Not to mention who is killed more per capita (see:https://www.statista.com/chart/21872/map-of-police-violence-against-black-americans/).
Quoting Harry Hindu
This is a common trope many white supremacists use to discount, deny, and deflect to the issues concerning police brutality. Those that ask "what about black on black crime?" I simply respond, there is no black on black crime just as there is no reverse racism. There is only crime, and there is only racism. Black people live in proximity to each other, like whites, and Hispanics and any other demographic. Blacks don't simply go out looking for other blacks simply because they're black, some commit crimes because black people live next to black people so that argument is played and flawed.
"When an opponent of Black Lives Matters talks about “blacks killing blacks” it’s almost always to deflect attention away from police brutality. As if one issue makes the other more acceptable.
When someone commits an act of terrorism against in the United States, which rightfully leads to anger and sadness, no one asks, “Well what about how many Americans kill other Americans each year?” Because that would crazy, now wouldn’t it?"
See:https://www.cleveland.com/news/2020/06/stop-using-black-on-black-crime-to-deflect-away-from-police-brutality.html
I would also say that is untrue however I believe the "school book" aspect was satire on your part
You're definitely on point
Have you studied why such things are in place? I mean I know why affirmative action in the beginning was in place?Quoting NOS4A2
Have you studied why such things are in place? I mean I know why affirmative action in the beginning was in place?
As an African-American, I tire when people who don't share my experiences try to examine my experiences through their lens instead of listening and knowing our story.
Do you have document proof that my black skin is favored? Handouts? Oh wait you mean welfare something that favors predominantly white women?
"whites are the biggest beneficiaries when it comes to government safety-net programs like the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, commonly referred to as welfare."
See:https://www.newsweek.com/donald-trump-welfare-black-white-780252
Quoting Harry Hindu
If you want to go there sure per capita but it doesn't cancel out the greatest crimes committed by white historically both in the United States and across the world. Considering you call yourself "Harry Hindu" I would assume you know the well documented treatment of Indians from India and how the British during their tenure there created colorism among the Indian people but I digress. I fail to see the correlation between your mentioning of crime rate and what @Baden was saying.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Fun fact: Majority of police (in urban communities) think people of color in low income areas are criminal hence the racial bias studies done:
"I’ve had more than one retired police officer tell me there is a running joke in law enforcement when it comes to racial profiling: It never happens . . . and it works. But the problem with trying to dismiss profiling concerns by noting that higher rates at which some minority groups commit certain crimes is that it overlooks the fact that huge percentages of black and Latino people have been pulled over, stopped on the street and generally harassed despite the fact that they have done nothing wrong. Stop-and-frisk data, for example, consistently show that about 3 percent of these encounters produce any evidence of a crime." See:https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/opinions/systemic-racism-police-evidence-criminal-justice-system/#Policing
Quoting Harry Hindu
If you are an intelligent person please stop with the pluralism in your words. "Blacks" aren't a monolith we all don't think the same. Considering you're talking about generalizations to @Baden it would behoove you to use phrases like "It would appear some blacks" or "some blacks" not "blacks" for starters.
The whole squad is here now, excellent.
PROPOSAL: Every black American and American Indian should be provided totally free education (tuition, books, living expenses, everything) for any educational experience which can boost their income earning potential. This plan should continue until such time as the vast wealth gap between these groups and whites is erased. The plan should be funded by the richest 1%, that is, those who have most of the money and who have benefited most from America's rigged system.
I appreciate you starting your own thread concerning race and wanting us to present some proposals (or theories) on how we can eradicate racism. Let me be the first to say that although I commend your efforts in the above proposal, I must (with sincere regret) disagree. I've had a similar disagreement with members among the ADOS (African Descendants Of Slaves) camp. For one, it would be hard to convince 60.4% of white Americans especially those of the 1% to dedicate trillions of dollars specifically for Black Americans, to help them close the economic gap when there are many among the white demographic that do not believe such a gap much less systemic racism (or racism for that matter) even exists. Not to mention you will have an ethnic backlash from non-black taxpayers who feel personally that their money is going towards a demographic whose ancestors were enslaved and yet they (non-black taxpayers) will feel as if they're punished for a crime they didn't commit.
So therefore I ask myself sometimes " slavery aside, why is there more push back in recompense for African-Americans especially those who've suffered from reconstruction, Jim Crow, redlining, and civil rights which contributed to the economical gap?"
Have recommended this numerous times, it seems no one actually cares to watch it. But it does highlight the complexity of spotting modern systemic racism. It's easy for white people to think that in a neoliberal time as now, there's no systemic racism, but that point of view is extremely biased and singular in its perspective.
I also think that neoliberalism is the most effective way to create the illusion of no problems in society. All ideologies exclude some people in society, but liberalism, especially neoliberalism has hidden exclusions. Like "freedom and justice for all, except immigrants". It doesn't matter how the talk is when the walk of neoliberalism doesn't follow.
So within a neoliberal society, it's very easy to build up systemic racism in the most hidden form possible. Because when the neoliberal narrative in public is that everyone is free and everyone has equal justice, it's much harder to see the machine within forming such racism.
"The 13th amendment" on Netflix exposes that machine and how it was formed based on previous obvious systemic racism.
To deny that it exists is to ignore the evidence put forward. And to ignore that evidence is to be ignorant and unable to conduct rational thought. So far, no one who defends the neoliberal narrative has actually made any argument that addresses the facts that exist. They only sidestep everything with zero philosophical scrutinies.
I think that the reason is that we have a status quo of neoliberalism today and people live within this system. Any different perspective on how the world should be is not really an attack on a concept of reality, but the very reality that people live within. It's ingrained in their lives. You have to be a freethinker to actually be able to think outside the system you depend on and live inside. Otherwise, any different perspective from the status quo will feel like an attack on you and not the narratives of the status quo.
This is why I think there are so many who generally are rational people defend the status quo with such low-quality arguments and inability to see the obvious things put before them, sometimes even ignoring to participate in evidence or accept evidence since that would create an emotionally uncomfortable cognitive dissonance.
Some people are unable to accept a reality beyond the one they have lived within all their lives. It's basically Plato's cave.
The black community comes into the neoliberal cave to tell the white people in there how the world is actually made up... and they just laugh and dismiss everything as nonsense, because they cannot grasp that nature of reality as it is too different from their own.
— Harry Hindu
Quoting Anaxagoras
But we're talking about the present, not the past. I noticed that you didn't mention yourself here. If your parents and grand-parents still experience racism, then show us so that we can call out the racists together.
Calling all whites and cops racist just makes you a hypocrite while insulting the people you are trying to convince, and I'm not interested in promoting hypocrisy. I am interested in promoting an end to hating people that are different than you, but being that isn't what you are doing, you are doing the opposite, then I'm not interested.
Quoting Anaxagoras
People like you have an agenda, or else you would have also posted this link from the same sight:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/
Notice how twice as many whites are killed by police than blacks. Why wasn't anyone marching in the streets after just one white person was killed, but only after a black person was killed. Essentially two whites were killed for every black and more blacks are killed by other blacks than killed by police or whites. This has been pointed out several times but is ignored. You need to be more intellectually honest if you expectothers to agree with you.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Hmmm. It seems that you are forgetting all the crimes committed against blacks by other blacks, even in Africa before whites came with a need for slaves. It seems that you are cherry-picking your historical facts.
Quoting Anaxagoras
You're missing the point. If Black Lives Matter, then what about those blacks killed by other blacks which far outnumber the lives taken by whites or cops? Black Lives Matter isn't interested in saving black lives. They are interested in promoting an ideology.
It certainly isn't a deflection away from police brutality. Black Lives Matter is to deflect attention away from all those lives lost as a result of the actions of other blacks and how growing up in a broken home leads to poverty and the inability to move upward economically, for any race.
I've been advocating for police reform before this happened to Mr. Floyd because All Lives Matter, not just Black Lives. I am the one being consistent fighting for reform no matter which life is lost. The color of your skin doesn't matter. Life matters. Checking the power over our lives that others are trusted with matters. Racism is just one narrow facet of police brutality. Police brutality affects all of us. The fact that you are conflating racism with police brutality seems to me that you don't see police killing twice as many whites as brutality. So then are we fighting for two different things? Are whites and blacks so different that we need to have two different ethical standards for each?
Quoting Anaxagoras
If you were an intelligent person then you'd realize that you are being a hypocrite. If it is wrong for me to making generalizations based on statistical evidence, then it is wrong for you to do as well when it comes to police and whites. Or are you saying that blacks aren't suppose to be held to the same moral rules as other human beings? We don't hold animals to the same ethical standards as humans. Is this what you are trying to imply when asserting the idea that blacks can make generalizations about the way people with a certain skin color think, or the way that certain people that wear certain clothes (police uniforms) think, but it's not okay for whites or cops to do that.
The past sometimes leads to the present, hence is why civil rights movement existed. Hence is why we have modified laws in the Jim Crow era to make it equitable for all people in the present. However this doesn't change the fact that their stories are very important to remember.
Quoting Harry Hindu
My parents and grand-parents have passed on due to cancer and other ailments so I cannot show you anything. I've experienced racism myself. I've also experienced racial profiling. Of course the level of racism I've experienced is incomparable to what my parents and grand-parents experienced.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Ok and where in my post have I done this?
Quoting Harry Hindu
Ok again where are you getting this from in my post? I'm confused how you came to this understanding.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes because whites composed of 60.4% of the United States population it's really not rocket science here.
Quoting Harry Hindu
You'd have to ask the Caucasian community.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I'm not interested in your agreement. In fact after reading your exchange with @Baden it was infinitely clear to me you weren't interested in looking outside your own biases. Now again whites comprise of 60.4% of the population which is why more whites are killed but per capita, more African-Americans are twice as likely to be killed by cops despite being 13% of the population. Also there is documented evidence of police racial bias through studies that have been done which is why some have called for training and education on correcting racial bias in policing.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Ok, what goes on in Africa and the United States are different situations because whatever is in Africa you'd have to highlight a specific country and specific situation and relate it to the current topic. Something that is tribal based on a corrupt government is a lot different than what is going on here in the states. Just because two parties are both black doesn't mean their issues are the same.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Black Lives Matter specifically focuses on the issues regarding injustice in relation to police brutality and the issues concerning the lack of transparency in police conduct in relation to communities of color. This has nothing to do with crime in the inner city. We all know crime happens in the inner city and plenty of grassroots movements are there speaking out against it. Again, violence in the black community has nothing to do with BLM rather its focus is on the unjust treatment of black Americans, however the BLM movement is very broad beyond the scope of nationalism at this point.
Quoting Harry Hindu
"With the movement’s attention comes a familiar refrain: Why doesn’t Black Lives Matter focus on “black-on-black” crime? When a civilian has committed a violent crime, they’re generally arrested, tried and then convicted,” Franchesca Ramsey, a writer and activist who discusses race, explains in the MTV series Decoded.
Conversely, there’s a lot of evidence that it’s very rare to secure an indictment against a police officer for excessive force. And an indictment is just a trial; it isn’t even a conviction.”
“Black Lives Matter" isn’t just about the loss of life, which is always terrible. It’s about the lack of consequences when black lives are taken at the hands of police.......
While nearly twice as many white Americans were killed by on-duty officers than blacks, the Post’s updated data showed, black Americans remained 2.5 times as likely to die at the hands of police when adjusting for population.
And when unarmed, the data showed that black Americans were five times as likely to be fatally shot as white ones."
See:https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/27/why-doesnt-black-lives-matter-doesnt-focus-talk-about-black-black-crime/87609692/
Quoting Harry Hindu
If that were true, BLM wouldn't exist.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Where have I made a generalization about whites and the police? Where in my words have I done this outside the sources I've listed? Can you quote the exact words where I've made these generalizations?
:up:
Below are just a couple of facts from a recent WAPO article relating to the US justice system, any of which in itself demonstrates the reality of systemic racism. You literally have to deny this empirical data exists (along with that forming the basis of hundreds of other peer-reviewed academic studies) to continue with the conspiracy theory that there is no systemic racism in the US:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/if-you-dont-believe-systemic-racism-is-real-explain-these-statistics/2020/06/12/ce0dff6e-acc7-11ea-94d2-d7bc43b26bf9_story.html
[If you turn off javascript in Chrome you will permanently bypass the paywall, so definitely don't do that. :halo: ]
E.g:
1. "Police disproportionately stop African American drivers and disproportionately search African American drivers after stopping them, even though they tend to find less contraband."
2. "African American men were about 2 1/2 times more likely than white men to be killed by police."
3. "African Americans are far more likely to be arrested for petty crimes." Here's just one study demonstrating that "a black person more than 3 1/2 times more likely to be arrested for possession [of marijuana] than a white person, even though rates of usage are similar."
https://www.aclu.org/report/tale-two-countries-racially-targeted-arrests-era-marijuana-reform
Of course, rather than bite the bullet on the above what you tend to get are red herrings and distractions to do with BLM or whatever. Again, systemic racism does not mean that all cops are racist or there are explicitly racist rules in place in government bureaucracies or that white people don't also suffer from the failings of certain systems. It does mean that certain systems function in a way (often despite explicit intent) to disfavour communities of colour. And all that is required to demonstrate that is data on the results of the functioning of these systems. And the data is there. Lots of it. Let's at least accept that and move on.
It seems to me that any law or provision that favors some races to the exclusion of others is both racist and systemic.
The physiological differences between a human and a chimp are small compared to the physiological differences between a human and a cockroach or a human and a blade of grass or a human and a rock. But those small physiological differences have a huge behavioural and social impact.
Laws have been doing that for centuries and decades in the United States which is why there is an economic gap between whites and blacks. For example, the only reason why certain minority groups that migrate to the United States and are successful is because of the civil rights campaign. So not only minorities were fighting for equality they were still left behind and even after amendments and equitable provisions have passed, black Americans still found themselves behind.
This is ultimately why affirmative action existed to at least in part tried to close the gap by providing equitable opportunities that wasn’t fairly provided before.
And I believe this hits the nail on the head. However, during the downtime at work I’ll be glad to look over your links. I’m sure there is some very good information there.
:cool:
Yes, their stories are important to remember, not to be projected into the present as if they are still happening today.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Maybe, but I've experienced racism too. How do you know that the level of racism I've experienced isn't comparable to what you have experienced?
Quoting Anaxagoras
Here:Quoting Anaxagoras
Are you not using statistics of cops killing blacks as evidence that all cops are racist, or at least most of them are? If not, then what exactly are you trying to show when providing these stats, while at the same time ignoring the context of those stats - as in blacks committing crimes at a higher rate relative to their population than other racial groups.
Where are the stats showing that doctors are allowing more blacks to die in the emergency room than whites? Where are the stats of teachers giving lower grades to blacks than whites? And what would be the causes of these stats? You are assuming your conclusion if you claim that everytime a black and white person come into conflict it has to be because of racism. Instead of looking at each case individually, you automattically assert your conclusion - that racism is the cause of each and every instance where a black person was killed by a white cop. That is illogical.
Quoting Baden
What makes me suspicious is when people cling to the idea that certain ideas have been debunked. Sure, humans have a wide range of varying features, but some features only occur with certain other features. Genetic drift and kinship selection are real, natural processes.
It is BLM and people like you that are still focused on race because you keep using circular reasoning in assuming your conclusion (that cops are racist) to support your claim that the actions of cops are racist.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Excuse me? Who's focused on race again?
Quoting Anaxagoras
Then BLM used the wrong name for their institution. It implies that All Black Lives Matter, but then you just explained that it doesn't mean that, so it is more of a political agenda than a movement to actually save black lives.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Here are some stats that put your stats into context, which is what you seem to have been trying to avoid for awhile now.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls
https://ucr.fbi.gov/hate-crime/2018/topic-pages/offenders
As you can see, blacks kill more than twice as any whites as whites kill blacks. Blacks make up more than 24% of hate crimes commited when only 13% of the population. If you want to use stats to show racism, there you go.
Quoting Baden
If you just want to repeat the same strawmen over and over, there's no need to reply to my posts. All cops are not racist, but some are. That's obvious and something every rational interlocutor here agrees on. Besides which, it has virtually no bearing on the existence of systemic racism, the topic of this discussion.
Quoting Harry Hindu
What ideas do you think have been falsely debunked? What does it have to do with race? And what is your evidence for it? So far, you give the impression of being an ignoramus with regards to the issue of genetics and "race". So, now is your chance to prove you're not. Lay out in scientific terms exactly what you are trying to say. If you can't or won't, we'll be justified in drawing the conclusion you have no idea what you are talking about.
Then all you have done is show what systemic racism isn't when I've been asking for what it is. You haven't shown the existence of systemic racism at all. You've only shown that there are some bad apples in law enforcement. No one is disagreeing with that. What we are disagreeing on is your terminology.
If you want to keep bringing up history, then that doesn't cut the cake, as I am asking for examples of systemic racism today, and to bring up history is to ignore that if the roles were reversed - that if blacks were the more technologically advanced than whites - then whites would have been slaves, as if blacks aren't subject to the same errors in thinking as others are, and that it is wrong to give special treatment to anyone because of the color of their skin. As such, affirmative action is a good example of systemic racism. So, I might actually agree that systemic racism exists, just coming from the other side now as the pendulum swings. We need to stop the pendulum from swinging so that it becomes stationary in the middle.
If blacks are more likely to be killed by other blacks because they interact more with blacks, then why is it not the same thing for blacks being killed by cops at a higher rate relative to their population? If blacks commit more crimes relative to their population, then they will encounter cops at a higher rate relative to their population. It's the same logic, but you aren't applying it consistently.
Here are some examples of how this conversation can actually be had in a rational way, not the way it has been done here with a lack of intellectual honesty and consistency.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFqVNPwsLNo
At 21:55 is where Rubin and Elder begin talking about racism.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8C-VrsK93GE
Here Coleman Hughs agrees that the problem is systemic corruption in law enforcement, not necessarily racism.
It still stands that the bills being circulated in Congress have no language in them that provides special treatment to blacks. They are bills limiting the powers of the police against all races, not just one race. They are treating everyone as equal victims of police brutality and corruption.
Quoting Baden
You mean to claim that you know what you are talking about but don't know what genetic drift and kin selection is? How do we know that the person in fdrake's video knows what they are talking about? What are their credentials on the subject? If the person never mentioned those terms that I did, then I wonder if they actually know what they are talking about.
And it still stands that it is people like you that are playing the race card, by assuming that every instance of blacks being killed by cops is an instance of racism. It is you that keep inserting race where it isn't necessarily so. So if races don't exist, then why are you contradicting yourself by bringing race into an event where race might not have been the cause. You have to have good evidence that it does, and to provide that evidence you'd have to know what the cop was thinking at the moment.
Wrong again, I gave an explanation of it earlier in the thread. If you were interested in reading instead of.. whatever it is you are doing here, you'd know that. And if you don't know what systemic racism is now, you must not want to know.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Yes, I know what they are and I think you know I do but are playing some silly game here. Apart from having a basic knowledge of these things, I studied genetics and evolution in university and have a related degree. Now stop the bluffing and man up. What is your scientific argument? Where are your references? What are your objections to what's in the video? You haven't even told us that. You come across as not having any substance behind your rhetoric. Prove me wrong.
Quoting Harry Hindu
I literally just dealt with this type of objection and pointed out it was a strawman in the last post. And yet you insist on repeating it. So, again, every instance of a black person being killed by cops does not have to be racist nor does every cop have to be racist for systemic racism to obtain. Please tattoo that on your forehead and look in the mirror before responding to any more of my posts.
You didn't have a problem posting a link to fdrake's post with the videos, but you can't seem to do the same thing when it comes to your definition of "systemic racism". Why are you being so evasive?
Did you even bother watching the videos I posted in the previous post? If blacks are disagreeing that systemic racism exists, then how do you explain that? Just as theists need to explain the existences of atheists who don't see the existence of god as obvious, you need to explain why blacks disagree that the existence of systemic racism isn't obvious. If you don't know what god is, then you must not want to know. :roll: See how stupid that argument is?
Quoting Baden
Your objection was to disqualify the existence of systemic racism as put forth by Anaxagoras in their post that you "liked". If not all cops are racist, then why did you "like" Anaxagoras's post that had a link showing the rate at which cops kill blacks vs whites, as if that shows systemic racism in law enforcement? Such statistics don't show racism, so then why like posts that have links showing such statistics? :roll: I'm waiting on your definition of "systemic racism". Did Rubin define it properly in the video I posted a link to? As Rubin attempted to define each instance of systemic racism, Larry Elder debunked each one.
Quoting Baden
I asked for the credentials of the person that made the videos in fdrake's post, but you failed to do that. If you have a degree, then I don't understand why you're using videos by someone who you can't verify as having a degree in lieu of your own explanation when you do have a degree.
The fact that you think I am playing silly games just goes to show that you aren't going to take my explanation seriously. But I'll give it a go anyway, at least for the more reasonable people on this forum.
First, what determines what, or who, you are? Your genes? Philosophical discussions on this topic seem to disagree on what exactly defines you as you. So to assert that genetics determines your "you" seems to have some philosophical implications that not everyone agrees with.
Even if we give you that genes determine who or what you are. There are still genetic differences between the races, thanks to genetic drift. You might claim that the differences are small - genetically - but to the eyes, the macro-expression of those genes, the differences seem much larger. That has an effect on kin selection. If the genetic differences are only skin deep and our genetic similarities lie under our skin as in our bodily systems (we all have hearts, lungs, brains, blood clotting, etc.,) those qualities don't play a role at all in kin selection, and how those differences become pronounced over time.
Some of the research I have found indicates that neanderthals and homo sapiens mated, even though they are different species. What is the genetic differences between homo sapiens and neanderthals compared to the genetic differences of human races? If neanderthals and humans are categorized as different species, and they are able to mate, and their genetic differences are minimal, then what does that say about the genetic differences in human races?
The stats I have found is that neanderthals share as much as 99.7% DNA as homo sapiens. If that difference qualifies as a difference in species, then what benchmark qualifies as a difference in races? If there are differences at all in the frequency of certain alleles within certain geographical groups, and those alleles are expressed only on the outside as in skin color, hair type, facial structures, etc. (AND those differences occur together, ie Asians, blacks and whites aren't simply defined by the color of their skin, but their hair type and facial features as well - skin color alone doesn't determine your race), then that small genetic difference will have a large impact on psychology and behavior, as in kin selection.
I guess it depends on which size scale of reality you want to focus on that determines what makes you you and me different from you - genes or the macro expressions of those genes and their impact on behaviors like kin selection.
It's on page one of the thread, so I expected you would find it yourself. In any case, here it is and it's in line with the standard definition.
Quoting Baden
Racist policies, whether “positive” or “negative”, are wrong and for the same reason. They discriminate on the grounds of race.
I think it could be argued that individuals who suffered through systemic racism (by that I mean racial policy) may deserve some recompense, even if it is in the form of better opportunity. But that cannot be argued for those who never suffered through such policy, and I do not think it can be shown that everyone of that skin-color suffered through such policy.
"How will it end?
Ain't got no friend.
The only sin
Is in my skin"
https://youtu.be/qN5lrj01DoE
:death: solitaire et ...
sometimes, though, my blues can kiss my jazz -
composed in honor of the
COngress for
Racial
Equality ... "The Core"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?feature=youtu.be&v=nljvdRWsfG4
:flower: solidaire
FUNK it!
https://youtu.be/UbkqE4fpvdI
:fire:
[quote=Albert Murray]We invented the blues; Europeans invented psychoanalysis. You invent what you need.[/quote]
... addendum: Murica. :eyes:
I didn't see this as a definition because it is just as vague as your other explanations. You even admit at the end that it is subtle.
You give an example on housing from last century. What about policing? You said that not all cops are necessarily racist, yet you claim that systemic racism occurs in policing. How is that not a contradiction? Give concrete examples.
As for race not being a biological reality, I found some interesting tidbits from actual evolutionary biologists. Jerry Coyne writes in his book, Why Evolution is True:
And here is a link to his blog where he discusses it more:
https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2012/02/28/are-there-human-races/
And a sit-down discussion with Rubin:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EAH2qOFHggE
And here is another article written by Patrick Whittle who has a PhD in philosophy and is a freelance writer with a particular interest in the social and political implications of modern biological science.
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/02/13/genetics-and-race-how-do-we-have-this-awkward-conversation/
Here is another article showing how the founder effect can lead to genetic drift. When a population of humans left Africa, genetic drift set in. This is actually evidence for the "out of Africa" theory.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/which-population-is-most-genetically-distant-from-africans
So it seems to me that you are clinging to the idea that race as a biological reality has been debunked.
Because there's nothing contradictory about it. If you see a contradiction, you still don't understand what systemic racism is. I don't know what the block is here. And I already did give a concrete example from policing just on the previous page.
Quoting Baden
So, maybe you can explain why black people being more likely to be arrested for petty crimes necessitates all cops being racist?
As for your apparent race realism, I've been debunking a biological basis for the folk notion of race. And I am right because there is none. There is no biological basis for a division of humans into "Black", "White", "Asian" etc. What there is is genetic variation among populations, including within and across folk racial groups. And that's explained in your own Whittle link above.
"...it is important to distinguish between the word ‘race’ as it is socially used — say, the Black/African American, Native American, White, etc. racial categories used in the US census — from the biological sense, used to describe distinct populations within a species.
...the idea of an overarching ‘Black’ race utterly fails to capture the genetic diversity of African (or African-descended) peoples, irrespective of how we are now able to distinguish genetically related groups within the wider human population of Africa."
https://geneticliteracyproject.org/2019/02/13/genetics-and-race-how-do-we-have-this-awkward-conversation/
What Whittle misses, maybe as he's not a biologist or geneticist but is more interested in promoting free speech, is that we have, to replace "race", the concepts of haplogroups, clines, and demes, which are much more accurate and useful when talking about variations between human populations and don't carry the confusing baggage of folk notions of race, not to mention the taxonomical baggage of races being equated with subspecies etc. There are no subspecies of humans, there is one human race. And race essentialism is pseudoscience.
"Social conceptions and groupings of races vary over time, involving folk taxonomies that define essential types of individuals based on perceived traits. Scientists consider biological essentialism obsolete"
"all living humans belong to the same species, Homo sapiens, and ... subspecies, Homo sapiens sapiens."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_(human_categorization)
Again, from your other link, a quote demonstrating how the folk notion of race has no basis in biological reality:
"In some ways all non-Africans can be thought of as a subset of the genetic variation of Africans. Those humans who reside outside of Africa are simply a diversified branch of Africans."
https://www.discovermagazine.com/planet-earth/which-population-is-most-genetically-distant-from-africans
Do you read your own links?
So, it's all there even in your own material. Race essentialism is bunk. Race realism is bunk. And folk notions of race have no special biological significance but are social constructs. If you still don't get it, consider the following short conversation in which A is a shade realist and B is not.
A: There are two shades of blue, dark blue and light blue.
B: OK, but that's just an arbitrary cultural judgement with no basis in science.
A: No it's not. Due to colour drift, the difference in wavelength between an average dark blue and an average light blue is absolutely discernible.
B: Yeah, I know about colour drift, but colours vary on a continuum. Like I said, your division is arbitrary.
A: No, no, no, watch this Dave Rubin video, he explains everything!
Anyone who mentions genetic drift as support for the idea of the folk notion of races (rather than for variation among populations not coextensive with such folk notions) sounds as silly as A above. And it's a very close analogy only that we're not dealing with a perfectly smooth continuum but maybe 300 different groups. So, objectively if you absolutely must use the term 'race', you could say that there are either 300 races or 1 (as per @fdrake's video). All other divisions are arbitrary and trying to make them line up with folk notions of race as race realists try to do is not a scientific endeavour but an ideological one. And that ideology is called racism.
Anyway, this is not the subject of the thread and as race realism is racist pseudoscience, I'm not going to give it any further oxygen here.
"Scientific racism, sometimes termed biological racism, is a pseudoscientific belief that empirical evidence exists to support or justify racism (racial discrimination), racial inferiority, or racial superiority. Historically, scientific racism received credence throughout the scientific community, but it is no longer considered scientific."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism
Back on topic>> systemic racism.
What about though of us who suffer from the residual effects of such policies?
No. Actually it is to demonstrate that blacks are targeted and that there exist racial bias in policing citizens.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Pray tell share your story
Quoting Harry Hindu
Are you talking about racial bias in the healthcare field? There is research on that.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Nope. Never said that nor implied.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Apparently you are unaware that BLM is beyond the nationalism that many right-wing think tanks believe it to be.
Then we call that “residual effects of those policies”, not “systemic racism”. If you are suffering from a policy, we change it. If you are suffering from the consequences of history then you do what everyone else does when history has done them a disservice. Calling it systemic racism drastically alters the problem and shifts the response to, perhaps coincidently perhaps not, unjustified social/political control. Race doesnt really matter to anyone except the minorities of racists and people who think everyone is a racist. Everyone else gets it, race is mostly irrelevant.
Which effects of which policies?
Legalize marijuana. :cool: Problem solved.
Anyway this is just more generalizations, as if there aren't black cops arresting blacks. What percentage of cops are targeting blacks? If you're willing to admit that the stats aren't reflective of all police, then what percentage of cops are targeting blacks? What percentage would qualify as systemic racism? How do you distinguish between a small percentage of individual cops targeting blacks on their own vs. systemic racism? It seems like you are unwilling to make that distinction. Pockets of racism still exist but that doesn't mean that it's systemic. We have laws against racism, just as we have laws against rape, but we still have some racists and some rapists. It doesn't mean that racism and raping are systemic.
So you need to show what percentage were white cops, and how many blacks vs whites each one arrested. If we end up showing that only a small percentage of cops were arresting more blacks does that still mean that racism is systemic or that we simply still have some individuals are racist, like we still have individuals that are rapists? Does it even mean that the reasons that more blacks are being arrested could only be racism?
Do we know how many of these arrests were simply for possession, or selling it, or tied to gang activity, or that marijuana possession was in addition to other charges that they were being arrested, or stopped, for? It seems like you're unwilling to ask these pertinent questions about these stats. Using stats that don't take into account other relevant information is typically spinning stats to support your assumptions, as if racism is the only cause of each and every black person being arrested for marijuana. Any time stats on blacks being arrested at higher rates without also showing that blacks commit crimes at higher rates is an endeavour in intellectual dishonesty.
It's the same logic used to show that blacks being murdered by other blacks is because of the close proximity of other blacks. Well, when you're committing crimes at higher rates, then you're going to be exposed to bad cop decisions at higher rates, not necessarily racism. Again, you keep assuming your conclusion - as if every stat you show is indicative of racism being the only possible explanation for the stats.
Quoting Baden
Then you're basically saying that humans are somehow special.
Quoting Baden
Not if you read and watch Jerry Coyne, which you didn't address at all. I will also take issue with your interpretation of the content of the other links in just a moment, but let's look at what Coyne has defined race as:
So there are two qualifiers here: being geographically isolated and differing genetically in one or more traits.
Humans were geographically isolated for thousands of years once they moved out of Africa. They began to diverge genetically, but even 100,000 or so years isn't long enough in evolutionary time to diverge too much, but still enough to where certain alleles became more prominent in certain groups as opposed to other groups.
It is believed that early Europeans mated with neanderthals, which is categorized as a different species, with a 0.3% difference between them and homo sapiens. If this is the case, then there are certain groups of humans that have more neanderthal DNA than other groups, which counts as a genetic difference and is geographically isolated from Africa and Asia.
Coyne goes on to say in his blog that I linked:
So while we used to be geographically isolated, we are no longer isolated like we used to be, but most of us still live our lives in our communities we were born in, mating with those within our community.
The lines are beginning to blur, and eventually there won't be races as Coyne has defined them, unless some of us move to Mars and lose contact with Earth for 100,000 or more years.
The quotes you took from Whittle:
Quoting Baden
You don't see that he is making the distinction between the socially used word and the biological one? They are two separate things. One is "folk" and the other a biological reality. One is racist/xenophobic while the other is scientific, and science isn't in the business of assigning values to those differences. Cultures do that.
Your quoting the other link:
Quoting Baden
That's what a subspecies is.
Quoting Baden
You obviously didn't watch any of the videos. It was Rubin that was being educated by his guest, and I was hoping that they would educate you as well. The rest of your A and B example is ridiculous and it makes wonder if you actually received your degree as a surprise from a box of Froot Loops. The fact that you're using Wikipedia to try and debunk a well-respected evolutionary biologist says a lot as well.
Quoting BadenThat isn't what is being done here. As I have shown there is a distinction between the "folk" notion and the scientific one, so you're using a straw-man. The latter isn't supporting the other. It is simply making discoveries that might or might not be used to promote some already built-in assumptions about certain people. Science doesn't define distinctions as inferior or superior. Cultures do that.
Since you like Wikipedia so much:
The "Out of Africa" theory explains that a small group of Africans moved out of Africa (splintering off from the original population) and forms a new, geographically isolated group.
Here is an in-depth article explaining the genetic variance supporting the theory:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3267120/
In Figure 2, it shows "Phylogeny based on the first mtDNA complete sequence data available in 2000 (from 52 individuals randomly selected around the world)". Around 83,000 years ago, a branch split off from the African L3 branch that then became the foundation of all the other non-African races and ethnic groups. These branches aren't social constructions. They are outcomes of scientific research. The lines aren't meant to be interpreted as one being more superior as some other. That is the "folk" use of the word, race, that you are referring to. Science is simply about making discoveries that allow us to live our lives better by hopefully using this information to make medial breakthroughs that can help each individual.
:lol:
You can have the last word, Harry. Like I said, it's off-topic and posters can make up their own minds on which one of us is the Froot Loop here.
There seems to be little evidence to suggest any racial disparity in police violence.
Please respond.
Universe: Respondents aged 16 years and older to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS) during the last six months of 2011.
So people who were victims of a crime that either went to the police, were then approached by the police or were involved in a traffic accident and we are to infer no systemic bias from that?
Aw, man. He was just saying your argument was bad and making a joke about how any evidence to the contrary to that is cheap. You didn't have to go and call him a homosexual now.
Jeez man now anyone who disagrees with someone is now not only wrong but scientifically should no longer reproduce? Can't imagine what people like that would do without cops or diversity frankly.
Scary. Makes you wonder about the intents of some who "support" gay rights.
Aside from the many studies finding precisely that, you mean? So, aside from e.g. Kramer and Remster 2018 ("Findings show that Black and White civilians experience fundamentally different interactions with police. Black civilians are particularly more likely to experience potential lethal force"), Edwards et al 2018 ("Police kill, on average, 2.8 men per day... Black men’s mortality risk is between 1.9 and 2.4 deaths per 100?000 per year, Latino risk is between 0.8 and 1.2, and White risk is between 0.6 and 0.7... Black and Latino men are at higher risk for death than are White men, and these disparities vary markedly across place."), Fryer 2016 ("blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police") and so on?
So again, what's the universe of people questioned as part of the PPCS?
Depends on the survey.
Wrong. So you put out a blurb referencing a survey, which I then look up and read, share with you, you allege I haven't read and then you don't even now the universe of respondents after I literally quoted it word for word from the latest survey? Disingenuous much?
Edit: again, what's the universe of respondents?
Again, everyone is a minority somewhere. The world was a tough place not that long ago. You can see it even today.
That is not how it works, but you seemed to have already understood this:
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
I would have to show no such thing, since I assert nothing other than that the data the people claim to exist does not seem to be there. Those who wish to conclude from studies such as the ones you linked that systemic racism exists need to provide proof.
No, simply not a native English speaker.
Please make your point about the study, if you have one.
Obviously if certain ethnicities are overrepresented in certain crimes like homocide, that needs to be taken into account when judging the numbers, even when it is a 'rate'.
And the claim here is that systemic racism exists in the USA, and you will need more than statistics without context to make that claim. That is essentially what I (and Larry Elder in the video) take issue with.
I actually tried to access the studies, but was greeted by a pay wall.
Quoting Tzeentch
You need to be careful with this too due to Simpson's paradox.
In any case, I think it's irrelevant as to the question if there is systemic racism in the US. We know blacks are disproportionaly killed and incarcerated in the US. Let's assume the police are not biased. Let's assume the criminal justice system is fair. Blacks are still disproportionally killed and incarcerated. So either that's
a) due to race essentialism because blacks have a propensity for crime, or
b) something about the way society works or has worked causing the disparity (eg. systemic racism).
I make little in the way of conclusions, other than that numbers often quoted to prove systemic racism, such as various statistics related to police bias, do not seem to prove much when put into context. This is the point that was made in the video I linked.
Quoting Benkei
Everyone needs to be careful with statistics, and in my experience many who partake in this sort of debate misuse statistics to a criminal extent.
Quoting Benkei
I don't think those are the only two options, and this type of binary thinking (e.g. "you must agree systemic racism exists or you must be a racist") is typical for this debate. It's polarizing, but most of all it's anti-intellectual, since reality is almost universally more complicated than we like to assume.
Let's go back a few steps. Are blacks disproportionality killed by police and incarcerated in the US or not?
What's the cause or causes according to you if not one of the two options I provided?
Quoting darthbarracuda
Quoting StreetlightX
I think Coleman Hughes usually makes quite good remarks and isn't the Prager U type staunch conservative with a conservative agenda. But of course this is the typical response at the present: "Ah! You referred to those people, Eff you! I'll ignore you." Are the stats false? I don't think they are.
Quoting Benkei
Yes.
But then again there is disproportionately more crime done by African Americans than by whites. Of course in a similar way we could argue that in any country (yours or mine) it's the poor that are disproportionately the "customers" of the police as seldom is it the rich people mugging people or stealing things.
Full disclosure, I'm not an expert. So why not let someone who knows a lot more about these issues than I do make the point better than I ever could? The videos I linked were quite clear, in my opinion. But fair enough, since you seem genuine I'll make an effort.
Quoting Benkei
This is what the data shows.
Quoting Benkei
Likely, there are many underlying causes and I don't pretend to know the exact cause.
The higher crime rates are almost certainly linked to the higher poverty/lower income rates among African-Americans.
The question then becomes, where does the income disparity come from?
According to Thomas Sowell, a lot of this can be attributed to failed government policy. Programs like the welfare state and affirmative action did more to hurt the communities they were intended to support. Unintended effects were, for example, the subsidizing of poor life choices. African-American communities were hit especially hard by these government failures.
Furthermore, he questions the link between systemic racism and the current situation by pointing out that in the past, when systemic racism was real, overt and widespread, African-American families were doing better in many ways than they do now. (marriage/divorce rates, unemployment, illegitimacy rates, etc., mostly indicators of stable family life).
Let's assume this is all true. This is different from systemic racism because...? Or do you agree there's systemic racism but think people are not clear on the causes yet?
And they are disproportionally poor because...?
Because it has nothing to do with beliefs of racial superiority or inferiority. They're circumstances that came about, some explainable through history, some explainable by well intentioned but faulty policy, some explainable through human nature, others explainable by randomness. I don't believe any of these things were meant to purposely hurt African-American communities (but if you suspect as much, I suggest turning your suspicions towards the Democratic Party).
You know the various reasons, starting from slavery and the people that call even their own poor "trash".
Yet it's a complex issue and not to be dealt with a religious lithurgy.
Quoting Benkei
Part of Sowell's criticism on failed programs are quite similar how in general welfare programs don't eradicate povetry.
Quote (7:15-8:02):
"I have said in effect that white men must give up what is in effect a crutch. So must I. This is entirely true. There is something very safe about being a Negro, in a way, because you can blame anything that happens to you on it. And this is the worst thing about being a Negro - quite apart now from New Orleans, race riots, lynching, etc. etc. The worst thing about it is at one point, somewhere in yourself, you need to realize that, "Alright, you are a Negro and this is all true - but before that you are a Man, and your life is in your hands." You are responsible for what happens to you. You cannot blame anybody for it. There is no point. There is no one to blame."
A man ahead of his time, though sometimes overly verbose and preachy. From the way he speaks I sometimes inferred that he found it inconceivable for a Caucasian to not be racist. Regrettable, but perhaps a sign of the times.
Without actively undoing past injustices the new rules of today perpetuate the historic injustices and thereby the new rules while they apply to us equally disproportionally affect you negatively while benefitting me positively because they don't force me to pay reparations.
So even if police brutality statistics can be squarely traced back to the socio-economic circumstances of black people and higher crime rates today then they are there because the system did not and never did anything to make black people equal. That's, in my view, still a form of systemic racism as I consider any social organisation that disregards how we got here as not taking into account history and such things as inheritance inequality. In other words, it's not enough for a system not be racist, you need to be actively anti-racist. This is why I have likened systemic racism as an emergent property before in this and the other thread.
Or put differently, even if the social rules were a perfect model of fairness, if you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.
Not to mention, the US government has already tried this through various programs and they have all had adverse effects, mostly benefiting those who didn't really need it and destroying the chances of those that did.
I suppose you're trying to be funny, but if Froot Loop=homosexual where you come from, it's the first I've heard of it.
OK, but we cannot change what has happened so I guess what we do now still is the most important. Yet this begs the question: just what you mean by being actively anti-racist?
I always find this a rather amusing viewpoint. Nobody partook in a crime either except for the criminal and his victim, yet we go out of our way to pay for police, find the culprit, give recourse for the victim via courts and build prisons. Nobody partook in causing orphans except for bad luck or bad parents but we pay for orphanages. We don't owe victims or orphans anything. But we do it anyways because as a society we chose to correct injustices. It's called taking responsibility and it requires some empathy.
Quoting Tzeentch
:brow: Watch it.
Quoting Tzeentch
Previous bad policy is no excuse to not pass good policy now. Totally irrelevant.
As a white man? I'd say it's using our white privilege to forward the agenda of oppressed people mostly by ensuring they are heard.
Just watch how most of this stuff normally plays out. Black people complain about a certain issue affecting their communities. Nobody listens or cares for years. Random white person (usually in the media) picks up on it and uses their reach to put the subject on the agenda. White person is celebrated for his stand against injustice. Black people are still not heard.
In HR management there's a very clear distinction between diversity and inclusivity. The US (and the Netherlands) are diverse countries with a lot of different minorities but most minorities aren't heard because their voices are not included in the narrative playing out in the media. This is reflected in our government, civil servants and business leadership as well: you need to be white, male, straight, religious (secular in NL), married, from an upper middle class family or better and have a university degree and then you'll be considered for the higher position. These people don't know what it's like to be discriminated against for being black, female or LGBQT, poor, (a)religious or uneducated. And that's why most of the problems affecting those people aren't solved.
Even worse is that a lot of these men think "they know what's going on on the ground".
Being black? They should. I'd be hard pressed to run into someone who doesn't know about slavery.
Female? Depends I guess. Personally I'd always hire female when it comes to customer service or frontend jobs. The data is there. Besides, most actual cases of qualified female applicants being denied a position are due to pettiness.
LGBTQ is complicated. What you do in the bedroom is nobody's business. Sexual conversation and displays of affection are generally disallowed in the workplace. Homosexuality is an orientation. At no point does it need to be known at work. Mannerism is mannerism and dressing like a clown or otherwise absurdly is a preference and choice independent to that. You cannot just "be unprofessional" or unqualified and get ahead over someone who is solely due to who you want to.. get down with. Something an employer does not ask and should never know. A straight man doesn't just blurt out "I have sex with women" at his job in front of his co workers for no reason. It's inappropriate.
I've yet to see a job that demands bank records. Naturally if you dress poorly you might not get a job someone better dressed does.
Religion is the same. Employers don't ask and religion is generally not part of a diverse workplace.
Uneducated... kind of goes without saying. Hey I mean if there's two doctors one who went to medical school for several years and one who read a few books and had a few successes, I'd take the first guy thank you.
You cannot compare racial discrimination with not hiring someone who's broke or unqualified. Really not hard to see why that's kinda harmful.
How many rich, white men have had to worry about being grabbed in the ass in the first place at work? And then had to agonize about whether to lodge a complaint with HR and how that will affect the rest of their career?
How many rich, straight men have had to worry about whether they can talk about their dat from last night at the coffee corner? How many gay men have to worry about not mentioning that date was another guy for fear of being judged, shunned by colleagues or passed over for promotion?
How many transsexuals do you know in leadership positions?
How many US presidents have there been that were not openly religious? How often do politicians invoke God in the US? In the Netherlands this is reversed. We do not want openly religious political leaders. So even if we know they are religious, we do not accept them to be openly religious.
How many rich, white men know what problems you encounter when you can't read? Or have problems with simple arythmetic.
These are the same clueless white men that decide on policies and priorities.
Dealing with crime benefits the whole of society, and crime takes place, for the most part, in the present.
Making Americans pay reparations for slavery would be no different from forcing someone's grandson to pay compensation for a crime their grandfather committed. Unthinkable! And sadly, indicative of the totalitarian mindset that plagues much of the left nowadays.
Quoting Benkei
As irrelevant as learning from past mistakes, no doubt.
Yawn. That's almost an argument. First you cherrypick. How does helping orphans benefit society as a whole? Second, since when does alleviating poverty not help society as a whole? Third, since when is that a criterium to begin with? Roads only benefits people who drive cars. Courts only benefit crooks, lawyers and victims. Healthcare only benefits the sick. Etc.
In other words "what benefits society" is a totally arbitrary measure you pulled out of your ass to avoid actually having to think about how to solve systemic racism.
And then to top it off we get the "totalitarianism" faux shock cum straw man. Jesus.
Every child can become an orphan.
Quoting Benkei
Reparations do not alleviate poverty, because it does nothing to address the root causes of poverty.
Quoting Benkei
It's a criterium for anyone who seeks to justify why states are allowed to force people to part with their money in the first place.
Quoting Benkei
The vast, vast majority of people will drive a car in some point in their life, and good infrastructure is an important factor in economic prosperity. For example, roads also make sure your grocery store can be stocked with food every day.
Quoting Benkei
I don't think I need to explain the benefit to a society for having a working justice system. Besides, everyone can become a crook or a victim, so again there is no exclusion.
Quoting Benkei
Same thing. There is no exclusion here.
Quoting Benkei
As you know, I don't believe the existence of systemic racism follows from whatever data has been presented.
Now we are talking about reparations which you brought up. I'll gladly talk about why I believe it is a terrible idea.
Quoting Benkei
Your mindset is totalitarian, even if you don't realize it. Being in favor of forcing people to pay for a crime they didn't commit, because of some misplaced sense of justice. You believe justice for some is more important than justice for others. You discriminate, based on personal preference, and think it would be good government policy.
So? What's the return for society to help orphans? By your own criteria that it "must benefit society" we shouldn't be helping them.
And I'll remind you: every child could be black.
Quoting Tzeentch
I never argued for reparations. In the example between you and I, where I took everyhing yesterday and today "we're all equal" I argued that the fact that no reparations would be paid meant it perpetuates injustice since the damage you suffered is not undone. The benefit I hold is not rightly mine as a result. Now, if you look at that from an intergenerational point of view and when you understand inheritance inequality, then the injustices from 400 years ago continue to exist in light of the fact that minorities are disproportionally poor to this day.
Quoting Tzeentch
Uhuh... so it's fine as long as a majority wants something? And there's plenty of people who want less roads or different roads or at least NIMBY. It's mostly people who pay for it but companies that benefit from infrastructure. Also, you can have a working road system by only having users pay for it by using toll roads as it used to be done. So really, for the "benefit of society" is, as I said before, arbitrary.
Quoting Tzeentch
You could have a user-pay system for court systems as well. Except the poor wouldn't be able to afford it. But hey, fuck them right? Because alleviating poverty doesn't work any ways and in any case it infringes on my individual property rights.
There's a very good reason why court systems are open to all and it's not "for the benefit of society" unless of course this isn't a purely economic calculus but includes that it's to the benefit of society to have a just society. Except, when I argue for a just society to rectify past injustices that to this day affect people living now, causing them not to have the same opportunities than those people whose grandparents actually benefitted from the past injustices then I must conclude that "justice" isn't part of your calculations.
But we can go on. Food-stamps, only benefit the poor. Welfare, only benefits the unemployed. Pensions, only benefits people who get old enough. Education, only benefits people that have the capacity to study. Etc. Etc. Yet, all of these things are implemented due to a sense of social justice, which differ according to culture and history throughout the world.
Quoting Tzeentch
You already agreed that blacks are disproportionally poor, incarcerated and killed in the US. You're not clear on what caused or causes that. That's not an argument against the existence of systemic racism.
I didn't bring it up. You raised that straw man all by yourself.
Quoting Tzeentch
I haven't even mentioned specific policies yet so this is just you making stuff up. I'm in favour of social justice and believe pursuing social justice is more important than money.
Let's try again.
In the past white people took everything from slaves. These slaves were predominantly black. For 250 years everything was taken from them. For 250 years, white Americans benefitted from their labour. Then in 1865 it was abolished.
Let's start from there, aside from the wealth amassed for 250 years and passed on within then white communities through economic activity (distribution) and inheritance, they also received 300 USD per slave (on average) that's about 8,000 USD now (which in itself is an interesting redistribution of wealth from non-slave owners to wealthy slave owners). Slaves didn't receive anything.
I consider that an injustice do you? Black slaves suffered where white people benefitted, or not?
For 250 years slaves could not accumulate weath and distribute it among their communities or inherit from each other. This had a huge influence on the socio-economic development of slaves directly caused by the teribble racism from which white communities benefitted.
I consider that an injustice do you? Black slaves suffered where white people benefitted, or not?
Let's ignore everything that has happened since 1865 for a moment and to what extent continued racism held former slaves back.
That 300 USD in 1865, if they put that in a bank account, would be worth 2,509,156 USD today (at a compound interest of about 6% annually). An unjust benefit. There were almost 4 million slaves in 1860. Just based on the remuneration you're talking about 10 trillion USD today.
At least 2 million slaves went before that in the 250 year period but with much larger periods for compounding, you can imagine we're talking about at least a 20 trillion USD benefit today. Certainly some of that has trickled into black communities through economic activity since the end of segregation but before that, minimally so.
Former slaves meanwhile put all their savings in a bank account as well, that accrued to 0 USD today. But totally fair right because we're all under the same rules.
Dince 1865, former slaves only had labour to put in to create wealth and allow that to accumulate between generations. There have only been 5 generations since 1865 (30 years per generation). There's no way that it was possible for black people just using labour to generate 20 trillion USD of wealth today.
And this is reflected in the wealth gap between blacks and whites. White people hold about 10 times as much wealth as black people today.
My point is that nearly nothing has been done to remedy the injustices of the past, that this has disproportionally benefitted white people and disadvantaged black people and that this felt today. Indeed white people cannot claim a moral right to those benefits as the acquisition of that wealth was originally unjust. Yes, white people today cannot be blamed for the sins of their grandparents, but the converse that they therefore deserve what they have does not follow. Black people can largely not be blamed for their own socio-economic situation and they sure as hell don't deserve it. Given these two moral assessments, doing nothing perpetuates injustice.
And this is just the economics of the story. There was the rape, the beatings, the killings, the lynchings, the prohibition to learn to read or write, etc. And all the outright racism that happened well into the 60s in the US.
Following this same line of thinking, we should be holding the descendants of illegal immigrants responsible for the illegal actions of their ancestors coming into a country and taking jobs away from blacks, and the mostly left-wing policies that allow that to happen.
The left-wing solution for racism is to be racist to some other race.
The whole "they took our jobs" skit is economically unsound. In my example, did I get a head start or do you think there's a level playing field?
The rest of your post is just a straw man. I haven't spoken about a solution yet. I have spoken about historic injustices and how they have been perpetuated instead of resolved and I've talked about society taking responsibility not holding white people responsible.
No. Because these “residual effects” are embedded in different facets of society such as racism in healthcare, economics, policing etc.
Quoting DingoJones
No it does not. If I’m identifying a problem how am I altering the response? For example if I see racial bias in healthcare and I identify the physician response time as well as admissions rate/discharge between black patients and white patients and I notice a discrepancy in healthcare practice which favors more white patients it is indeed something that should be address.
Quoting DingoJones
This is simply ridiculous. If racism didn’t matter the civil rights movement wouldn’t exist. If racism didn’t matter we wouldn’t have done away with Jim Crow. If racism didn’t matter, at-will employers wouldn’t fire employees for making racist comments on social media. Racism and the discussion of it matters because it still affects many minorities and there still exist a stigma attached to many minority communities.
Also addressing the “everyone is racist” trope is a typical response to those who are not empathetic to the plight of minority communities who are dealing with racism. However, it is also the same talking point many of those of the deniers of “whites privilege” use to deflect from real social issues many minorities create.
Quoting DingoJones
No, everyone doesn’t get it. But I’m sure indirectly you’re saying in effect everyone perhaps white who thinks like you get it. Not to presume YOUR ethnicity per se but again, this is a typical talking point.
Healthcare, law enforcement policies (e.g Stop-and-Frisk) the education system, justice system.
None of those policies explicitly discriminate between races (as far as I’m aware). As such, any racism that results is the effort of individual racists, not any inherent racism in the system itself. I just can’t see any way around this.
Lee Atwater
You're wilfully ignorant.
Of course you aren’t aware such is the life of the privileged and the ignorant. Normally I’d post articles and studies but considering I’ve heard that type of rhetoric before, and have wasted my time, I am not going to start again
Do you believe the same as Lee Atwater?
The people you support know systemic racism exists and weaponise it to appeal to American racists. The denial you have of it? Their propaganda and euphemisms working exactly as intended.
If you want to afford me privilege because of my skin color be my guest. But I reject it.
I have never supported Lee Atwater. But do you agree with his theory?
:roll:
I don’t get the connection you’re trying to make here.
You understood it enough to try and reframe the discussion away from it.
You used an overused quote from god-knows-when to imply I am appealing to, or are appealed by, American racists. I still cannot see the connection between what I was talking about and what Lee Atwater was talking about, however.
No. Not affording anything except that the rhetoric that you espoused and your self admission of unawareness is apparent that your privilege, which is such that you do not experience that I, and other 45 million (plus or minus) blacks experience and have experienced are unaware or try not to be aware or reject the notion that such exists.
I don’t deny that racism exists. My unawareness was in regards to the existence of explicitly racial policies in America, which may exist beyond what I know. I know of one explicitly racial policy here in the government of Canada, which gives preference to “visible minorities” in hiring practices.
Quoting NOS4A2
They don't need to...
Such policies are sold as race neutral, they are not. That a politician can pull an economic policy lever to effect blacks disproportionately, knowingly, without selling it in terms of race completely undermines your position. The politically empowered right know this, but they know their liberal supporters can't stomach outright racism, so it gets cloaked, and they bet on their liberal supporters getting duped and avoiding cognitive dissonance.
Why do you find this so hard?
Quoting Anaxagoras
The word “racism” is not necessary in your statement. At best you could say the residual effects of racism. There isnt That much that you are attributing to racism that couldnt also be attributed to socio-economics.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Well if the problem is a racist system the response is going to be much different, its going to justify social control. So mis-labelling the problem as systemic racism will result in unjustified social control.
Its not that identifying the problem is bad, its identifying the problem incorrectly. Thats what I think is happening with “systemic racism”. Its similar to when people say things like:
1 Nazi’s are bad
2 its ok to punch nazi’s
3 everyone that disagrees with my systemic racism narrative is a nazi
4 i should punch people who disagree with my narrative.
Its a word game, a tactic, to exercise social control. The Black Lives Matter founders freely admit and our proud to say that they are “trained Marxists”. If that doesnt cause you to take another look at the narrative being pushed then im not sure what to say to you.
As far as talking points, I understand that there are people who push a “right wing” counter-narrative that involves some of the things I am mentioning and I call that the same sort of game, and damn them for making normal words trigger words so its difficult (sometimes impossible) to have an actual discussion.
“White privilege” is a bullshit term too, and part of the same tactical playbook. Same with the way “racism” is now defined as “prejudice plus power”, a bullshit definition so people can be openly racist and not have to worry about being called a racist. It utterly fails under scrutiny. Its all part of this ideology being peddled in academia thats churning out useful idiots to join the sjw army.
Quoting Anaxagoras
I agree, your strawman is ridiculous. I said “race”, not racism.
It matters if someone is racist, of course. Race itself isnt a big issue for anyone other than racists and people who think everyone is a racist. Two minority groups, with the majority of people realising its not really that important what someones race is. Ill admit the latter is catching on thiugh, many have bought the narratives of systemic racism, unconscious racism , identity politics etc etc.
Quoting Anaxagoras
Ya I understand. I hear similar things that have been picked up and repeated as talking points, its what makes these discussions difficult to have. Anything anyone says can be weaponised by either side and then when anyone else touches the data or words or points then they get immediately grouped in with whichever side has co-opted the data, word or point.
Id like to note however that even though you attempt to avoid “racism” by not presuming my ethnicity, you still are making a judgement about people based on the colour of their skin, their white skin. Im not a white person, but that shouldnt make a difference. White skin shouldnt disqualify someones opinion any more than dark skin does.
All the sensible police/legislative reforms don't explicitly mention race either, but they will help to address the problem... Same thing.
Show me an explicitly racist policy. If they aren’t explicitly racist, or they are not exclusive to this or that race, but are to be applied evenly to each and every individual, they are not racist, They are race neutral. If someone puts their finger on the scale of justices and they are applied for or against someone because of their race, that is the result of individual racists, not the law. Does this not compute to you?
I'm done now. Your constant reframing attempts are, as ever, frustrating.
You tried to connect me to Lee Atwater.
What kind of fuckstickery is this shit? You think policies need to declare themselves to be racist in order to be racist? Fuck off. You're not this stupid, from which one can only conclude that you're being deliberately obtuse.
No, that’s not what I think. I think policies have to be explicitly racist in order for it to be racist, for instance Black Codes, Nuremberg laws or Apartheid.
Let's say we started banning Trump supporters with over 3.4k posts who believed that racism is propagated mostly through people categorising others into racial categories...
No, Nos, it's not directed at you. It would be a principle thing.
That’s right.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 makes it illegal to discriminate on the basis of national origin. This law applies to employers with 15 or more employees. It forbids discrimination based upon an individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics (common to a specific group) or accent.
What was the point of that act in your opinion?
To forbid discrimination on the basis of national origin.
Sounds to be more about ethnicity than race.
That’s the sort of discrimination I’m talking about and looking for. For example, this policy is racist:
“ No negro who is not in the military service shall be allowed to carry fire-arms, or any kind of weapons, within the parish, without the special written permission of his employers, approved and indorsed by the nearest and most convenient chief of patrol.”
This is an explicitly racist policy. So maybe you can help me out here: if the “system” is absent such policies, how is it racist?
It doesn't even refer to you. How can it target you?
I don’t see who else it could refer to.
If there was another person who fit the criteria who wasn't you, would it cease to be made to target you?
It would still target me and people like me, sure.
I’d love to hear your argument.
Okay. Now let's say that it's anyone with approximately 3.4k posts who fit the criteria. Still targets you? Still a Nos4a2-ist policy? Even though it's weakened to effect other people incidentally?
*sigh*
Quoting NOS4A2
Is it racist to discriminate against ethnic groups?
It certainly discriminates against a certain group of people while excluding others.
Given the conflation of race and ethnicity I would have to say it is. Whether technically it is or not I am not too sure.
So even though it doesn't target you by name, it's made explicitly to target you, and then some other people incidentally get effected by it. It is a Nos4a2-ist policy.
Structurally, that's exactly what the Atwater quote describes. Read it again:
Your intuitions are that "Let's ban all Trump supporters with approximately 3.4k posts who believe racism is predominantly propagated by putting people into race boxes who have approximately" explicitly targets you. And is Nos4a2-ist.
But your intuitions for "Let's enact policy that almost exclusively disadvantages blacks" are that it's not racist. Because it's not articulated in those terms.
You are not consistent.
Would you say forbiding discrimination based upon an individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, is a good way to prevent racism in a non-technical’ sense?
It explicitly targets “Trump supporters with approximately 3.4k posts who believe racism is predominantly propagated by putting people into race boxes”, to be sure, and given that I am the only one here who fits that description, it’s clear that it targets me.
I have no intuitions for “let’s enact policy that almost exclusively disadvantage blacks” because I have seen no such policies. If there are such extant policies I’m welcome to hear them. In fact I’ve been asking for them.
I think it helps, at least when it comes to employment. Can it prevent racist thinking and beliefs? Probably not.
Is discrimination based on individual's birthplace, ancestry, culture, linguistic characteristics, explicitly racist (non-technical sense)?
Here's a banal and insidious variation on racial profiling. Predictive policing.
If it was written into a law, and explicitly discriminates on these grounds, I would say it is.
If there is some part of the algorithm or data in that system that suggests police target certain racial groups, I would have to agree with you. But I cannot see those in the article. Is there something in that system that suggests certain racial groups should be policed heavier than others?
If you're going to trust me on it since I've studied it: yes.
Police go to areas with high crime.
Racial profiling makes them "criminal test" people in the street more often if they're black.
Those show up in the database.
Model sees confirmed crime cases in those areas.
Police effort is reallocated to those areas.
Repeat.
Areas with high crime are nonwhite demographically to begin with. It's a positive feedback loop that reallocates police effort (edit: which in this case is also sampling effort, only sampled stuff will show in the database remember) more and more into nonwhite communities.
I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Does the system record and profile on the basis of race, and not some other factor?
It's mostly other factors. But the sampling effort is race split. So the system is discriminatory.
If I understand you correctly it records and discriminates on the basis of race. If so then yes it is racist. I would even argue that the act of considering the races of those involved as some mitigating factor, especially if it is built into the algorithm, can only breed more racism.
It would be doing much the same thing if it didn't record the ethnicity of the people "it" samples. It has a tendency to concentrate policing effort based on race regardless of whether it records ethnicity data. So long as the people "tested" for criminality are black or poor or from neighbourhood X, it allocates police effort more to black neighbourhoods (like or near X) over time. The algorithm "figures out" black=criminal from what it's fed and how it tells police to feed it.
And if it wasn't written into law, and business did it on their own discretion...?
The point is that that civil rights law (mentioned) was necessary to prevent implicit forms of racism such as discrimination of culture, language, country of orgin etc..
That's the crucial thing though, a supposedly race indifferent algorithm does pick up on real correlations (poverty + nonwhite proportion in neighbourhood + crime rate). Those correlations it picks up are manifestations of systemic racism.
You find the same thing when you try making hiring work through a machine learning algorithm for assessing applicant competence, it picks up on systemic effects in the training data and enforces them through its predictions; the algorithm ends up a racist misogynist.
Ok. I can respect that. There is information that I can provide that can give you a glimpse that such exist. We can start with Stop-and-Frisk which the Supreme Court ruled as unconstitutional.
How so? Help me understand. If by social control are you referring to changing the social paradigm? I mean we can say the civil rights movement was a form of social control.
Quoting DingoJones
Still not following this....
If I see Stop-and-Frisk that targets specifically people of color and if such policies only produce 2-3% of actual criminal activity and or produce illegal weapons, drugs, etc then there is a constitutional problem. Let me share a video with you to help you understand:
Quoting DingoJones
Evidence? Please provide an objective source! Considering the platform of BLM is quite progressive and multiethnic I find it being Marxist quite difficult to believe and incompatible.
Quoting DingoJones
Of course to an ignorant white person ignorant of history
Quoting DingoJones
Now you’re sounding ridiculous. Definitions change. There is clear historical evidence that racism especially racism propagated by white supremacy is more than simply a disdain for one’s phenotype. It was systemic we can Er per reconstruction era as well as Jim Crow.
Quoting DingoJones
Ok. I’m quite familiar with people who are of color that promote white supremacist rhetoric and although I am not identifying you as one, you’re talking points are dangerously close to the rhetoric they espouse.
I find this characterisation offensive. Thats not what Im doing. Good day sir.
I call it how I see it.
“Systemic racism doesn’t exist” it’s a bullshit term
“Whites privilege doesn’t exist”
If all you can provide are anecdotal claims with substantive evidence to show why it’s bullshit then of course conversation is over. I mean you proclaimed that the women who confounded BLM are Marxist. BLM is incompatible with Marxism so I know what you said was bullshit and more than likely got that info from a far right website or some far right talking point
Whether I got something wrong or there is a discussion to be had is irrelevant. I have no interest in working around your entrenched prejudices, you can characterise me however you like but I dont need to waste my time engaging you.
Now to quote the great Gene Wilder:
“I SAID GOOD DAY!”
https://youtu.be/HgEUbSzOTZ8
And then ask yourself why you were so sure what I was saying was bullshit. Recognise how closed off you’ve become to anything that doesnt fit your comfy narrative. I didnt repeat right wing or white supremest talking points, I got that right from the BLM co-founder.
Now ask yourself about the other things I said, and instead of operating under the presumption im some sort of uncle tom race traitor or a white supremest based on words that trigger you try operating under the presumption that i might (might...thats a low bar) be saying something true or worth hearing.
If a white supremest says the sky is blue, and I say the sky is blue does that mean Im repeating white supremest talking points?
Its not ok to group someone in with evil people just because they say something youre not comfortable hearing, and thats what I found offensive. Your narrow perspective and limited understanding of the race issue has caused you to act like an asshole. A decent person would be apologetic.
If it’s not so much the skin colors of those involved, but the prevalence of criminality in certain neighborhoods, then it would appear that the results are a consequence of the criminality and not the skin-colors of the individuals involved. This isn’t to say that racist police wouldn’t misinterpret and abuse the data for racist reasons, of course.
I’m not sure how those “correlations” are manifestations of systemic racism. Poverty and crime have myriad causes, none of which is limited to this or that race.
No one can deny that there is racism and discrimination in hiring practices, but such discrimination is forbidden by law and has been for quite some time, and there are legal, systemic and institutional means with which to find justice—systemic anti-racism.
Nope. I remain unconvinced.
When was the last year that you would agree that systemic racism existed in the US?
I don’t agree with the premise of “systemic racism” as it has been provided here. I once thought it was the same as institutional racism: the US was certainly institutionally racist for most of its history, with laws explicitly discriminating for and against races. But absent those laws and institutions it becomes difficult to indict the system for racism. It’s actually a testament to the system that we’ve come so far.
Would you be able to give a brief explanation of the last time period where you would agree that police in many areas across the US treated the races differently? Surely you at least acknowledge that this was a problem in the past yes?
Because it was because you did not substantiate anything to support your opinion.
Quoting DingoJones
I'm definitely not closed off. Apparently you don't know me that well. If I believe in something I do not simply subscribe to the herd mentality. I actually research any particular movement, religion, political organization etc so with respect to BLM, I'm quite aware of their goals.
Quoting DingoJones
Sure you did because these are talking points that are typically used by white supremacists and right wing talking heads for example, according to the Los Angeles Times:
"Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (who did not lose his lazy certainty) spent the weekend attacking the Black Lives Matter movement as “racist.” He wants people to focus on the fact that most black murder victims die at the hands of other blacks."
Source:https://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed/la-oe-goldberg-dallas-conservative-black-lives-matter-20160711-snap-story.html
I highlight the above as a common talking point conservatives use to deflect from the problem concerning police brutality which has an intersectional effect on race. Or the typical talking point of someone who proclaims that "white privilege" doesn't exist because "they grew up poor." Reflecting this, as one article has put it:
"American culture conditions white folk to not fully grasp how society privileges them. They are surrounded by the pieces of the puzzle. But they have been miseducated on how to complete the image that portrays their racial group in an unflattering light."
Source:https://theundefeated.com/features/why-do-so-many-white-people-deny-the-existence-of-white-privilege/
As stated previously, all are common talking points that reflects the disingenuous, ignorant as well as right leaning ideology of confronting the problem of race, white privilege, and systemic racism. As David R. Williams professor of African-American studies put it:
“When you lack empathy for a population, you don’t feel their suffering, and you do not support policies to … address the challenges the population faces.”
In this he cites, which I wholeheartedly agree, that many Americans "underestimate racial inequities, and some among those who are aware of inequality blame minorities themselves. Citing national data from 2015, he said that 50 percent of white Americans believe that discrimination is as bad against whites as it is against people of color. In addition, while a majority of Americans seem to understand that hard work does not guarantee success, a full 50 percent of whites believe that people of color would be more successful “if they only tried harder.”
Source:https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2020/06/facing-the-denial-of-american-racism/
The latter, another common talking point which many whites in the conservative right tend to parrot a lot in racial discussions.
Quoting DingoJones
I need you to cite a source not "I got that from the BLM founder" however, I found what you claimed according to the New York Post:
"Black Lives Matter co-founder Patrisse Cullors said in a newly surfaced video from 2015 that she and her fellow organizers are “trained Marxists” – making clear their movement’s ideological foundation, according to a report."
Source:https://nypost.com/2020/06/25/blm-co-founder-describes-herself-as-trained-marxist/
However, according to the post, she also expresses appreciation for the work of the US Communist Party, Black Panther Party, the American Indian Movement, Young Lords, Brown Berets, and the great revolutionary rainbow experiments of the 1970's. But I'm not sure how the co-founders belief waters down the efforts of Black Lives Matter movement. I believe clearly she was describing not only her political ideology but her ability of being trained in grassroots organization.
Quoting DingoJones
If you say so.
Quoting DingoJones
Well, if a white supremacist says "All blacks have low IQ" and you follow through with some sort of research to validate that claim then pretty much you're attempting to validate a white supremacist talking point. Or, if a white supremacist says "Stop-And-Frisk is justified because blacks have an affinity for criminal behavior" then you follow through with crime statistics of criminal activity in urban communities, you are by virtue of that action trying to justify a white supremacist talking point. That is not me saying you're racist but you are dangerously close to being labeled one if you try and justify white supremacist beliefs.
Quoting DingoJones
I don't know you which is why I stopped short of proclaiming the racist label. I politely remind you that I'm quite familiar with common opinions in regards to the current subject matter. In many discussions especially among those who have racist beliefs they say something similar. Now, if you do truly believe the way you do it would be best to substantiate future claims with some sort of source. But if all we are doing is just using anecdotes then it boils down to opinion however those opinions could be internal biases.
I'm all up for agree to disagree discussions, but for far too long I've been in debates with many people who hold internal biases against blacks and other communities of color. I've also been in discussion with people of color most recently an Indian from India who tried to justify racism against blacks because as I've mentioned before, they like to use crime statistics as if we naturally have an affinity for criminal activity all-the-while ignoring the colorism and caste system that is oppressive in his own community. Again, this goes all the way back to people using common racist talking points to justify their opinion.
Lastly, I apologize if I've offended you. You must forgive me that I tend to get on defense mode when discussing this subject matter. I've become used to having to defend my position as a black man because since the age of 13 (I'm 38 now) I've had to encounter online racism. I've encounter online racism and anti-black rhetoric than I have encountered intellectual/philosophical discussions which is quite sad.
My apologies for this long post for the sake of preventing misunderstanding I hope you read it all.
I linked a video of her saying it.
Quoting Anaxagoras
I did read it all. I appreciate that the subject comes with a lot of trigger words and weaponised language but alot of what you clarified wasnt addressing points I actually made. Because of the format (text) communication is difficult on this subject (Or any really) so its usually better to operate under a principal of charity.
Obviously we disagree fundamentally and despite your protests I still think you are closed off to anything that contradicts your comfy narrative. You’ve been trained to see racism where there is none, though I understand you can just as easily say the same to me. (In reverse).
Ok....
I would not be able to because I don’t know the answer to that question.
Let's start with an easy example. After WWII, black soldiers were systematically denied education & housing benefits, even tho the law itself was ostensibly neutral. The ability to purchase a house and/or get a college degree gave white soldiers significant financial & social advantages that they passed onto their children.
Most people would consider this to be an example of systemic racism. Do you agree or disagree?
Here is one of numerous articles you can find with a quick web search: https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits
1940s, 1950s, 1960s, 1970s, 1980s, 1990s, 2000s? You have no idea when police brutality against black-skinned Americans was last an unquestionable reality?
I would consider that systemic or institutional racism, yes.
Yes, I do not know the answer to that question. Care to fill me in?
I'm not exactly sure how you've spent so much time arguing in this thread and others without being able to answer that question. It never stopped is the answer.
1950s and 1960s shouldn't need much explanation, the black civil rights movement is in full effect.
https://www.history.com/topics/black-history/civil-rights-movement#section_1
Now, my understanding about systemic racism and law enforcement from the 1980s on has to be understood through the lens of the "tough on crime" mantra and the war on drugs that we see being pushed by Nixon, Reagan, Bush senior and Clinton.
The situation is that the black civil rights movement has won, the language of the law no longer discriminates against skin colour. It is no longer politically tenable for a candidate to talk about instituting explicitly racist policies. However, if there's a need for a civil rights movement in 1959-1968, do you think 1980s US is racism free?
Anecdotally, there has never been a time period in the US since then where there hasn't been a substantial backlash against police brutality against black Americans. Cities across America have a rich history of protests against this, it is verging on conspiracy theory to argue that all of these experiences don't add up to a larger picture.
There are many high profile cases surrounding law and race and the reason that they blow up is because there's a great deal of frustration surrounding this topic that is felt around the country. When you consider that only some decades prior you have the black civil rights movement, fighting against literal segregation, it becomes even more implausible that there wouldn't be issues between law enforcement and black Americans.
Statistics show that the war on crime has taken prison populations from around 200k in 1970 to 2.3 million now. It's important to understand exactly how the process around getting a conviction works. Firstly, let's deal with the idea of the "fair trial", cases generally don't go to trial.
https://tinyurl.com/ycmwzas6
That is important to remember when hearing about the statistics of the results of the war on drugs. Which is that there is extreme racial disproportionately in incarceration rates with black Americans constituting over 35% of the prison population while only being 12% of the population. There's a supposedly a 1/3 chance for a black male to have served time in prison but 1/5 have already served time. That's happening without trials for the most part.
When you get out of prison, you are something like a second class citizen. Not only did you lose years of your life but it's going to be harder to get residency, a job, social benefits, you may not be able to vote and so on.
Police brutality is a phenomenon that goes beyond racism but the US approach to crime exacerbates the issue. Again, I don't want to give narratives, anyone can give narratives but the war on drugs and petty crime ends up manifesting as a war on poverty. From the way police treat you that leads to the arrest and the way the state attorneys treat you in what kind of deal they offer or whether they are willing to drop charges or you can afford to go to trial or not.
That's just dealing with the statistics where we got to that stage, if 1/5 black males have been to prison, then how many black males are having unfavourable experiences with police? What is the impact on the affected communities?
When you combine the prevailing attitudes in the states with the statistics and the history, it paints the picture of systemic racism.
Now as for whether you can argue that this is just a huge mistake and that the US government never intended to treat the races differently, it is pretty much ridiculous perspective. Honestly, the results speak for themselves but there's a lot of evidence to support the racist undertones of the war on drugs and its origins. The way that the various drug epidemics were handled i.e compare oxycontin with heroin or cocaine vs crack demonstrate inconsistencies. When you look at the statistics, it paints a picture as well.
On top of that, you have infamous admissions those involved in campaigns for Nixon and Reagan being explicit in the intentions but there is some controversy surrounding that. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Ehrlichman and I forget the name of the other guy but you can do your own research into this.
I think that one can reasonably prove that the US government has purposefully constructed the relevant laws in ways that they knew would disproportionately affect the races. You need to look at how the US governments handle politics, the major goal is getting the party re-elected and everything done takes this into account. The policies appeal to the racial undertones that have been present in the US and still are. Nonetheless, the result can't be argued to be racially neutral.
There's a lot of room for interpretation here but there's a level of inexcusable simplicity in thinking that because the government doesn't use language that targets race, they can't be racist. That laws that don't mention race can't be part of systemic racism. I encourage you to further your education on this vast topic, if you're going to be as involved as you have been in this discussion.
I appreciate the effort but I fear it was a waste. The nonsensical aspect of your interpretation of the statistics, in my opinion, is that these disparities are necessarily the result of racism and no other factor. Yes, the disparities can be frightening, but you nor anyone else have proven that racism compels and influences police brutality, or any other disparity. Your picture of systemic racism is missing the racism.
If you think one can reasonably prove that the US government has purposefully constructed the relevant laws in ways that they knew would disproportionately affect the races, then why don’t you do that? “The results speak for themselves” isn’t a good enough answer.
Certainly many laws and policies have been a failure—war on poverty, welfare, war on drugs—and if one wants to continue to view the world through the lense of race, some races are more affected than others. But to assume some concerted and pervasive racist motive in both the creation and application of these laws is a step too far, and worse, it leaves other potential factors (fatherless homes, education, criminality, culture, media) out of the equation.
See, I would actually agree that that interpretation is nonsensical and the reason I can do that is because I didn't say "the disparities are necessarily the result of racism and no other factor". What's nonsensical is your response. The statistics are just one part of the picture. They just validate the sentiments that have been at the forefront of the American consciousness for decades.
You can admit that the statistics demonstrate disproportionality, you can admit the widespread and sustained sentiment held in predominantly black communities of distrust and fear of the police, you can admit that different drugs are penalised differently and that the most harshly penalised drugs affected predominantly coloured people. I can give you examples of government officials who admitted that their policies were racist, we can talk about individual cities who have in modern times admitted that their police forces had issues with racism.
You should have a think about what "proof" means in this context. The real world isn't a controlled experiment where you can carefully test the variables and demonstrate things with 100% certainty. What it seems you are asking for, is for someone like a president to commit political suicide by admitting their racist intentions. I can give you mayors, I can give you senators but as far as I know, no president has done that.
In the real world, we have to make decisions based on statistics and evidence like this, you can't always just sit on the fence because nobody can give you concrete assurances. It doesn't work that way in medicine, law, business, politics, philosophy, psychology and many other things. If I've got you wrong and you can make a strong argument against the statistics, the history, the decisions that have been made. Offer an alternative explanation to everything, then go ahead. But otherwise, why don't you tell me what kind of proof you'd need. Btw, guessing you're going to take the second option and I look forward to an entertaining response.
[url=https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_racial_violence_in_the_United_States]
Domestic terrorism.[/url]
As old as the Slave Codes (1667). As old as white settlers and military genocides of Indigeous Peoples. As old as the NYC Draft riots (1863). As old as the Klu Klux Klan (1865). As old as the Tulsa Race Massacre (1921) ... As old as lynchings during Jim Crow (1877-1968). As old as the Oklahoma City bombing (1995). As old as the slaughter at the Emanuel AME Church in Charleston, SC (2015). As old as the state sanctioned murders of
[i]Amadou Diallo ...
Trayvon Martin
Sean Bell
Eric Garner
Michael Brown
Laquan McDonald
Alton Sterling
Tamir Rice
Freddie Gray
Walter Scott
Philando Castile
Breanna Taylor
Ahmaud Arbery
George Floyd
Rayshard Brooks
Trayford Pellerin
Jacob Blake ...[/i]
People of color in the United States can't breathe and they grow-up suffering PTSD from American Apartheid aka systemic white terrorism.
[quote=Lebron James]We are scared as black people in America. Black men, black women, black kids — we are terrified.[/quote]
[quote=Doc Rivers]All you hear is Donald Trump and all of them talking about fear. We're the ones getting killed. We're the ones getting shot ... It's amazing why we keep loving this country and this country does not love us back.[/quote]
How can they continue 'playing games' while the state still sanctions murdering their black, brown & poor brothers and sisters?
So to in China:
And in Russia (goes without saying).
The main reason I'd still invite every black American to move to the Netherlands is 1) if you get a job here the welfare system is yours; no at will employment, affordable healthcare with no racial disparaties in outcomes, 2) everybody speaks English and 3) nobody shoots you because of your skin colour.
And 4) fuck those racists that wouldn't want them to come.
Today dumper-Trumper suggested that the NBA is a political organization. OMG, how absurd is that coming from the president of the United States?
He has no clue what it's like to grow up as an African American. What he is not, he apparently cannot perceive to understand; it obviously cannot communicate itself to him.
A good president is supposed to go beyond his/her political and so-called implicit biases towards race relationships. Claiming that the NBA is political just proves his bias.
As a WASP myself, this is simply common sense. What happened to the old GOP of President Lincoln!?
:fire: (this time?)
Sticking with the sports theme (and not to stray off topic), Dallas Cowboy owner Jerry Jones should be applauded for his ability to go beyond his wasp upbringing. He didn't dichotomize: he knelt with the team and stood with the team. He did both. And the message was, 'gee there's something wrong here that I have to protest during a sports event... But in this case common sense overruled: he must have thought, most of my players are African-American and they're suffering emotionally and physically... ?
But back to systemic racism. Perhaps too idealistic but I don't understand why the EEOC and human resources don't develop policies that screen cop's as appropriate to determine their psychological health. Most cops are considered good cops, but it seems that the few who 'ruin it for everybody' are either in the closet wife beaters, or have axes to grind and are just angry...
Another thing I don't get. Rittenhouse would not be arrested if it wasn't for the available video. He walks up to police in the end and someone is shouting he shot people. The police even asks if there are injured people further up the road, so they apparently heard but they don't arrest Rittenhouse. Wtf? If ever there was probable cause when a guy with a gun runs up to you with his hands up, typically a sign to surrender, and someone shouts he shot people.
That kid's MOTHER drove him to Kenosha, Wisconsin simply to help local police kill 'anti-police brutality BLM protestors' and that's exactly what he did and they welcomed it and will continue to do so ... Like countless other white males before him, he's a 17 year old martyr to the white supremacist "cause" for whom murder is a rite of passage; now a social media "hero" to skinheads & right wingnuts in North America and (mostly?) Central-Eastern Europe, images of him in all his AR-15 brandishing glory radicalizing more 'anglo-christian jihadis'. Do you get it now, my friend? :vomit:
I'm assuming that your specificly referring to George Floyd's case BS that's been hilighted beyond belief?
Read the title and don't ask stupid questions, please.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-54007884
Dijon Kizee, a black man, 29, profiled & murdered by Los Angeles, CA police:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/01/us/los-angeles-police-shooting/index.html
Thought this panel was interesting.
Then when Kizee runs - not surprising (though clearly ill-advised) as tensions in South LA have only gotten worse between residents & police since "Watts" in 1965-66, Compton in the 80s-90s, "Rodney King" in the mid-90s, etc - POLICE CHASE HIM for what amounts to less than a misdemeanor like "jay walking" or "littering". Again, racial profiling. "Probable cause"? Oh sure, because in almost all juridictions in the United States (since the late 1600's Slave Codes) the presumption that Blacks, Browns, Reds & the poor are GUILTY UNTIL PROVEN INNOCENT prevails.
When police catch him, a weapon falls out of the bundle Kizee was carrying; had the officers been threatened or fired upon with the weapon - they weren't, they would have said so in the police report, but, of course, they didn't need to justify summarily executing a Black man in a hale of bullets. Not in South LA. Not in Trumpistan. Use of deadly force by police is the FIRST RESORT when dealing with Black & Brown "thugs". Don't bother even attempting to deescalate, just shoot first, reload if you have to, and keep shooting. Apparently, that's standard police training in America (the consequent behavior of which is given tacit approval by local prosecutors who, more than 99 out of 100 civilian killings by police, refuse to INDICT, or even seriously INVESTIGATE, the officers in question), thus the heavy reliance on civil settlements to victims' families at local taxpayers' expense even as killer police retain their jobs & pensions.
Consult the ACLU, NAACP, Human Rights Watch, US NIH & CDC, Innocence Project, and police forensics / criminology researchers at major American universities - the +half-century old data is voluminous and very strongly correlated. Dijon Kizee, my Dutch friend, is just another "George Floyd" data point, victim of Apartheid-like, state-sanctioned, domestic terrorism against PoC & the poor in America.
In short... the apologetic line of defense in support of police employing such heavy handed force runs as follows:
"If you'd only do and be as we allow you to do and be, we wouldn't have to hurt you."
From my experience this is the same apologetic line of defense as employed by domestic abusers to justify the abuse of their victims.
Just an observation, but one that might indeed need to be taken into consideration.
Meow!
G
And of course its pretty routine at this point for cops to execute people who are accused/suspected of having committed minor/non-violent offenses like selling loose cigarettes (as Eric Garner was accused of doing, before being murdered by police) or using a bad $20 bill (as George Floyd was accused of doing, before being murdered by police). So not only harming people who are obeying the law, but taking upon themselves the duties of judge, jury and executioner, in addition to their legitimate law enforcement functions. And no one seems all that interested in stopping any of this, outside of the BLM protesters out in the streets.
:clap: :100:
What Benkei said about different treatment of African Americans and Africans does hold. Once you talk English, everybody will know that you come from the US and nobody has problems with Americans. That changes if the people think you are a migrant worker or a refugee from Africa. Then you can get a lot of hostility, which just shows how people categorize foreigners and nationalities. I think it's a problem in all the Nordic countries.
Live in Norway, in the city I live in I've heard reports of racist hostility or violence against:
Two Somali men, one Nigerian man, at least three Eritreans, two Ethiopian men, one Sudanese woman, two Congolese men, two Kurdish men, an Iraqi man and an Iranian man.
Since a couple of years ago, I've seen quite a few people wearing far right signifiers in bars - including a young man with a fucking cobweb on his eye. More of them recently.
The impression I get is that they came out of the woodwork after the Syrian civil war, the "threat of Islamisation" seems to be their animating bugbear at the minute - so I imagine it's continuous with anti-Middle-Eastern racist populism across Europe.
Right, so some govt. showing preferential treatment based on one's skin color would entail systemic racism. But then isnt that what affirmative action is - systemic racism against non-blacks? If the results of systemic racism accrue over time, how long do we need to implement affirmative action before the balance is tipped? It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. Will 13% of the population be fine with 13% of the wealth? Demanding more would be demanding more than your fair share.
For starter I take it that you would agree that 300 years of slavery and over 100 years of legally enforced segregation was not a good thing.
Quoting Harry Hindu
If you're worried about future cherry picking, then OK. But there's no cherry picking currently going on.
All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person.
And it is a plain fact that no black person (other than small children) can ever be 100% sure that - without any warning - they could be subject to violent harm or death simply due to the color of their skin.
If you disagree with me then do your own random poll of, say, 10 black people and get back to me.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Get back to me when black people actually have 13% of the wealth.
Harry Hindu, which political movement has ever ceased it's activity once it's clearest goals have been achieved and the most obvious grievances and injustices have been corrected?
Which leader of a political movement has said to the members: "We did it. Thanks for everything, but now we close shop, so go find some other cause or something else to do."
That has never happened.
The more successful any political movement has been in the past, the more silly will the "next generation" and following generation after that be.
I.e. hold 13% of the senior agenda-setting, investment & employment decision-making positions in American governments & businesses.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Regurgitating more pathetic white grievence again ... completely in denial of pro-white male affirmative reaction since 1619. :shade:
Quoting 180 Proof
You aint from Sweden.
No, I'm from Scotland. Why did you bring that up?
This didn't answer my question.
Quoting EricH
Sure there is.
Quoting EricH
Wrong. There are many of blacks that make more than many whites combined. If Breeona Taylor was white, we wouldn't have heard about her being murdered by police. If the reports that police shot blindly in her house were correct, then they never knew what color her skin was before shooting, so to say that it was because she was black is cherry-picking - as if every instance where a black person is shot by police must be because of racism.
Quoting EricH
This mentality is part of the problem. Telling young black kids this makes them resist police that are simply trying to make sure that they are not being threatened. It makes them think that every police officer is racist, when that simply isn't the case.
You and others like you simply can't get it through your little heads that you are doing the exact same thing that you are complaining about - acting on preconceived notions based on the color of one's skin, or what uniform someone wears. If it is wrong to assume that blacks are criminals based on stats, then it is wrong to assume cops are racist bigots based on some stats. The hypocrisy is getting old.
Quoting EricH
Why would I have to get back to you? This is a "yes" or "no" answer. The fact that I would have to wait indicates that you still won't be satisfied with equal treatment. This is a clear indicator that you are more interested in special treatment.
Quoting ssu
No, that's why Biden is still making promises to address those same grievances that existed 50 years ago. Government accumulates more power by creating or promoting problems and offers bigger govt. as the solution.
But then that is the problem - that political parties adopt these movements and then end up skewing the grass-roots movement to something more sinister. This is what happened with the movement for getting George Floyd the justice he deserves.
Quoting 180 Proof
Well, blacks make up 13% of the House of Representatives - happy? Something tells me that you won't be.
Quoting 180 Proof
Oh, so then it's regurgitating more pathetic black grievance again? I mean if it was racist for whites to do, then why is it not racist for blacks to do it? It's like you're giving a pass for the bad behavior of blacks - as if it's wrong only if a white person does it.
What makes someone representative of you simply because they have the same skin color as you? Do you represent all blacks? There are many blacks that you say that you don't. If not, then how can you even say that some representative is representing all blacks - as if a white person couldn't represent a black person and vice versa. It's not the color of your skin that makes you representative of some group. It's the thoughts in your head and your goals that you share.
Nice. Victim blaming. If only women didn't wear skirts. If only black people weren't distrustful of the police.
EDIT: On the other hand, I suppose it's progress for you to admit there is a problem here.
A grievance about well-documented and corroborated racist violence and discrimination by Whites against People of Color cannot itself be "racist" any more than a complaint of ... sexist violence and discrimination by Men against Women can itself be "sexist".
I get it, Hindu, you're (incorrigibly) ignorant and (apologetically) racist, a smug tRumpy troll. Drink bleach much? :victory: :mask:
What year do you think the police stopped being racist? (if you think they stopped being racist. If don't think they were ever racist how does that fit with what is generally accepted as the behavior of the police in the past?) the 50s?, the 70s?
If only blacks and non-blacks weren't distrustful of blacks who commit more than their fair share of crimes, particularly hate crimes.
When a black woman calls the police because her ex black lover (Jacob Blake) with a criminal record of sexual assault is trespassing on her property and steals her car keys, then she's racist and sexist for calling the those racist cops on a black man, right Benkei? When he then ignores the police and proceeds to reach into his vehicle, then its the cops fault for shooting him in the back, right Benkei?
Quoting 180 Proof
What else would you expect when a majority of the population is white? What are you advocating for - the minority ruling the majority? You do realize that there are countries run completely by blacks? You do know where to look for those, right, and then the type of corruption that goes on in those countries? Everyone is not only prejudiced to some degree or another, but corrupted by power as well, including blacks.
Quoting 180 Proof
If only this were true, you wouldn't have whole districts run by black mayors, black police chiefs, black judges, black presidents, etc. If everyone is prejudiced then it doesn't matter who is in power. What matters is that citizens protect themselves from those in power and are corrupted by it, no matter what their color of skin.
And to say that if these domains should be controlled predominantly by non-whites, is to say that you prefer the minority to rule over the majority. You are saying that we should give blacks more than their fair share of representation and power. Thanks for showing your true colors, 180 - communist red.
Cool strawmen. Once you're capable of articulating an argument I'll get back to you.
The first thing for political parties is to control the public political discourse...on the lines they want to. And if polarization suits the political duopoly in the US, guess what you will have?
Quoting Harry Hindu
In some other time and place the issue would be about the excessive use of lethal force by the police, not only an issue about systemic racism by the police. Perhaps with a white male with a warrant for arrest and resisting the arrest in a similar situation, the police officer would have fired far fewer shots in the back (after all, there's no hiding the racial profiling in these cases).
Here's a video I'd like people to watch from three years ago.
It does tell that even in the US there could exist a normal decent political interaction, the ability to engage the other side and the ability to understand that Americans make a nation together even if in a democracy the people naturally disagree on a whole range of issues. In a 2017 Trump rally (I guess), the organizers give the BLM counterprotesters two minutes talk their message and the BLM member that took the stage responded well to the occasion with his response to the Trump crowd.
But of course this above is ancient history. And perhaps even remarking about the above video is annoying, naive and destructive "both-sideism" for some people.
Time to choose which fellow citizens you hate, I guess.
(I will be happy if I'm wrong and the US calms down after the elections.)
MAGA troll is as MAGA does. :mask:
Nah. It's about respecting the cultures, customs, and social norms (including language) of another person's home. Besides. Those are pretty much just frozen prisons anyway. No one should want to migrate there. It would be hazardous and unsafe for any agency to even consider that as a place to do so. Especially if they can't survive the elements on their own without government assistance.
You don't come into Africa from another land trying to convert people to your religion and make them speak your language because you think it's "better" or "right". Oh wait, people have and do. That's where the majority of modern day conflicts that kill millions of Africans stem from. Meanwhile, no one talks about that. Interesting, no?
The Americas are different seeing as others were there first.
Look who's talking.
I could not agree more. BLM's narrow-minded scope of addressing racism could be expanded to address ALL instances of police brutality and corruption against ALL lives. ALL lives matter doesnt delegitimize racism or black lives, it acknowledges it and adopts it as part of its platform. ALL lives matter is inclusive, while BLM is divisive and segregating. Any opinion other than theirs is racist.
Freedom of speech cuts both ways. Like the guy in the video says, just as you have the right to express your ideas, so do they. While it appears that this Trump crowd has taken the higher ground and provided BLM a platform to make their argument, I wonder if they would have provided the same respect for an atheist?
Yes, although even Trump admitted the point in the Woodward recordings, so at this point it's probably just pure racism driving Harry's weird rants.
It doesn't stop there, not at all, if you look at BLM. In the (official?) website they emphasize:
Hence the emphasis on sexual minorities to make the (much needed?) space between "the established" black organizations, which is reinforced following lines:
Hence the official BLM isn't, let's say, a great friend of the heterosexual black male believing in traditional values. And this is very notable, because this is, perhaps unintentionally, meant to divide the black community: it's not about systemic racism, it's also dismantling cisgender privilege, where black male himself seems to be the problem. And this is a problem when the whole thing is especially about young black males and their profiling by the police as violent criminals.
This is what makes BLM and the post-modern intersectionality are so splendid for the ruling class: they actively divide the people. When human rights become especially trans rights, that's a very small minority which you can deal, which is great for those in power. The obvious reason is that movements that could unite American people against the two ruling parties are a direct threat to their hold on power. BLM or earlier OWS or the Tea-Party on the other side are not going to challenge anything, but just hopefully get new recruits for the two parties, which especially the Tea-Party movement (earlier those for Ron Paul) got well recruited. And so will happen on the Democratic side too.
Being equals is really divisive...
Ad hominem. That's three fallacies in a row. I'm labelling the nonsense you call arguments and not missing a beat.
Thanks for posting the video. (As it turns out, BLM officially disavows this guy, Hawk Newsome, but I don't know the whole history there.)
What fascinated me is the range of crowd reactions, sometimes a mix of boos and cheers. I wish there had been more crowd footage -- you see just a little nodding and headshaking. When Newsome says, 'When I say I'm African-American, I mean both,' there's a guy who shakes his head for a while. That is not disagreement -- what could he be disagreeing with? It's disbelief. He doesn't believe Newsome believes what he's saying. But clearly some people do find him sincere, and maybe were surprised that he is not what Fox News and talk radio told them he would be. But chances are they would conclude that he was "one of the good ones", and BLM is still a bunch of radical leftists or crypto-jihadists or whatever.
"Skim" a cup of sea water from the tide and then guess (conclude?), because it contains no sharks, "there are no sharks in the sea". :roll:
Actually....yes. It is truly meant to be divisive.
Quoting Srap Tasmaner
There you see how the post-modernist power play works in reality. So why BLM officially disavows Hawk Newsome? Here's the story:
So not only the hopefully positive video is truly past history, it wasn't even the "official" BLM affiliate speaking. And yes, the above story tells also how close BLM is to the corporate World, so arguments similar to being heard here in PF by some are simply not tolerated. Why? Because as I said, the BLM is very close to the ruling class, as it's message doesn't pose any threat:
I clicked on another version of the video that shows more crowd response, and it was pretty predictable. Presumably clearer to Newsome's ears and he showed considerable restraint.
Having a sense of community doesn't at all eradicate the fact that people disagree. Any crowd on a march or demonstration will boo things they don't like and applaud things they like, that's for sure. That they listened to what Newsome said is the crucial touching part as listening is sign of courtesy. I don't think that interaction would happen anymore.
And hurray for the guy who invited him up. That was a pretty ballsy move.
So the House bill that banned choke holds against all humans, not just black ones, was an attempt to drown out BLM? Or was is to be inclusive rather than divisive? Imagine a Congressional bill that bans choke holds only against blacks. That is essentially the message of BLM.
With all this fear blacks claim to have, its a wonder they even come out of their house. Of course that's politics-say one thing, do another.
What I find odd is the complacency and silence of most human beings in general when any white person is killed by cops - as if we've been conditioned to think that its okay for cops to make mistakes that cost human lives at all.
We need to root out racism, as well as address many other problems caused by the abuse of power. But isn't just one life lost one too many, regardless of the color if skin of the victim? Sure, there should be outrage when racism occurs, but shouldn't there also be outrage when other forms of police brutality and corruption occur? The fact that there isn't and only when blacks are killed indicates the that outrage is disproportionate. Even if blacks are killed at higher rates (and no proof that every one of those instances were the result if racism), the level of outrage is disproportionate. There should be at least some outrage, but there is zero outrage.
Still fighting racism with racism?
Quoting Harry Hindu
:mask:
Quoting 180 Proof
Racists (or sexists) are the ones who feel oppressed by the demand for equality.
I think they have gotten over losing their slaves.
Perhaps they think that the sins of their great great grandfathers aren't the sins of themselves.
Quoting 180 Proof
So 180 Proof and Harry Hindu feel oppressed?
I myself have always thought that you can judge individuals, but never larger groups of people especially by their nationality, ethnicity, or race (whatever that means), but perhaps that's not the politically correct way to think about things now as denying the importance of race is racism itself.
But you missed all the fallacies made by your side. So you're inconsistent in your application of the rules and thats the worst fallacy if them all- hypocrisy. It makes us think that you really aren't interested in avoiding logical fallacies at all.
Quoting 180 Proof
No on alive today was a slave or owned slaves, so there is nothing to get over. Its not about getting over slavery. Its about getting over identifying people based on the color of their skin.
Quoting 180 Proof
Racists are the ones that keep judging individuals based on some common physical feature they share with others, like "you ain't black if you don't vote Democrat" and calling all whites racist.
1. We're not in debate teams so there is no "your side". 2. Hypocrisy isn't a fallacy. 3. You haven't pointed out any fallacies yourself so you "missed" them just as much. 4. You were trying to have an argument with me and failed. 5. Your latest point is another big, fat red herring.
You're on fallacy number 4 now. You could go back to my initial comment and try again but I suspect you'll persist in missing the point.
You really can't win either way. If you just try to view individuals as individuals and try to make as few preconceptions as possible, you're racially ignorant or even a racist today. On the other hand, if you view race as central to identity while you could be considered "woke" or "politically correct" your actual day to day interactions with people of other races are going to be really awkward but at least you're woke.
So I've stopped engaging in these types of conversations.
They make the arrest and the guy is talking his head off about The Government and Tyranny and all this, and our guy says, "Look, buddy. I had your head in my sights for the last two hours. You may be at war with your government, but your government is not at war with you."
This is what we want our law enforcement to be, isn't it?
Can you blame Black Americans for concluding that police departments are at war with them?
That's the curse of the post-modernist argument. (And perhaps I should stop too the engagement, because it's not welcome.)
As postmodernism doesn't believe in objectivity (perhaps the only truth is the the postmodernist argument itself), it is designed to be a power-play and a tool to defeat others. This is because of the simplistic argument that post-modernism has: in it's critique it see's "modernism" and universalist ideas like objective reality, science and ideas of the Enlightenment as just power plays themselves forced by a ruling class to maintain power and control. That's the only thing that is true. The Logical consequences is that if everything is then about power and control, then it is so and there really isn't anything else. It's like the conspiracy theorist that thinks everything is pure propaganda and hence will cherish and spread the most offensive, most straight forward and most vulgar propaganda ever as... what else is there? Objectivity and good journalism doesn't exist as everything is propaganda for this conspiracist.
The unfortunate thing is that earlier critics like Foucault did actually know the things they were criticizing (and hence Foucault actually rejected post-modernism and saw himself as a modernist), but the later generation has known only the postmodernist criticism, not the ideas which make up for example the view of the Enlightenment. They simply don't understand the subtle issue of that even if let's say "science" can be used, or abused to justify something that isn't at all an objective observation, but a subjective opinion, that doesn't mean that objectivity in using the scientific method doesn't and cannot exist at all.
Strawman. Address what I wrote, Hindu, like you're not a disingenous tRumpy troll.
Easier to argue with your own bullshit rather than mine, isn't it? Not making your case though, just changing your wife-beater after shitting your tighty whities. Again.
Racism is in such short supply these days that those who profit off its existence have relegated it to the invisible and nowhere, or in fact have become racists themselves. It’s like St. George forgetting to retire after slaying all the dragons. Pretty soon he’s just there, all alone, swinging his lance in the wind.
Quoting Harry Hindu
The fact that a small percentage of black people have achieved financial success is irrelevant to the discussion.
Quoting Harry Hindu
Correct. if you are in denial that systematic racism still exists in the USA, then there is no point in discussing how to address it.
Does systematic racism still exist in the USA? I'll repeat myself. Don't take my word for it. Don't rely any surveys or statistics. Go out and do your own research. Talk to 10 black people and ask them about their experiences. Report your results here.
That isn’t only an ethical, but also the reasonable way to go about treating others. One cannot derive any important information about an individual from levels of melanin, beyond what his parents may have looked like. It is better to learn from someone rather than make such assumptions. I’d stick with it if I were you.
That being said, this post-modern, critical theory stuff is a blight on the history of knowledge, and will go the way of all racial superstitions.
Racism (again for the slow fuckers way in the back) denotes color/ethnic prejudice plus POWER of a dominant community (color/ethnic in-group) OVER non-dominant communities (color/ethnic out-groups). Whether Hutus over Tutsis, Israeli Jews over Israeli Arabs, Hans over Uyghurs, Turks over Kurds, Kosovo Serbs over Kosovo Albanians, Russians over Chechens, Israeli Ashkenazim over Israeli Sephardim, American Whites over American Blacks Browns Yellows & Reds, etc, this description of racism obtains.
Resistance to, and subversion of, racist policies and enforcement practices necessarily targets members of the dominant color/ethnic community, which while 'appearing prejudiced' is (usually) not due to corroborative evidence and life-long experiences of the survivors of racial violence and discrimination; also, more significantly, anti-racist activism or policies cannot be racist in so far as their manifest function and objective is TO PROTECT members of NON-DOMINANT color/ethnic communities FROM the extraordinarily well-documented race-targeted, overtly terroristic (i.e. police executions of unarmed PoC, vigilante "militia" killings of anti-racist protestors) and covert daily assaults (i.e. socially-economically exclusionary) BY members of the DOMINANT color/ethnic community. Drawing an 'equivalence' between perpetrators and resisting survivors is apologetic for the perpetrators, and thereby complicit with status quo (ante) racism.
Thus, it ain't no secret where the likes of Harry Hindu, NOS4A2 & that confederacy of evidence-free, demogogic, talk-radio parrotting, trolls stands.
I disagree with defining racism this way. Its done only to inoculate anti-white sentiment against a charge of racism, and thats all. Prejudice plus power isnt racism, everyone knows what racism is (hating and treating as lesser based on skin colour) and this trendy new way of defining it is just a way fir people to be racist towards whites while avoiding being called racist themselves (the possibility has been defined out of the word).
It doesnt even make sense.
If I say “Japanese people are scum, sub human garbage, the yellow plague etc etc” then that would be pretty racist. Under the prejudice plus power nonsense if I then flew to Japan where Japanese have all the power it somehow wouldnt be racist? Of course it would, because racism isnt about power, its about hate and/or ignorance.
Obsessed with looking through the lense of race as you are, I know all your examples seem like classic, perfect ones to you but they are just examples of groups vs groups, human tribalism, human war and nation or empire building. They are only distinguishable from other human conflicts/tribalism because you choose to focus on race.
Earlier you asked for examples of black people who agree with the likes of Harry Hindu, that do not believe is systemic racism. You cant have looked very hard, youtube is filled with them but im sure you have some way to excuse that away (not THOSE black voices) so Ill offer up personal examples. Of all my extended family and family, only one person actually buys into the current narrative about systemic racism and prejudice plus power and she is young and in college where they are taught this junk from fake academics who use that prejudice plus power stuff to push an agenda.
It is tiresome and offensive that you white saviour types operate under the guise of helping black people while simultaneously denying black folks agency, committing racism yourselves and trying to decide for me how I should feel about white people, cops and black people.
The colour of my skin (Or anyones) shouldn't matter, and the fact that it does to you or anyone else makes you the one judging by skin colour. Ive said it before and ill repeat it again, the only people who care about race are actual racists, and the people who think everyone is racist. Neither are registering reality properly...your worldview has more in common with racists than you do with me sir.
Here, this amusing video might help you understand:
https://youtu.be/Ev373c7wSRg
What "everyone knows" is just prejudicial bullshit. Thinking, not merely believing, is what's called for here; and if that's too difficult or inconvenient for you, well then, let's agree to disagree on this point.
It is pretty absurd for the reasons you stated. But also the idea that the KKK or neo-Nazis are not racist because they lack power is morally repugnant. It makes no sense.
At this point? Did we have this conversation before or something?
You quoted two words cherry picked out of a sentence and then didn't even address that. Prejudicial bullshit? And where do you get off telling me im not thinking about this issue?
That was a non-response, which I guess is fair enough if you arent interested in responding to my points.
Good that you also included there ethnicity as historically especially in the European context racism hasn't been about skin color as obviously Germans, Poles, Russians, Belorussians, Swedes or Finns are considered to be white, but that hasn't stopped at all racism, racial division, pogroms and genocide. Because I bet if we looked at photos of Poles, Russians, Germans and Finns nobody would have any clue which belongs to the "aryan", the "northern" or the "subhuman / inferior" race as defined some time ago in one European country. And this example isn't made to get some intersectionality points or refer to whites being the victim, but to show how absolutely crazy the whole idea of racism is.
Thus racism and xenophobia can be created between any two groups even if the categories are invented by a third party (like with the Hutus and Tutsi's) as there is absolutely no logic behind racism. It is just invented to fit the current situation. Racism is thinking of some other group of people being inferior, no matter what the defining charasteristics are. Nowdays or in the US context it's skin color.
But that may sound too much like the old definition of racism, perhaps.
180's is a significant and ideological definition of racism, whenever someone defines racism this way, I feel it becomes clear that their primary concern is not the logic of racism and this is a problem. I do think it is key to understand this definition though, we cannot take for granted that we agree with someone in opposition to "racism" when people have these definitions.
Any pretence of the agreement should be dropped, you go into a discussion hearing someone being appalled by racism and think that's the common ground you can work with but there is in reality very little. What you are against and what the likes of @180 Proof is against are completely different.
The understandings are incompatible, the logic we despise is not only not condemned but actually utilised because it can be justified depending on whether you're a from a marginalised group or not. It is very difficult and there's no real incentive to differentiate between what he considers a racist and himself from our position.
Which is not to say that we don't condemn state-censored violence or oppression, based on race or otherwise. However, the idea that identical logic and speech is racist or not racist depending on your skin colour or ethnicity is absurd. There is no possible excuse where it becomes justified yet 180 proof is trying to provide us with one.
Whenever I agree with @NOS4A2 over someone else, I feel they can just instantly be disregarded as a thinker with any possible merit.
And this is why the whole thing is so detrimental.
Meh, Im not sure thats fair. (To dismiss 180 as a thinker of merit). Everyone has a blindspot or two, and the race blind spot has Faux academic backing. (And wide media acceptance). The narrative has been successfully delivered so Im not keen to dismiss someone just because they are hopelessly wrong on this issue.
Plenty of normally rational people have lost their minds about Trump as another example, but I still listen to those folks in other threads because rationality returns to them.
The fact you get people responding to certain woke words and quickly forming agreement speaks to what I would call the cult-like operating procedures used by those who’ve bought the narrative. It doesnt matter what you think, it only matters that you fall in line with their language use. Hence as you say, they cannot tell when they disagree with someone or not if the right words are being used. The language is the first and most important attack vector, controlling that makes everything else easier. Also like a cult, these people (maybe 180, maybe not) do not realise what they are doing, how closely they resemble their declared enemies on behalf of the bad actors that came up with all this shit.
Did you check out that video I linked to 180? Its a hilariously accurate point being made.
Why do insults have to be fair? :(
I did watch the video, very funny and sums up my complaints.
They dont, if all you are doing is insulting. I had the impression you were expressing something of substance at the same time. That would being fair, to me anyway.
Though I can understand the insult as a means to remind everyone of your bona fides, I’m sure we agree on much more.
Devaluing another group of people based upon the color of their skin is not in short supply.
Your head is currently up the ass of a bonafide racist.
Calling peaceful protestors "sons a bitches" for quietly kneeling during the national anthem, and then not ever considering the grievance, but rather insisting that that demonstration was somehow anti-American and disrespectful to American armed services, was a blatant act of denying black Americans the right to peaceful protest and the redress of grievances.
:100:
:up:
I gave more response than your response to my post merits.
Quoting 180 Proof
:lol:
This is rich - you both now want to be so "concerned" about logical fallacies after having blatantly committed them yourselves and didn't care, so why should I?
I gave up trying to have a reasonable conversation with you both a long time ago because you can't be consistent. You're counting ghosts again, as I never intended to be reasonable. You reap what you sow, right 180?
This is again a red herring. Point the fallacy out where I made it or shut up.
Exactly. Identity politics skews your view of the world where you see everything through the prism of your own skin color. Whenever a white man disagrees with a black man, it MUST be due to racism. If a cop shoots a black man, it MUST be due to racism, etc.
Nobody here has argued that, so as usual a straw man fallacy.
Quoting creativesoul
But that's the old, boring definition of racism. The new, exciting definition is power + prejudice, so even the most anti-black white south african or american black supremacist can not possibly be racist. it's not about what you believe it's about where you live and whether you' got the good guy (oppressed) or the bad guy (oppressor) skin color.
Quoting 180 Proof
You can add black south africans over white south africans to this list. I also wonder what's to be said about cities or even states where one group may be more in power than another but that's not reflective of the picture on a national level. How do we define the community?
You cannot deny the rights of Americans by criticizing ultra-wealthy athletes. Have you gone mad?
By not even listening to the grievance, Trump most certainly did not criticize the grievance being levied.
He attacked the player, the players' mothers, and marginalized and/or trivialized the black American citizens in the process. All the while acknowledging neither the right to protest nor the injury being protested against. To this day, he acknowledges neither. He is the president of the United states of America, and evidently neither he nor you know the difference between a critique and a personal attack.
All the while he defends someone who showed up with a loaded rifle to what was an otherwise peaceful demonstration. That person actually murdered people. Trump defended the murderer. They were young, white, and went looking for trouble... but, they were supporters of his.
He was ready and is ready to execute young black men for crimes that they were accused, but turned out to be completely innocent of. He took out front page ads in major news publications attempting to influence the outcome... attempting to garner support for the execution of those black young men, simply because they were accused of crimes against a white woman. Had he been judge, jury, and executioner those innocent young men would be dead, and he would not have an ounce of remorse.
He is a fucking racist.
Say what you want, but you’ve deviated so far from the topic into a tirade of histrionics. Are you able to approach the topic without the typical Trump throat-clearing? Not once in that salad of words could you mention any racism, let alone any of the systemic type.
Because the situation is somewhat different in Sweden from Norway. Bigger problems, larger numbers of refugees, more crime, more racism. A racism that goes both ways.
Straw man. You said no one here has said that. I showed that you and 180 did say that. Now you want to whine about me reducing your argument to some stats that you used to say what you just said you didn't say. Your inconsistencies reduce your arguments gibberish.
No it isn't. What does a society with systemic racism look like vs a society without systemic racism but still has individuals that are racist? It seems like the differece would be America circa 1800 vs America 2020.
Where have I or 180proof said that? Nowhere. So now you're resorting to lying.
The fact that slavery and legalized segregation are gone does not mean that systemic racism has disappeared. The fact that things are not as horrible as they were 200 or 100 years ago does not mean that everything is OK. By any unit of measurement, people of color are at a severe disadvantage - income, infant mortality, health care, jail sentencing, etc, etc, etc.
One more time. If you think that there is no systemic racism in the USA go do your own survey. Talk to some black people - listen to their experiences of what life is like on a daily basis.
To the extent that the distribution is skewed, causality requires reasons.
One reason is systemic racism or anti-ethnic bias.
Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
In case it wasn't already obvious that private property matters more than black lives: it's right there, in the fucking judgement of the law. People need to get it through their thick skulls that this isn't some polemical left-talking point. Private property > black lives.
"Say [s]her name[/s]!"
:fear:
:angry:
I'm gonna go lawyerly for a moment which result you might not like, based on the info on the Wikipedia page "Shooting of Breonna Taylor".
There's disagreement how the cops entered, particularly whether they announced themselves. There's no definitive proof one way or the other. The working hypothesis then has to be that we should try to reach a decision without this being a factor one way or another.
Walker fired on a cop first under the assumption they were being burglared. Cops fired back. Those cops that didn't fire through a wall and had line of sight to their target, would prima facie not be doing anything wrong. Anyone firing without line of sight is potentially endangering innocents. In Dutch this would be described as either "voorwaardelijke opzet" or "bewuste roekeloosheid" which respectively translates as "conditional intent" (you know there's a risk and wilfully take the risk) or "cognizant recklessness" (you are aware of the risk but dismiss it as unlikely). The difference is hair thin, which is why I mention both. But it would be the difference between manslaughter and murder in the 2nd degree. Some reports stated one of the police officers fired through a window with blinds down but it also appears impossible Breonna was hit by that. If such a person would've hit her, it would've been manslaughter at least. It seems likely, but not clear from the wiki-page, it was these shots that prompted the successful claim from the neighbours and indictment.
I said previously, that firing when having a line of sight is prima facie an argument for no wrongdoing (since Walker fired first). We don't know how Walker moved through the appartment, the positioning of the cops and the trajectories of their bullets. If the spread of the bullets is explained by either a) Walker moving or b) the different positions of the cops. Then the firing cannot be said to be reckless.
If the spread cannot be explained in such a way and the cops fired so wildly that grouping of their shots was impossible, I think we're once again at "cognizant recklessness". However, being shot at would probably excuse that and a jury would accept even trained cops being shot at would forget their training and unload their guns.
Based on that; no justice for Breonna Taylor.
The problem is, I think, that the likelihood of the cops lying about their "knock and announce" is relatively high. Of the 20 neighbours interviewed only one heard "police!". Walker's initial statement to the police claims he repeatedly asked "who is it?" and didn't receive an answer. They also lied previously about the US Postal Inspector's involvement. The warrant stated packages with drugs arrived at Taylor's appartment and that this was confirmed by the US Postal Inspector. In fact, "the U.S. postal inspector in Louisville publicly announced that the collaboration with law enforcement had never actually occurred. The postal office stated they were actually asked to monitor packages going to Taylor's apartment from a different agency, but after doing so, they concluded, "There's [sic] no packages of interest going there."" It also appears one of them might have been wearing a bodycam but that was probably off.
This doesn't pass "beyond a reasonable" doubt though and the conclusion, from a legal point of view, seems correct.
Of course, if they did lie, it would've at least been manslaughter by all three cops.
The city of Louisville settled "wrongful death" civil suit with Breonna Taylor's family recently for $12 million dollars. The special prosecutor, however, steered a grand jury not to indict any of the three officers for Ms. Taylor's officially designated "wrongful death". This flagrant inconsistency strongly suggests a miscarriage of justice (i.e. cover-up). Manslaughter for each police officer at minimum; perhaps 2nd degree murder, etc pending evidence of other aggravating circumstances (e.g. unannounced break-in with a "knock and announce warrant", etc).
The upshot: Black (brown, red & poor) citizens are not safe even in our homes in America. Old story. Especially because police in the U.S. are 99 out of 100 times unaccountable for wanton, reckless, uses of deadly force on unarmed citizens of color. And because the right of self-defense is, in effect, denied as a presumption when a PoC is a licensed gun owner (e.g. Philando Castile et al).
New York Times Sept. 24, 2020 article (scroll down to investigative reporting of Ms. Taylor's killing).
The point I was trying to make was that given the facts, that seem to have been available to the jury, another decision wans't possible. There's a lot of factors surrounding this case that make it stink but it also needs to stick.
Nonsense. There's been no jury trial where "the facts" were cross-examined. And findings in civil suits can play an evidentiary role - if only circumstantial - in criminal proceedings, which is why, if they are prejudicial against the state's case, prosecutors seek to delay civil cases until after related criminal cases are tried. At least, in my understanding, that's what usually happens in the U.S.
The city of Louisville can be subpoenaed to testify why the municipality settled a "wrongful death" lawsuit rather than fight it in court if the relevant evidence was exculpatory. No, Benkei, I think your interpretation of "the facts" misses the forest for the trees.
Maybe @Ciceronianus the White will take a moment to opine here, given his long legal experience, and clear up any confusions on this matter.
Many of which can not be led back sufficiently clearly to actions by the cops. There are a variety of contributory factors, many of which are not proximate causes and ought to be dismissed.
Again, on the basis of the facts available to the jury, this was the only conclusion they could reach. That further investigations would unearth additional evidence is neither here nor there. You cannot ask the jury to indict on facts not available to them.
Edit: if your complaint is the prosecutors have taken a wrong turn and should've pursued a different strategy, I think that's a different discussion.
Benkei doesn't seem to understand that a grand jury (for deciding whether or not to indict suspects on the sole basis of the prosecution's 'theory of case' without any cross-examination of evidence or witnesses) is not the same body as a trial jury (for deciding whether or not to convict defendents) in the American judicial system. The prosecutor apparently chose to make the case for the police who killed Breonna Taylor as if he was their defense attorney rather than the attorney for the public, which includes Ms. Taylor's interests.
Quoting Benkei
:shade:
This isn't correct.
Facts that are discovered in a civil suit can be used in a criminal suit, but a "finding" cannot, at least to the extent you're using that term to mean an official determination by the jury. That is to say, the fact that a prior jury reached a particular result cannot be used in a subsequent legal proceeding to prove that fact. Juries don't bind one another and their prior finding cannot be used to sway a second jury.
The reason that it might make sense to settle a civil wrongful death suit but not prosecute the same matter in the criminal context is because civil cases have a much lower burden of proof than criminal ones. The fact that I might be able to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (>50% likelihood) the officers acted improperly doesn't mean I can prove the same beyond a reasonable doubt (~99% likely).
Civil cases are often delayed until after the criminal case for a number of reasons. A major reason is because those charged with crimes have a 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination, which means they have the right to refuse to answer any question posed of them about anything related to the crime. Once the criminal matter is dispensed with, the person may speak freely without fear that what he says will be used against him and land him in jail. Another reason they are delayed is that the prosecutor is not required to provide anything from his file pursuant to an opens records request while there is a pending investigation. Once that is cleared, all that information can be shared.
Civil suits are settled all the time for reasons unrelated to whether there is a belief that a jury will award a higher amount (or any amount) if the case is tried. Corporations (and likely cities and police departments as well) are worried about PR as much as anything else.
Since it is the prosecutor alone who presents matters to grand juries, it takes very little to obtain an indictment or to have the case dismissed (no billed). The real question isn't whether the prosecutor could have gotten indictments on every charge had he wanted, but whether he could have ultimately obtained convictions on them. It is ethically improper to use the courtrooms as theatre to appease the masses, and ultimately all that would have happened is that today's riots would have been postponed for tomorrow's acquittal. I can't blame a prosecutor for dismissing a case he knows he's going to lose, and I can't excuse a prosecutor for prosecuting someone he knows he can't convict just because he wants to makes the citizens clamoring for a trial happy.
Happily, I've never been involved in criminal law proceedings.
But it's my understanding that grand juries know only what they've come to know through the direction of prosecutors. Also, as Hanover notes, there's a substantial difference between the burden of proof in civil and criminal actions. I know of nothing which prohibits the introduction in a criminal case of evidence submitted in a civil case, though for all I know the rules on admissibility of evidence may differ in criminal court. I know of nothing which would make findings of fact by a civil jury binding on a jury in another case, civil or criminal.
I really don't see where I've argued any of that. All I said was that the prosecutor made the correct decision if his judgment was not to seek charges that could not be proven at trial. I'm sure there are many like you who'd convict, but I trust the prosecutor to know his jurisdiction and the law that's going to be charged. I'm reminded of the forced prosecution in the Trayvon Martin case due to public outcry over the local prosecutor's initial decision not to prosecute. What did the trial and acquittal get us?
If what happened was that the police were at the home legally via a warrant and the occupants were in the home legally because that's where they resided, then both had the right to protect their right to be there. Neither were at fault. I'd say the same thing if the police officer had been killed. It's a terrible tragedy, but that doesn't mean a crime was committed.
Falling off a bike and getting hit by a car is a 'terrible tragedy'. Sending allegedly trained officers with lethal weapons to barge into a wrongly targeted house and executing an innocent person is not.
Leaked memos reveal a murder victim was found in the trunk of Breona Taylor’s rental car back in 2016. I suspect some cops leaked it to discredit the victim. How does this factor into the narrative, if at all? Will they say his name?
I've not delved that deeply into the facts, so I'm not ready to arrive at a judgment, but if the facts show that these officers were provided a search warrant to execute and they followed the law in an effort to perform their job, and the occupants were truly confused as to who was entering the home and that resulted in a shoot out, it's very difficult for me to find any malicious intent on the part of anyone, and I don't even see any negligence in that situation.
Who are you charging with this crime, the officers or those who sent them into the house?
If I can use systemic classism to keep black people from gaining any real power, then I can make them flip out at the unjustice of it and justify whatever systemic racism that I want by pointing only at them flipping out, while hiding my provocation.
?? Link ?? Horrible if made up but if not INCREDIBLY relevant.
Again, claims need to be verified.
Quoting StreetlightX
:100:
Quoting Benkei
Reread my previous posts and my replies below. I stand by what I wrote.
I appreciate the correction. I wasn't as careful with the terms as I thought. The civil complaint never went to trial so there was no "finding"; my point was that the municipality itself has, advised by counsel, affirmed that Ms. Taylor's killing was a "wrongful death" for which Louisville police officers, and by extension as civil servants the municiplity, were "responsible". Of course, not determinative of criminal "cause" but certainly enough of a circumstantial predicate to warrant an indictment, no?
Understood. It's a judgment call. But the prosecutor is also a politician, and many times the question of whether or not to indict is just as political as it is jurisprudential. Anyway, thanks, Hanover.
Also thanks.
Yes. I didn't focus enough on this discrepancy.
Quoting 180 Proof
Keeping the facts straight... The warrant issued by the judge at the request of other officers was a no knock warrant. That means the officers executing the warrant were not personally familiar with the facts underlying the warrant, were not responsible for the validity of the information in obtaining it, and we're under no legal requirement to announce their presence prior to serving it. .https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2020/06/30/fact-check-police-had-no-knock-warrant-breonna-taylor-apartment/3235029001/.
Since this incident, that police department has banned no knock warrants. But the facts as we have them are that a no knock warrant was issued, the officers claim they announced anyway, and a grand jury, that actually heard from the witnesses, concluded the officers did announce.
The article above lays out the facts. The officers were serving a warrant issued by a judge. They knocked. An occupant in the home fired a shot through the closed door and hit an officer in the leg. The door was knocked down and the officers fired back. Their purpose was in self defense and in an effort to serve the warrant, which they were obligated to do under order of the judge.
I would presume forensics could determine if the shot fired was through the door while closed, which should lay to rest concerns the occupants didn't know the officers were outside the locked door prior to entry, which can only be explained if the officers had knocked.
"While the department had received court approval for a “no-knock” entry, the orders were changed before the raid to “knock and announce,” meaning that the police had to identify themselves."
- you'll notice that my citation of the publicly reported facts are in order, counselor.
Indeed. I stand corrected. But keeping the facts straight is difficult, which makes these issues complicated because conclusions can depend upon subtle distinctions.
With a burden as high as "beyond a reasonable doubt" advantage weighs heavily to the accused where there is confusion.
You seem to be taking the position that the police would have been unjustified if the warrant were based upon fully valid facts, the occupants of the home posed a risk to public safety, and an occupant openly tried to kill the officer trying to serve the warrant.
I did. Your issue seems to be with the prosecutors and not the decision of the jury, which I was explaining appeared to be the correct one. Both explanations can exist next to each other but you seemed to be disagreeing with my assessment on the jury decision, even going so far as claiming I can't tell the difference between a trial and an indictment. Good to know you stand by that too.
I'm pretty certain these cops are guilty of at least manslaughter and it pivots on proving what happened around the knock and announce.
Given the evidence known, you cannot conclude probable cause because the likelihood of lies isn't sufficient. It's the right call, legally speaking.
Interesting questions because they point to what appears to be significant differences in Dutch vs American law.
Witness testimony, and evidence generally, that benefits the accused is almost never suppressed. I say "almost" because there might be cases of absurd scientific testimony or the like that can be excluded, but the general rule in civil and criminal matters is that the fact finder (typically the jury) makes all determinations of credibility. The jury gets to determine what weight to give to any witnesses testimony. If a judge comments on the witnesses truthfulness in the jury's presence, that would be grounds for a mistrial. Trustworthiness is a jury question.
In practice, the Grand Jury does whatever the prosecutor asks them to do. It's pretty much a rubber stamp. They offer political cover in instances where the prosecutor doesn't want to dismiss a case under his own name. They do not provide a reasonable protection against unjust indictments.
One shot by the man in the apartment, thirty shots by the police is what I've heard.
Yes, the cops lied.
Again, Hanover, thanks for your professionally informed clarification and for corroborating my statement to our Dutch friend that "prosecutors instruct grand juries".
Quoting Benkei
And yet you persisted in arguing with me. :roll:
True, not an attorney like you (& some others), but in the late '90s & oughts I'd worked as a paralegal (mostly, but not exclusively, in financial firms) and thereby know just enough about the American Injustice System to be dangerous. Feel free, counselor, to go back and reread any or all of my posts on the Breonna Taylor police killing (Michael Brown, Eric Garner, et al redux) in light of your and Hanover's remarks in this post. Sláinte!
With respect to the specific details of how evidence is treated I asked a specific question. Meanwhile, it's pretty clear you just want read into what I wrote what you want to read in it. Nothing you said actually contradicts the original point that the grand jury could not reach a different conclusion than it did, based on the evidence that is publicly available. The two US based lawyers confirmed that but for some reason you've a problem with that coming from me.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that the purpose of the grand jury is to afford the accused protections against meritless prosecution, and the injustice stemming from it being a rubber stamp is that indictments might be issued that ought not be, not that prosecutors might use grand juries as political cover to dismiss cases they're afraid to dismiss under their own signature.
The question I ask you is whether you would push for an indictment in this case.
I'd think your answer would depend upon whether you think you have a chance of obtaining a conviction, which would require a thorough evaluation of the facts and law and knowledge of your jurisdiction. Whether this case involves the tragic loss of innocent life and implicates the justice system as racist notwithstanding, if your indictment amounts to nothing more than a dog and pony show for a demanding public, what exactly have you accomplished with a well tried acquittal? I remain unconvinced this is a winnable case even should I be able to walk in your very shoes with all your experience and years of frustration at seeing those closest to you treated as less, but neither you nor I can ignore the pragmatic reality that this case might be unwinnable as a homicide.
It's the prosecutor himself who can decide to prosecute in the absence of a grand jury indictment. And he won't in this case because as it appears to me it pivots on whether you can prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the cops lied about the knock and announce. I know what I believe to be the case but convincing a jury about the truth behind conflicting witness statements is just not going to lead to a conviction.
Quoting Benkei
On what grounds do you believe that the prosecutor presented the grand jury with all of "the" relevant, incriminating (if any), "available evidence"? Or that grand juries "reach conclusions" other than those presented them to, as Hanover points out, "rubber stamp"? What, Benkei, do you know that I and others here don't know about the U.S. grand jury system that you've already confessed to knowing nothing about?
edit: also, you answered my question with 3 questions. So if we're going to play that game...
But see below: the ABA code of ethics for prosecutors:
"Standard 3-4.6 Quality and Scope of Evidence Before a Grand Jury
(a) A prosecutor should not seek an indictment unless the prosecutor reasonably believes the charges are supported by probable cause and that there will be admissible evidence sufficient to support the charges beyond reasonable doubt at trial. A prosecutor should advise a grand jury of the prosecutor’s opinion that it should not indict if the prosecutor believes the evidence presented does not warrant an indictment."
And see:
"Standard 3-4.3 Minimum Requirements for Filing and Maintaining Criminal Charges
(a) A prosecutor should seek or file criminal charges only if the prosecutor reasonably believes that the charges are supported by probable cause, that admissible evidence will be sufficient to support conviction beyond a reasonable doubt, and that the decision to charge is in the interests of justice."
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/standards/ProsecutionFunctionFourthEdition/
Trials are for verdicts, not for crowd control.
https://spectrumnews1.com/ky/lexington/news/2020/09/27/uofl-samuel-marcosson-breonna-taylor
So all of "the available facts" are still not out and there's no reason to assume they were presented to the grand jury. Don't suspect a "cover-up"? Okay. The truth will come out (as it usually does). You've already confessed to being ignorant of the US grand jury system and incorrigible with respect to information at odds with your ignorance. Also okay. Consider the news article linked here. Quibble on if you must, Benkei, we'll revisit this matter when the "cover-up" is exposed for the miscarriage of justice that it is and the suspects are charged. For now, let's agree to disagree.
I'm not sure how the perjury surrounding the warrant would affect the probable cause for 2nd degree murder though. The causality between that and the shooting is pretty tenuous. Acting wantonly requires the defendant to be aware of and consciously disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk. Presumably, he should then have been aware of the risk of shooting an innocent at the moment he lied in the affidavit. Proving awareness and conscious disregard with respect to that seems impossible due to the remoteness between the two circumstances.
I also think Walker's shot would be a supervening event breaking whatever causal chain you could establish from the perjury.
I think it's important to remember the law is not about justice - it's policy expressed in law. Not every miscarriage of justice can be fixed in the court room. Not until a lot of laws change. And that will be too late for Breonna Taylor.
Quoting 180 Proof
An anonymous Grand Juror files suit to compel the Prosecutor's office to release transcripts of the secret Grand Jury Proceedings concerning the police raid on the deceased Breonna Taylor's apartment with which a Judge agreed and ordered yesterday (Sept. 28, 2020) in the interest of transparency and public confidence with the State's investigation of the role of the police officers in Ms. Taylor's death. The disclosure of charges considered or not considered and evidence presented or not presented by the Prosecutor to the Grand Jury will be released tomorrow (Sept. 30, 2020). :point:
https://www.courier-journal.com/story/news/local/breonna-taylor/2020/09/28/grand-juror-files-suit-seeking-release-transcript-breonna-taylor-case/3568388001/
The Prosecutor's 'theory of the case' which secured only a single indictment for charges of "wanton endangerment" will be shown to have been justified or not justified shortly. Someone tell me what I'm missing.
It sounds like a grand juror watched the news and compared it what they heard in the grand jury room and felt their decision would have been different had they heard what was on the news. If this results in new charges being brought, the question will be whether the evidence was withheld from the grand jury because (1) the prosecutor is well aware that the additional charges will not result in convictions, or (2) the prosecutor wanted to protect the police officers who he has a cozy relationship with.
If #1, this is stupid. If #2, justice will prevail. I'll stayed tuned for the outcome, but I have my prediction.
For the record, I do think if it's #1, the prosecutor shouldn't have tried to hide behind the grand jury to do his dirty work, but he just should have stepped up to the podium, explained his decision as to what he was going to charge, and dealt with the consequences. Or, he could have provided the grand jury every scrap of evidence and offered his opinion as to what they ought to do. Leadership involves making difficult and unpopular decisions sometimes and now he has to deal with lack of transparency allegations.
I don't like the use of grand juries. I hope a complete record is produced (I don't know the details of the Judge's decision). If it doesn't make clear whether the result of the proceeding was just, I hope it will at least serve to demonstrate the flawed and potentially perverse (a sort of prosecutorial perversion of the course of justice) nature of this tool available to the state.
https://www.democracynow.org/2020/9/30/headlines/kentucky_ag_didnt_recommend_murder_charges_for_breonna_taylors_killers
... thus, more grounds for suspicion of the grand jury proceeding. Transcripts / audio recordings of the prosecutor's case made (& not made) to the grand jury to be released on Friday, Oct. 2nd.
update:
Addendum
Uh... You know it looks bad and you do it anyway?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/oct/20/breonna-taylor-grand-juror-homicide-charges
99% of the arguments against systemic racism seem to be based on a misapprehension of what the term means. e.g. Ben Shapiro made a long video that essentially contained one argument: that there is no shady cabal conspiring to keep black people down.
Well, sorry Ben, but even assuming your assertion is true, that's not what systemic racism means.
It just means that a particular group or institution unfairly racially discriminates for whatever reason. No conspiracy or nefarious plan required. So it's enough to just show different treatment by banks, police etc (possibly correcting for things like income disparities, depending on what data we're looking at).
Is the point you want the prosecutor to prosecute any way so that this is all further investigated during the trial?
I don't know how it works in the USA but in the Netherlands a prosecutor decides on whether and what to prosecute independently. You can petition the court to force the prosecutor to prosecute a case he refused to prosecute earlier. Is this option open in the USA as well?
Based on the information that is publicly available, I don't expect homicide charges to stick either. So either there's non-public evidence or the case has not been sufficiently investigated yet and there's more evidence out there. The last two articles you shared don't seem to be about that though.
And it means that society in general either accepts it, isn't aware of it, or condemns it, but doesnt know what to do about it.
I think it means it rises out of history so that it just seems like part of the social furniture.
:up: The key thing to add here is perpetuates; what makes systemic racism 'systemic' is the perpetuation of racial inequality, it's reproduction in time and space (rather than just some kind of sheer quantitative degree of discrimination - although these things go hand in hand). But yeah, the conspiracy stuff is nuts.
Quoting 180 Proof
Maybe a little clearer how criminal injustice work in this Banana Republican country:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/10/29/us/breonna-taylor-grand-jurors/index.html
@Hanover @Ciceronianus the White @180 Proof Can you force the prosecutor to redo a grand jury process?
can’t enslave a group for approximately four centuries, “free” them, and expect them to get put on the same exact level to succeed and grow just as the free people who never were in that condition in the first place, amongst harmful stereotypes and arrogant prejudice.
That's a criminal law issue, and I've been fortunate enough to avoid that in my practice. I doubt it, though, as grand juries in my limited understanding are merely tools of prosecutors, which they may pick up and drop as they choose. I hope I'm wrong.
You can't force a prosecutor to prosecute. They are elected officials, so the pressure you can exert upon them can only be political. Not only can you not require a prosecutor to prosecute, he can dismiss (nolle prosequi) whatever indictments a grand jury hands down.
For those very limited instances where you can force a public official to act (or not act), you can read up on writ of mandamus. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandamus#:~:text=Mandamus%20%28%22We%20command%22%29%20is%20a%20judicial%20remedy%20in,and%20in%20certain%20cases%20one%20of%20a%20
Grand juries were never meant to assure the general public the right to have all potential crime investigated and then have them decide who will be prosecuted. It's not a general protection for the average citizen to be sure criminals are prosecuted. The Constitution's provisions related to grand juries (the 5th Amendment) protects an accused from the state, not the general citizenry from prosecutors who don't wish to prosecute.
What we have in this case is a prosecutor who realizes, as a public official, that his boss (so to speak) are the voters and he doesn't want to do something that might get him fired. So what he's done is instead of just refusing to prosecute the cops, he's manipulated the grand jury to do his dirty work and issue a no bill on the most significant charges. The prosecutor's efforts to blame the grand jury for the lack of indictments was exposed when a grand juror pointed out how little information she was provided.
All this means is that the prosecutor and the prosecutor alone thought the charges would not lead to a conviction, and he used the grand jury as cover. We need to stop worrying about what the grand jury did or didn't do and what it knew or didn't know. The question is whether the charges could be successfully proved beyond a reasonable doubt. This prosecutor thought not. He should have just said that.
Thus, the apparent - perhaps substantial - injustice: in the U.S., Police Murder nonwhite (& poor white) citizens With Impunity. Re: Breonna Taylor, Walter Wallace, Jacob Blake, et al
However, none of that is proof that the assessment that homicide charges could not be proved is wrong.
As I set out before, only if you can prove the cops lied about the knock and announce do you have a chance to do convict for homicide charges but there's only one witness who flip-flopped on that outside the 3 cops. And not hearing anything isn't proof it didn't happen. So you're never going to get beyond a reasonable doubt on this unless there's evidence we don't know about.
So yes, based on the available facts I have no reason to believe not prosecuting homicides is the wrong call.
Even assuming the US criminal justice system is riddled with racial injustice, nothing you've said leads me to believe an aggressive prosecutor would secure a conviction in this matter. That is to say, it's entirely possible, and even likely, that the prosecutor's instinct in this case to limit the charges against the officers was correct, even if he hid behind the grand jury to do it, and even if he is a closet screaming racist.
Prosecutors are bound by ethical rules that prohibit them from pressing charges they can't win, even if that deprives the public of feeling there is justice for the victims by just having a trial. I'd submit you overestimate the comfort anyone will receive from an acquittal.
>Prosecutors are bound by ethical rules that prohibit them from pressing charges they can't win
Such as? The entire US justice system would grind to a halt and collapse if all, or even half the accused demanded trials. A pillar of American prosecutorial strategy is to overcharge people and use the threat of hefty penalties to secure guilty or nolo contendere charges. For example, only 2% of cases in the Federal system go to trial. Prosecutors readily admit to this strategy. You bring cases you likely can't win as common practice, because the risk to the accused if they are convicted will by high enough to compel a plea. You use the plea to give them the lesser punishment you think they deserve.
However, politics and ambition are involved too, so it's not uncommon that prosecutors will be more/less aggressive based on personal gain or political considerations. The fact that the Feds don't go after marijuana producers in states where it is legal is an example where prosecutorial discretion based on political decision has functionally rewritten the law as exercised. Those are winnable cases they don't pursue. Charging all the protestors who went to the Kentucky AG's house to protest the Breonna Taylor case with felonies was making unwinnable charges to punish and threaten people. An unwinnable case they did pursue, before reversing thanks to politics.
Politics are key. 88 unarmed people sitting on the AG's lawn? 88 felonies as a statement; taking away their right to bear arms or vote. Dozens of armed protestors on the Kentucky governor's lawn to protest social distancing, pointing weapons at the house and hanging the governor in effigy to protest social distancing requirements? No charges.
Having worked in local government for years, no case against police is ever apolitical. Even bar room fights.
In 2012, the federal conviction rate was 92%. That was admittedly a very high year, but the suggestion that crimes are being prosecuted that would only lose if taken to trial probably isn't true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conviction_rate
Quoting Count Timothy von Icarus
I don't see any ethical problem with not prosecuting winnable cases, but to the extent any unwinnable case is prosecuted, that is an ethical violation. If you have examples where the prosecutor knew there was reasonable doubt and prosecuted anyway, that was unethical. Whether the system is riddled with unethical behavior doesn't change what is and isn't ethical.
Check page 12 of Wikipedia's source. 26% of jury trials and 36% of all trials (judge + jury) result in no conviction.
High conviction rates are secured by forcing pleas in the overwhelming majority of cases. This makes the system work much more efficiently and cheaply, but it also has created a system where heavy potential punishment is used to force pleas from innocent people.
This isn't "some prosecutors do it," the plea system is an integral part of how the US justice system works at a basic level.
I think the third season of the podcast Serial, even just the first episode is a pretty good close up of how the system works in benign cases.
These are criminals you are talking about with court cases, they should go to jail and get a heavy sentence.
i.e. Holocaust (... round earth, safe effacious vaccines, moon landings, Jim Crow segregation & lynchings, etc) denial redux. I guess self-described "racists" like David Duke et al are 'bogeyman' figments of their own fevered imaginations? And all survivors of so-called "racist" discrimination & violence are just opportune liars? :shade:
That's a bold claim. You don't believe that people face discrimination because of their race? You don't believe that there is racially motivated violence?
I have been turned away from local education options as a result of my colour, I was refused to even be allowed to apply to the program: "No. Only ------ people can apply. you can go to school 3000km away instead." I have not been allowed to apply to jobs; wrong gender.
I am not frustrated with the people who were allowed to apply for these programs or jobs, not at all. Good for them for getting in, or landing the job. But how exactly does denying me, or anyone else, the option to apply somehow diminish someone else? I would suspect that the reverse would be more accurate. I do not want an education program to accept me simply because of my gender or ancestry. Nor would I want a job awarded to me based on my gender. I have had classmates who were awarded the same certificates I have achieved, classmates that did not achieve the required grades to obtain said certificates, and yet were awarded them anyway, to enhance the diversity of the graduating class. This demeans all of the achievements of everyone that earned their certifications. This is the systemic racism and sexism that is pervasive in government and institutions.
Yes, individuals can, and frequently, make discriminatory comments, or actions that effect others, however to have a truly divisive effect on society we can look to the government as the source of deep seeded frustration based on perceived inequalities of treatment and opportunities. That is the fundamental source of discrimination.
This article supports my thesis nicely. It attempts to explain why we need these programs, and why/how the resentment is somehow wrong, and at no point interviews anyone who has actually been turned away as a result of these programs, thereby allowing the writer to use expressions like "allegedly" or the title "Myth of reverse racism", rather than acknowledging it is even a reality. Denial is not a helpful starting point for any valuable conversation.
If I deny what others say, and they refuse to accept my experiences as valid, there is a minimal chance that we make any progress forward.
So despite affirmative action the US is still racist enough to not let that deter itself from promoting white people more easily than people of colour, meaning systemic racism, you know, the REAL kind, not the perceived slights you claim to have experienced - is very much alive and well.
Or take a bit pessimistic view, it's the only way the whole system could handle the vast number of cases. Otherwise it simply wouldn't work. You can argue that it is hence "more efficient and cheaper".
[1] https://www.vox.com/2016/5/25/11682950/fisher-supreme-court-white-women-affirmative-action
[2] https://www.businessinsider.com/welfare-policy-created-white-wealth-largely-leaving-black-americans-behind-2020-8
I think it's dangerous to fall into the trap of "differences between group outcomes = discrimination."
For example:
This comes from a good place, but it is quite literally instructions to take correlation as causation. Group outcomes will vary when groups are different. "Diversity is our strength," would be meaningless if all people were the same.
Although people generally won't say it, when they are presented with evidence of an unfair society in terms of ratios, they will internally fall back on the conventionally unspeakable explanations of "superior" culture and genetics. Causal mechanisms take more time to explain, but will work better at changing minds. African Americans performing worse economically being the result of "cultural deficits," is an essential Republican talking point now, and "biological explanations," have been allowed to make a comeback, I'd argue, because discussing what we actually know about them has become fraught even in the academy.
The frustrating thing for me is that:
A. The new brand of "race realists" don't know what they're talking about but aren't properly rebutted.
B. Classical liberalism already had fine arguments for not treating people based on what you think you know about the mean attributes of whatever groups they fall into.
I suppose the other problem is that "Wokeness" as an ideology has a bad habit of taking what it wants from positivist social sciences, and then flipping to critical theory whenever it suits an argument. The issue being is that people are going to get turned off from the arguments because it's essentially psuedoscience. As with psychoanalysis, any objections to its claims can be explained within the theory (e.g. White Fragility, Internalized Oppression). Failure to accept dogma is a sign of a problem internal to the individual. Claims are essentially unfalsifiable. This isn't a blanket condemnation, just a popular thread in a broader social movement for reforms that I think hamstring the larger movement.
For example, police use of deadly force in the infamous Harvard study isn't actually unbiased, as the study suggests, because the control variables vary systematically with demographics. You have to remove controls. But then the death penalty is racist, despite being massively disproportionate in killing White people over the past 50 years, because if controls are introduced it shows bias. Either way is fine to look at an issue, but the goal of regression analysis is to hone in on causal methods, and hopefully test them experimentally, not to pile up a scientific gloss on a theory that also rejects positivism whenever necessary. Not to mention, rather than tie yourself into knots rebutting a single study, you could just remind people of the replication crisis...
At least that's where I think people get turned around. Stories and causal explanations are harder to deflect.
Cheaper to prosecute at least. The American prison system is horrendously expensive and also ineffective on terms of recidivism, undercutting more global arguments for "efficiency."
Hitler killed the jews because they were socialists and he believed they began socialism. Because of this, to him he was stopping the rise of communism and the killing of all smart Germans like what happened in Russia. You can see it to this day with how the IQ in those countries is several points lower than in places that never suffered communism.
They were lynched because they did a crime and the mob was angry about it, not unlike BLM today. With them though they stopped once the wrong-doing was dealt with but with BLM 3 months after the police officers were charged they continue rioting.
It says on your profile that you describe yourself as a "non-player gamer". You seem to be an NPC as well.
I think people can but I wouldn't consider it "racism" just being an asshole or playing favorites. That or they are hiring the best person for the job unlike how it may appear. Companies hire close to evenly anyway on average for whites and blacks. If you have no criminal-record then there are slightly better odds if you are white but with a criminal record it's slightly better to be black. For violence, they probably do have hatred in their heart and it's unfortunate that they were influenced and/or born that way. Could be also motivated by different things or even be one of those "hate crime hoaxes".
I too recall the part in the Holocaust where the reasonable Nazis said "enough is enough." If only BLM was as reasonable. Alas, the battle is lost for us friend. Best to flee to your bunker now before Biden invokes socialist Sharia law.
Ah, I see, so Hitler painted the walls of his bunker with his brains because he was a National SOCIALIST too ... Gotcha. :ok: :roll:
Antisemitism in Christianity (Wikipedia)
Adam Weishaupt (Wikipedia)
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion (Wikipedia)
The New World Order (Robertson book) (Wikipedia)
Conspiracy theory (Wikipedia)
Mental pollution, fear, hatred, zeal ... turned Us-versus-Them is a favorite pass-time of some people.
Neurotic apes doing our thing?
[tweet]https://twitter.com/jdfaithcomics/status/1031722253266771968?lang=en[/tweet]
Well, John McWhorter describes this as a religion. It's not open for debate, but a belief system where everybody criticizing it obviously is a racist.
Based on your pro-Nazi screed earlier, I assume you'd do better at /pol/ or 8kun, lovely places I got to observe at my old job, no beta cuck simps at all!
The French set half of Paris and more on fire and tore down fucking everything, and lo and behold, the ruling party are promising a change to their shitty law restricting people from filming the police.
Lesson to be learned: set shit on fire and break everything and fuck those who whine about 'riots'. The ruling class needs to learn how to fear.
Black folks in America have always been anti-fascists (Antifa!), such as during WWII and, especially black women, in 2018-2020 mobilized against The tRump Putsch.
"I don't care what color you are as long as you go up there and kill those Kraut sons of bitches."
~General George S. Patton, upon calling up the all-Black 761st Tank Battalion for duty in the fall of 1944
https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/30/opinions/blinken-stepfather-761st-black-soldiers-holmes/index.html
Black Lives Also Matter.
:death: :flower:
I bet even y'all "muricans" can guess which man wasn't
white. :brow:
I guess there is a country which is even more racist than U.S. and it’s Japan.
Probably we all already heard of Japan as a good educational country and “developed” due to their “culture”. They are lying. They are more racist than US and Europe. If you are not Japanese or don’t have a white skin you have to give up because you are not welcome there.
Also it is a country full of bad prejudices. They are always showing to your face they are better and a powerful rich nation while “you” are just backwards citizen.
They way they are acting some people say it is cute and they have education but at the end of the day is racist. You can check it in some symbolism in anime or manga too. All theforeigners are black or criminals. I remember some Latino friends of mine were very interesting in Japan and when they were there Japanese people told them real Spanish comes only from Spain. Ignorance and systemic racism.
Sometimes we idealised countries which end up acting bad towards us. It isn’t only in the US.
I was in Arkansas, Texas, Missouri, Illinois and Wisconsin and never heard a problem due to my Hispanic skin.
Germany? Hmm no. US? Hmm no. France? Hmm no... yes this nazi convention is in Tokyo.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/apr/25/minneapolis-police-race-violence-justice-department-investigation
If US police departments are systemically racist, then the US police-state is systemically racist as even a glance at US history shows.
(4.20.21) Guilty. Guilty. Guilty....
However, one instance of accountability does not A Just Society make. :fire:
https://www.google.com/books/edition/Intelligence_and_Human_Progress/lqvT06pDU1MC?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=%22How+much+did+Pol+Pot+do+to+lower+the+mean+IQ+of+the+Cambodian+people%3F%22&pg=PA40&printsec=frontcover
For what it's worth, I think that a left-wing "race realist" who supports a generous social safety net and opposes racial discrimination has a more compassionate position on this issue than a colorblind conservative who believes that certain groups underperform as a result of their own moral defects *that they are personally capable of changing* as opposed to as a result of factors that are truly out of their own control.
Does it operate significantly differently in other developed countries?
Hence the US having 25% of the world's prison population but only 4% of the population. The US abandoned a trial system of justice and the results speak for themselves.
If 96.4% of criminal cases ending in pleas sounds like a justice system that is too good to be true and is rigging its system and punishing citizens harshly for exercising their right to a trial, you would be correct.
Back in 1945 less than 70% of cases ended with pleas. We essentially abolished trials.
These are the same people who cry "cancel culture" every other day right? :chin:
This "...interesting truth..." I refer to can be understood in terms of the so-called Three-Strikes Law
[quote=Baseball]Three strikes and you are out.[/quote]
The rationale is not so clear but here I'll offer my own for criticism.
1. First offense: An honest mistake. Forgiven!
2. Second offense: Circumstances were such that committing the offense couldn't be avoided. Forgiven!
3. Third offense: Assume as deliberate, wilfull violation of an ethical code. Not forgiven!
Can we somehow, is it reasonable, to give racism a second look in the context of the Three-Strikes law? Is this humanity's third strike? If it isn't there's still hope, right? People would let the centuries of slavery and racist ideologies slide because, let's face it, we didn't know any better. If the current racism phenomenon is the "third strike", we really need to do something about it, and pronto! After all, every possible reason to excuse it (strikes one and two) is no longer a valid one. :chin:
I'll probably regret making this post! :sad:
Here we go again. Another Western European crying about how things are in America, when the country they live in is less diverse and has more whites in positions of privilege percentage-wise than the country they are whining about. What are you doing to fight white privilege in your own country, Benkei?
How is All Lives Matter an opposing view to BLM? It includes the idea that black lives matter, not opposing it, but doesn't make a distinction about race or skin color, like racists do.
Funny how BLM got all bent out of shape when others asserted that All Lives Matter, but when Asian Lives Matter and Jewish Lives Matter started, no one said a word. So it turns out that not only black lives matter, but others do as well. Leaving out certain people because of the color of their skin, as if their lives don't matter, is racist, period. It's the very idea that BLM is supposedly fighting against. It's fighting racism with racism.
Because it's a tone-deaf dog whistle used by morons who couldn't read a room if their lives depended on it. No one said only BLM. They said BLM. They said BLM because blacks are an oppressed minority. Once whites become a minority, are enslaved, have all their property stripped away from them, their families torn apart, a war fought to free them, their former owners reinstated to their black privilege after the war, are subjected to Chad Crow, lynching's, burnings, beatings, ghettos, voter suppression, white-on-white violence due to lack of opportunity brought on by black privilege, then we can talk about WLM. But in the mean time, to paraphrase a meme, you don't walk across the street and interrupt the fire fighters while they are fighting a fire in your neighbor's house and say "Hey, what about my house? All houses matter!"
All lives may matter but only an idiot would say that in the midst of a conversation about some lives. That's how "All Lives Matter" is an opposing view to BLM. It's a dummy interrupting a conversation with an irrelevant truth. "BLM!" "Really? How about them Broncos! Did you see that rain last night?"
They not only take more time to explain, but it's a hard row to hoe when those your are trying to explain it to don't want to hear it (truth is inconvenient) or are too stupid to understand it.
Alright so how do you want us to convey this truth to our nation's students? You want all those newly-anointed poor black victims to be thinking "never forgive, never forget." You want to build up a people? Maybe focus on the ways that they've succeeded.
We can teach them the facts of atrocities, sure, but the teaching of history is never "just the facts."
We teach history, not with stupid statues venerating the enemy, but by telling them of the horrors inflicted upon the bones under the very feet they stand on.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You mean like the Jews? Look, the black victims are not "newly-anointed." And they don't need to be told what to think. They know, better than anyone. What they need is a level playing field. And don't tell me you can kick a man for ever, stop kicking, let him get up and have access to what you have and there you have it, a level playing field. That's more BS perpetrators trying to let themselves off the hook. "Oh, let's move on! Let bygones be bygones. We're all good now, right?" Tale about white privilage.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You mean like the Jews having been given a state, and umpteen billion dollars and then making something of themselves? Sounds good. Let's start with that. Then we can focus on how blacks succeed without cherry picking anecdotes like Herman Cain and whoever that brain surgeon is.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
We don't need to teach "them." We need to teach our selves. But "we" find many facts "inconvenient" and uncomfortable.
The central lesson of Jewish history and the cultural message should never be taught as "never forgive, never forget" and if you think that's how Jews teach their own history then you're clueless (I am speaking as someone who went through a considerable Jewish education.)
Quoting James Riley
But black people aren't just black. Is that all they are? A victimized skin color? Are they right to declare themselves -- as complex persons -- victims? Is that how it works -- if there's one aspect of me that's victimized do I get to declare myself a victim and say "never forgive, never forget" to all those evil oppressors?
Quoting James Riley
You're the one telling them to think of themselves as victims.
Quoting James Riley
Our public schools do. Unless you just want separate black education.
Maybe they are all about forgiveness, but I often hear their statement "never forget." And, whether they agree with it or not, I think it's a good idea. Those who forget the past are bound to repeat it. If we don't make perps pay, they will gladly forget it. By the way, how many Jews failed to forgive the Nazi POS that murdered Jews? I think they are still hunting them down now. Why not just forgive?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Whatever they are is not for you to say. The question is, what are you? Are you a victimized skin color for feeling put-upon by those who support black push-back?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That seems to be the way a lot of the majority feel about it. They declare themselves victims of the evil left, put-upon for their privilege, the theft of their Christmas, the "woe is me commies are commie to hold me accountable for the sins of my fathers blah blah blah, whine, whine whine." Why don't they man up, take a seat already. Broaden their shoulders and try pulling their brother up instead of bitching all the time about "teach a man to fish" etc.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not telling them shit. I'm trying to get my own to quit being little babies.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Our public schools should, but don't. Were you taught about the recently-in-the-new Oklahoma massacre? I wasn't. Now that it's finally working it's way into the news we have a bunch of conservatives whining about the "re-writing" of history. Jeesh! STFU already. Our founding fathers came up with public education but boy is that a drag for the right. They are afraid of the truth and love their alternative facts.
Sure - don't forget, but also don't base your whole mentality around it. The Nazi hunters are all dead now and last one died out around a decade ago, it's just not a thing anymore in the Jewish community. I don't remember the last time I heard it mentioned. We should "never forget" events like the Holocaust because there are important lessons in it apart from the incredibly obvious "they went after the Jews!" There's really so many other important lessons about humanity revealed in studies of the Holocaust. There's definitely a strand of the "never forgive, never forget" attitude in Judaism but I would regard it as toxic. Do we never forgive the German people? Seriously?
Quoting James Riley
You're right that it is not my place to tell black people what they "are." I was speaking to you as a person - a person who is a collection of traits - and I was asking you if one victimized trait makes one a victim.
I don't consider myself a victimized skin color. I've had very little to say about BLM. I've never really felt put-upon by those supporting the black push-back but if they were to get very pushy and aggressive about it I would be annoyed.
I would tell them that BLM is not my fight. I have my own fight as I'm part of a non-profit that pushes for disability rights. Even if I did join I'd just be another clueless white person marching for something they'll never understand.
Of course I want history taught honestly, but a history that presents America as being racist to the bone without any hope for black success outside of sports or entertaining is a really chilling cultural message to send. I think we can do better for our young people. Do you see how beliefs like that lead to toxic behavior? I'd certainly be toxic if that's what I was taught to me about how my people are treated in this nation. Violence becomes rational.
Quoting James Riley
I've known about the Oklahoma massacre for years because I love history, but it's been 13 or so years since I've been in a history classroom so my memory isn't too clear. We were certainly taught about slavery, how blacks were treated under Reconstruction, the Civil Rights movement, and other topics but certainly if schools aren't teaching this then that's a problem. In regard to the massacre, it's about how you present it though. "Blacks were victimized and white people in Oklahoma did horrible things." - Fine, that's true. "Black economic success is worthless because whites just tore it down" -- incredibly destructive message. Child abuse.
Straw man. Nobody is saying to base their whole mentality around anything. But in might make you feel like they are because, well, I don't know, BitconnectCarlos: Why do you feel blacks whole mentality is something? Maybe "against you"? Do you feel they are all against you? Or is it their liberal champions? Are they all out to get you?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, I guess there was no Jewish influence behind this: https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/wwii-nazi-concentration-camp-guard-removed-germany Probably just a bunch of WASPS or blacks in the Justice Dept. doing their duty.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
First, the Germans have done an outstanding job of educating themselves about their history and what their forefathers did. They don't sweep it under the rug like many (not all) whites do about slavery, Indians, etc. But let's not play "favorites" with the Holocaust. Many other horrors were perpetrated on this Earth that did not involve Jews. Blacks have suffered some of it. Let's go deep in the heart of Dixie and set up half of what the Germans have set up regarding the holocaust, deep in the heart of Germany, where it happened.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Hmmm. I was getting a paternal vibe about what we should be teaching in school or encouraging blacks to focus on. You know, like their successes that occurred in spite of, and not as a result of your way of thinking. Because, you know, you pulled yourself up by your own bootstraps and so should they.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Wait, let me get out my violin.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
And yet you are out trying to get the abled to be concerned about the rights of the disabled? Should I just be clueless about the ADA and tell those folks they need to tone it down before I get annoyed? Why don't you just focus on their anecdotal economic success stories?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Another straw man. Teaching history honestly that presents America's racism is NOT teaching that America is racist to the bone. There's that old slippery slope hyperbole BS again. You don't like what you hear so you extrapolate to worst case scenario that is not even on the table. That's why folks like me would have you just take a seat. You already said you don't have a dog in this fight. You can't see systemic racism? Fine, neither can half the blind people in this country. The mere teaching of history is offensive because, well, it must mean something "to the bone" or whatever. Jeesh!
I see how your reasoning leads to toxic behavior. You forget, "they" are not the ones who need to be taught about how our ancestors treated theirs. They know. It's US that needs to teach US about how our ancestors treated theirs. The toxicity comes from living in a country full of white privileged assholes who think systemic racism does not exist because they have not been taught about, or can't understand, or don't want to hear about causal mechanisms (tip o' the hat to Xanatos). Study causal mechanisms and you'll see it has to do with way more than slavery. There is extensive fall out.
Try applying a simple white familial example: Wife beating. Or racism. Through the generations. Someone, sometime, somewhere has to break the chain, we hope. But if some life event does not intercede, the damage can continue and compound, from generation to generation. What would make the inner-city ghetto life any different? The intercession is NOT some white bread MFr coming in with a bunch of BS about bootstraps and hard work, and suits and ties and hair cuts and whatnot. It's more along the lines of what was done to make the Jewish state a success.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Germans killed some Jews. Fine, that's true.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Yeah, where is that being taught? On the contrary, I remember being taught about black success that occurred in spite of, and not because of systemic racism.
And as to your studies of history, where did you go to school? And when did you learn that stuff? Did it start in grade school? You know, when the "American exceptionalism" has started to be pounded into the little skulls? Or later, in college? Where you deep in the heart of the conservative south when you learned all about that in public schools? Down south? Asking for myself.
Quoting James Riley
No, I went to school and grew up in an upper-middle class area of Massachusetts in the suburbs. I think they taught us US history in middle and high school. We did do a bit of history in Elementary school as well.
On to the main topic:
In any case, I just want to say if all you're asking for a type of education analogous to holocaust education that seems reasonable. I looked further into that 1919 Oklahoma massacre and it would definitely be interesting to study and understand the roots and causes of the massacre. Between 150-200 blacks were killed which makes it a very significant massacre.
You also keep accusing me of straw-manning you but I've never claimed to know or understand your exact positions so I wish you'd stop doing that. I don't know exactly what you believe. As far as I'm concerned we're not debating now, we're discussing.
Quoting James Riley
You bring up a good point here - the Germans did make serious amends over their past and they've got some very good Holocaust education over there. In other countries like Romania, Lithuania, and Latvia this is not the case. To this day I am very suspicious of Latvian and Lithuanian nationalists. I understand, maybe, to an extent -- if I was being educated in these countries and they were negligent or unwilling to talk about this topic I would definitely be frustrated.
If I had to guess, I'd say the reason whites aren't crazy about engaging on slavery is that a good chunk of them have no ancestral tie in with the institution. I have as much in common with you from a cultural/racial standpoint as I have with a Southern Anglo-Saxon or Scotch-Irish person. I share neither their heritage, religion, nor culture. None of my family has lived down South, nor did they even arrive here until the 20th century. We did spend a long time on slavery on my US history class though, but I have no idea how this topic is handled down South.
Quoting James Riley
I am only commenting about public school teaching here. I am in no position to make any sort of definitive judgments on how blacks ought to perceive themselves or their history - that is their issue. However, if we bring critical race theory into public schools it becomes my issue because it's now being pushed by the state. From the way you're describing it though, it almost seems like it's a branding issue - call it something else, not critical race theory.
Quoting James Riley
I like that approach.
Quoting James Riley
Honestly, the bulk of what we do is we just help raise money for our cause - which goes directly to disabled people who need financial help with treatment. We do a bit of education but it's not really our main focus. And we do focus on anecdotal economic success stories because people need role models. The ADA rarely gets enforced at least when it comes to the particular disability I focus on, but regardless I don't expect to wake up one day and have stigma & prejudice just disappear. It'll always be there; oppression will always be there, but I am not defined by it nor am I helpless in facing it. If someone makes a stupid comment towards my condition I'll educate them, and I'll react to it like I'm talking to a small, dumb child.
Teach about oppression all you want; it's certainly out there in the world - it's a fact. It's entirely about you handle it and move forward. Kids are impressionable and we need to be careful with this.
EDIT: CRT in schools undermines Enlightment era liberalism and this - to many people, myself included - is something to be very cautious of before doing. I've never heard of Holocaust education faced with this accusation.
[quote= Brutus][...]As fire drives out fire, so pity pity[...][/quote]
You said "Sure - don't forget, but also don't base your whole mentality around it." Where did you get the idea that anyone anywhere of any consequence to you was basing their whole mentality around anything? That's a straw man, when someone says "X" and you say they are saying "X+1" you have set up a position for them that they did not set forth and a very easy one to knock down when no one in their right mind has said "X + 1".
You also said ". . . a history that presents America as being racist to the bone . . ." No one was saying we should teach that America is racist to the bone. Another argument that is easy to knock down.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I dare say that if you were a member of the class of victim of the atrocities you would be way more than "frustrated." You might be down right scared! And understandably so. Imagine being black in a country when the enemy flag is still paraded around like an icon, and statues all over the fucking place. How would Jews feel if statues of Hitler, Goebbels (sp?), et al were up in places of government and prominence, along with swastikas and whatnot? Maybe not in Massachusetts, but Massachusetts ain't America.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
That's because they don't want to admit they stand atop a pile of bones. Anyone familiar with finances and the compounding of money should understand the same principle applies to economic and cultural advantage. And the compounding also works the other direction, putting the debtor further in the hole.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Slave, chains, work, whip, rape, split up, yeah, slavery. That doesn't address the above referenced compounding and the causal mechanism behind today's complaint; i.e. the pile of bones.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
You lost me. Critical race theory? What? The way I'm describing what?
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
As long as those role models are pre- approved by us and the economic system in which we operate? "Look boy, if you do as we tell you, then you can be like Bob over here. Look at all the money he's got, and the house and car and boat. Why, if you're good enough, and you mind your p's and q's, they'll let you in the Country Club and you too can hob knob with the important folk. We're progressive now, don't you know? Just don't go gettin' uppity, now, ya hear?"
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Again, you seem to be focusing on what "they" think or what "we" should be teaching "them". Forget blacks, forget the Jews, forget the Indians, forget all that, just for a minute. Focus instead on "us". We are the ones with the fucking problem and once we come to terms with it, their life might begin to approach some kind of level playing field. And if the shoe does not fit, then for crying out loud, quit wearing it! If you are not in denial about the pile of bones upon which you stand, and if you are not standing in the way of the education of racists fascist assholes, then step aside and let the state school these jerks. Take a seat. Your just providing aid and comfort to the enemy when you act all put upon. The assholes need the (critical race theory??? don't even know what that really is) education about the compounding interest they are the beneficiaries of, the privilege, and their own contribution to systemic racism. Cool, hip, woke folks like you shouldn't get your panties all up in a knot when folks try to undo the damage done and being done. If the methods seem harsh, just remember, their being on the wrong side of history has it's drawbacks. Acknowledge history, acknowledge how you've benefited from it, and step back while those recalcitrant, denial-ridden, reactionary enemy are dealt with.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
We could have said that to the Jews: "Life's a bitch, sorry, but no state and no money. Keep wandering and maybe you'll learn to be like your tormentors some day. You could start by not being who you are. Yeah, that's the ticket."
Sarcasm off.
I am an Eastern European Jew who lost many family members in the Holocaust. I have never been to Romania, Latvia, or Lithuania but let's assume their Holocaust curriculum is lacking. In that case, if I lived there I would do my best to work within the system to change things. I'm a solution-oriented person and I prefer working within the system when possible. Getting angry or enraged about their lack of education doesn't solve anything. If anything it could be counter-productive because now I'm seen as unstable.
I've also lived in 4 different states now -- Texas, Maryland, California and Massachusetts and I'm not going to say what's "really" America and what isn't. They were all very different.
As for the confederate flag, I don't know what to say here. I just don't know or understand southern white culture and how they perceive their heritage or that flag. I would have to do a temperature check on the culture to see how they perceive it, but at the same time I certainly understand why blacks are upset about Confederate monuments and the flag.
Quoting James Riley
I said this earlier but I'm not attempting to counter your thesis here (because I don't know exactly what you believe.) I'm just throwing out a perspective and seeing whether you agree or disagree with it. As far as I can tell in this discussion we don't have any major disagreements yet.
The reason I bring up these points is because I do know people who think/believe this way and I like to know right off the bat whether I'm dealing with one.
Quoting James Riley
Civilization stands atop a pile of bones.
Quoting James Riley
Success is success is success, and don't let anyone ever tell you that money doesn't matter. Sure, some people love cars and boats and country clubs, but when you have millions of dollars you have the power to mold the world in the way that you want. You're in a much better place to give back to your community, not to mention you're able to spend your time the way that you want.
I understand that people can frame success in condescending ways, but I know you're able to look past the tone to see the deeper truth here.
Quoting James Riley
The world will do as it does; the Jewish people strive toward their goal regardless. Sure the UN + Britain helped with the creation of the state, but Israel is always ultimately defended by Israelis, not Americans or Brits.
Quoting James Riley
CRT is the news of the day here. It brought race back into the limelight recently.
True. I wasn't suggesting you'd get angry or enraged. I was suggesting that you might be afraid. Very afraid. Now, if you had nothing to be afraid of, then they might be open to education. Failing that is when frustration and anger kick in. But here you are, the minority, trying to do the heavy lifting for them. I think you, in that case, and blacks here at home, in our case, shouldn't necessarily have to shoulder the burden of schooling their oppressors. The oppressors have a lot of work to do themselves, and the "enlightened" or "woke" members of their own should pitch in.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I can understand that. However, going to the extreme is not unlike a racist running to the "black welfare queen in Chicago" or pointing out the few looters in an otherwise peaceful protest or saying "All lives matter!" in response to a BLM statement. It's all a distraction from the merits of issue under discussion. It also ignores the casual mechanics of what got us here in an undesirable situation, and it is part of what keeps us here.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
They do. Some of those bones aren't boot-strapping, self-made heroes. Some are victims of evil institutions. If I get your labor for free and rise further above you, passing that down my line and compounding the growth and interest in wealth and education, my progeny might want to take a step back and realize that although they did not personally take your labor for nothing, they certainly benefited from it, the playing field is not level, and the causal mechanics compounded the negative in the opposite direction for your progeny. And our institutions still have remnants of that system embedded within them. It's called "systemic." And until we admit it, it's not going away.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I get what you are saying. But I find no problem with Indians holding out Crazy Horse and Sitting Bull and Geronimo, et al, as heroes. All while their kids were forced in the the Carlisle Indian School and told who they should emulate and look up to.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It was a whole lot more than set up. It's billions of dollars every freaking year.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
The way you formulated the issue made it sound as if I was the one who brought it up and was pushing it. I'm trying to stand on my own two legs, regardless of what people are calling something these days. The right is too accomplished at distortion for me to want to use phraseology that meant one thing one day and has since been twisted to mean another. Like "liberal" and "capitalism" and "America" and "BLM" and whatnot. I'm sure CRT meant one thing to one "side" and another to the other. Best to avoid getting pulled down some rabbit hole and get cornered by someone else's hyperbolic understanding of what something is/was.
Ah. More ad hominems. That skit is getting old.
Stop attacking me and attack my argument. Why are you so concerned with what happens in the U.S. when you have such a lack of diversity in your own backyard? If the more white you are means the more racist and privileged you are, your pale white skin means your're the worst of them. :rofl:
Quoting James Riley
They are not an oppressed minority when they have held the reigns of power in the very system that is defined as being systemically racist.
And what about all the other countries in this world with worse records than the U.S.? What is all this focus on the U.S. when the utter lack of any diversity in Western Europe and Asia is itself systemic racism?
You speak as if whites are the only race in the world that has never experienced oppression in history. Your whole speal just reaks of a lack of perspective.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_by_country
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2013/05/16/a-revealing-map-of-the-worlds-most-and-least-ethnically-diverse-countries/
Quoting James Riley
It's that the some lives' message is that everyone that is white, or wears a cop uniform is racist. It's an accusation that all whites are racist and need to be told that black lives matter, when it is already assumed by most that all lives matter. If all lives matter is already assumed to be the case, then why even say, some lives matter? You're simply assuming that because some whites are racist, they all are. THAT is racism in a nutshell.
Are you denying the current consequences and vestiges leftover from the days of American slavery?
BS. They are an oppressed minority regardless of any lies the majority tells itself about those they oppress, and regardless of any anecdote (Obama?) they can point to. I know some dummies would like to think Obama ended racism and they could then safely ignore the causal mechanisms they benefit from. But that is not how facts and the truth work. You don't stop kicking a man and expect it to be all good when you stop. There's a reckoning that must take place. And it's not just the kickers, but all their progeny that benefited down through the ages from the initial kicking. Doh!
Quoting Harry Hindu
"Whataboutism" if for weak minds. Be better.
Quoting Harry Hindu
That's because you're distracted by shiny objects and can't keep your eye on the ball. I've lived where I was an unwelcome minority, and I know full well whites can be such. But try to focus. Focus. We are talking about whether systemic racism exists in the U.S. Focus. Focus. Be better.
Quoting Harry Hindu
No, son. That's your guilty conscience shining through. You are telling those you perceive to be your opposition what it is they are saying, rather than letting them speak for themselves and then responding to that. They aren't saying all whites are racists any more than they are saying all blacks are racists. Sure, everyone is racist, even if subliminally, blacks included, but you are running off with your hair on fire and your panties in a knot over an issue that is not even on the table. And as to cops, don't confuse an occupation with race. A cop can take off his uniform. A black man can't take of his black (Michael Jackson notwithstanding).
Quoting Harry Hindu
I already explained this to you, but you are not paying attention. Focus, focus. Be better. Blacks (generally) are or have been oppressed. The causal mechanisms of their current behavior and situation linger. Idiots who think the fact the blacks are no longer slaves, or there was a half/half POTUS, means bygones should be bygones, are part of the systemic racism problem we have in the U.S. You, Harry Hindu, are living, walking, talking, posting proof of the answer to the question in the OP: Yes.
Quoting Harry Hindu
When you ASSume you are making an ass or yourself, not me. I never said or even implied "that because some whites are racist, they all are." It's just the racists themselves, and their enablers, who want to move on without having done the hard work. The first step is to admit you have a problem, Harry. Then and only then can the hard work begin. All whites benefit from systemic racism, even those who are not racists.
It's not an ad hominem if it's a statement of fact. Your reply, as usual, was a misrepresentation of what I said and a personal attack as well. It, like your latest, doesn't deserve my time because arguing with an idiot etc. Etc.
I'd be afraid if I had a reason to be, for instance if there was residual anti-Semitism that reached the point of violence. There's so few Jews in Latvia and Lithuania today maybe we should take a country like Poland.
I hate to say it, but it is ultimately on the oppressed because the oppressed understand their own problems and situation better than the rest of the world. Even if allies try to connect and reach out, this is an interest or a hobby (maybe a job?) for us when it's your life. Allies certainly have some role to play and they can help, but it's not a leading one. I would feel intimidated teaching or lecturing on racism to other white people, but hats off to allies who make a genuine effort.
Quoting James Riley
I'm just always on the look-out. The last few posters that I talked to on this forum had this destructive mindset (including one from a former educator) so this type of mentality has become salient for me.
For example, views like that the oppressed class essentially has a blank check to do whatever they want to the oppressor class and they can't legitimately be criticized until the oppressor class is overthrown. Another poster framed it like the oppressed class is blameless and cannot even be held responsible even for crimes they commit against their own people as long as they're fighting an oppressor who is the real problem and the source of all problems. It's a sad reality, but I do ultimately need to check anti-racists to ensure that they're actually decent. I cannot trust them at face value.
Quoting James Riley
It's not like Israel needs American foreign aid dollars to survive. American pumps billions into many other countries as well. All I'm saying is Israeli is ran by Israelis and when there's a war it's Israeli lives on the line. Other countries may support or cooperate with Israel, but at the end of the day Israel ultimately fends for itself.
Quoting James Riley
The playing field isn't level and never will be. Even if there was no slavery and we just dropped off black people into white society in the US in the 1820s-1830s or so they still don't speak the language or have any wealth with them. They wouldn't know the land. Sure, they could make a living and it would beat slavery but you're nowhere near bourgeoise white people levels both in terms of capital or - at least equally important -- the knowledge and experience that goes into maintaining that capital along with a ton of other financial knowledge about new financial products.
Quoting James Riley
I wasn't arguing with you and I didn't disagree with what you said, I was just picking your brain about how to best convey these truths to children as that's the current news issue. I didn't know you were black when I engaged you.
Quoting James Riley
Yes, it does. I find myself watching videos on this subject and agreeing with both sides.
I really do think it's terrible branding, let's break it down word for word on this one.
Critical: This will remind many of "critical theory" which is a left-wing movement closely tied in with Marxism. For those who don't make that association, the word critical maybe sounds like judgmental or just nonsense jargon.
Race: A subject most Americans would rather avoid.
Theory: Americans just don't like theories. I don't know why, but we have a hard time with this concept in general. Americans like facts and success. Americans are also very uncomfortable with the idea that the majority ought to basically sit down and shut up when it comes to an important topic like race.
White people in general are suspicious of strong ethnic identities due to history in both Europe and here and I think decent chunk of white people wouldn't mind doing away with the idea of ethnic identity in general.
I don't know what to make of your response to my post. I have been arguing the exact opposite of having anyone in the non-oppressed community trying to "connect and reach out" to anyone in the oppressed community. I'm talking about those in the oppressor community reaching out to the oppressors and trying to work with them. In other words, "woke" whites should be schooling other "non-woke" whites. I'm not proposing that BitconnectCarlos go to Latvia and work with Jews, or even to Latvia to work with any anti-Semites that might be there (and who might kill him). I'm proposing that non-Jewish "woke" Latvians deal with Latvian anti-Semites. In America, it would be like me, a classic white male, dealing with racist, confederate, fascist white assholes, or even just simple dummies who deny racism exists and who think the "black issue" is over because, well, "emancipation and Obama!"
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
Those with a hammer see a lot of nails.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I disagree. But I'm not going down that rabbit hole with you.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It would be level, or a whole lot leveler if we would have, after the Civil War, dealt with the enemy in this way: All former slave-owning properties were given to former slaves; All children of former slave-owners were taken from their families and removed to a school in Carlisle, PA for re-education; All wives and old men of former slave-owners were shipped off to distant Reservations to become dependent wards of the government; All former slave-owning men were forced into indentured servitude under their former slaves for a period of years; All proven sympathizers of slavery and/or former slave-owners were subject to the same treatment; All those who resisted were hung or shot.
That is people within the oppressor community dealing with the oppressors.
The fact such did not occur is proof-positive of the greatest example of post-war white privilege in history. And it left us with the systemic racism we deal with today. There would be no people flying the Stars and Bars in the shadow of the First Amendment. There would be no statues glorifying Traitors. And the racists would not be out from under the fridge, in the daylight, brave and getting braver. No one would be left to take pride in their treasonous ancestors.
That is the left-wing liberal woke whites dealing with the white racists. That is the whites giving he blacks the tools to do what they need to do (just like the Jews were given the tools they needed to do what they have done). But we didn't do that because of white privilege and systemic racism. Hell, even many a Northern White Abolitionist didn't want the blacks "that" free.
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
I'm not black.
LOL I must have misread you somewhere! Ok lol.
Quoting James Riley
In order for this to happen white allies need to take direction from black communities. We absolutely need this coordination to happen before whites go out and do this type of work. Whites are not to be operating independently.
Quoting James Riley
This is unjust. Justice must occur on an individual level - children of slaveholders are not guilty and should not be stripped from their parents. No more breaking apart families. Two wrongs don't make a right. Justice cannot be carried out on a group level like that. I can't tell where you're getting your idea of justice from.
I emphatically disagree. Whites need to clean their own house. We don't need blacks telling us we need to put the crazy uncle back in the basement. We know that. We know what is wrong. It's on us to deal with it. The black folks might need help getting their feet under them, but they don't need to be saddled with helping us unfuck our stupid racist legacy. They've had enough of that. We didn't consult with them and they didn't tell us how to kill confederates and slave owners. It was our mess. We just didn't take out all the trash after the war was over and we left them with a mess to clean up. That's not fair to them. If they want to be magnanimous, forgive, whatever, that's fine. But they have their own things to do besides helping us deal with those within our ranks who absolutely hate them.
Example, like you said, Jews can run their own affairs. They might need some help ($) and someone killing fascists while they try to set up, but they don't need to be telling us how to how to fix what we know is wrong with us. That's on us. "Hey Jews, come on back to Germany here and help us educate these people about the error of their ways. You don't have anything better to do, right?" LOL!
Quoting BitconnectCarlos
It's too late now, but failure of follow through left us with 150 years of segregation, disenfranchisement, Jim Crow, burnings, shootings, lynching's, theft, rape, systemic racism, Trump, neo-Nazis and white supremacists (out from under the fridge; I know they would always be with us, but they'd be hiding instead of out and proud) and causal mechanics that we will deal with for god knows how long into the future. And you know who's fault that is? It's the fault of your counterparts back in the day.
I'm done with this conversation. Remember, the first step in recovery is admitting you have a problem. Anyone who thinks we don't have systemic racism (OP) has a problem.
P.S. One final thought: My feelings about this spring largely from a desire to honor all the people who suffered and died killing fascists in WWII and traitors in the Civil War. Imagine that "last full measure of devotion" being disrespected the way we have. Yellow ribbons and bumper stickers and flowers on the grave don't do it. We need to live in accord with the ideals and aspirations of the nation they fought suffered for. Or it was all for naught.
Hilarious. Go back and look at my reply and you will see that there are no ad hominems - only questioning your crazy assertions. But that is expected from you - that any questioning of your assertions is a personal attack because you are deeply emotionally invested in your assertions. Why, Benkei, are you so emotionally invested in diversity in America when your own country lacks the diversity that exists in America? Keep posting your unfounded claims about race relations in America (where you don't live) and I will be there to personally attack you with questions. :roll:
Quoting James Riley
Blah, blah blah. In other words anything that is said that contradicts your assumptions just isn't true and you don't have to prove it. What does systemic racism look like in America? What would the absence of systemic racism look like in America if not an elected black person as President? Sounds like there is no end to systemic racism so what is the point?
Quoting James Riley
Wait...what? They aren't saying that all whites are racist, but you are? Who is "they" and why are you contradicting them? Which is it? Are we all racists or not? Are you a racist? If so, why should we be listening to you? What have you done to offset your racism?
Quoting James Riley
But you said everyone is a racist, including blacks. If you are claiming that even blacks are racist, then BLM is racist! You whole post is riddled with contradictions and you're telling me to stay focused? Puh-leeeze.
Quoting creativesoul
This is like asking if I deny the existence of god without having defined god. What consequences and vestiges are you taking about? Surely these consequences existed for 40-50 years after the Civil War, but 150-160 years after the Civil War? How long do the consequences of any racism in the history of the world last? At what point in history did the consequences and vestiges of white oppression in human history cease to exist? At what point does the consequences of what the Germans did to the Jews cease to exist?
Personal attack and a leading question. Where I live, what's happening here and what I do about it, are totally irrelevant to my post.
Misrepresentation of my post. You'll notice the quotation marks and me reporting on the news? Yes? Not my words or my interpretation. As usual you're incapable of reading because an idiot like you let's his reading comprehension be influenced by his apparent dislike of me.
Irrelevant to my post.
So that post demonstrates as usual, that you're an idiot, who continually assumes meaning and tries to poison the well by suggesting where I live and what I do have any bearing on the veracity of my comments or claims.
So yeah, nothing hilarious here but an unfortunate idiot who doesn't realise he's an idiot.
22.5 years. Will it be a turning point in the USA? No more Rodney Kings and Breonna Taylor? Or when they happen that they won't get away with it?
America certainly does have a significant black population. It should be proud of-- woah, nearly got me!
Quoting Benkei
Just been watching this on the news. You can get carried away when you see one guy happen to not perform a miscarriage of justice on a particular day. I don't think it's likely that somewhere like Texas will suddenly have a change of heart, or even agree that there hasn't been a miscarriage of justice.
The problem is that the impotence of current conservatism is becoming more and more apparant in the marketplace of political ideas. The American public quite simply does not agree with it and who it ultimately benefits. So, the current effort of conservative media is to manufacture falsehoods about CRT for the expressed purpose of making it unacceptable to Americans. The dishonesty of course is that the means for making it uncceptable is to mislead Americans about it.
The US is simply a decaying state. As its social conditions further deteriorate, the only actionable moves available to it will be to further increase police and containment powers to nip at symptoms while the core rots. Chauvin is simply an exercise in the spectacle of performance politics, nothing more - even if he deserves every last minute in the misery of the gulag system that they will keep him in.
:100:
Chauvin's just a minor race warrior who will die sooner rather than later in one of "lily white" Minnesota's state prisons he'd helped disproportionately populate with persons of color.
Here is Glenn Loury, a black economics professor, talking to Charles Murray, a white nationalist according to the Southern Povetry Law Center. I would urge people to spare some time to listen to this exchange of thoughts (1h 10 min), if you have the time.
Perhaps it's my Finnish genetic stupidity or integral ignorance (as I'm an European, hence totally incapable of understanding the US), but Murray doesn't sound as a white nationalist. Not at all to my knowledge. I do know what white supremacists sound like (at least in Finland), and Murray doesn't sound like them. In fact what Murray is worried about among the right isn't the classic "white nationalists", the neo-nazis, but the whites that will have had enough with the current politically correct discourse. I fear this too. If you say over and over to people that they are fucking racists, some will then say "Ok, then I'm a fucking racists, so fuck you". Will that really help? Or is that the objective? What I fear is that the US is heading for a clash it cannot solve.
I don't see the way how Americans would "get over this"or "come together". Nobody is interested in building a consensus. Nobody, I mean nobody is emphasizing that all Americans are citizens of one nation. That unfortunately is how it seems. That's the really sad part here.
Because there are enough firearms to turn everything into a huge tragedy.
Well yes because now you know who are racists. Also if being called a racist epiphanies you in to accepting the label, then you are a shit person at every point. But good to see you are concerned for them.
I've attempted to explain us to ourselves and the world with a few repostings on thread including my previous post.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/504611
I'll watch the video you link another time but Charles Murray is a well-known white supremacist who was a tenured sociology(?) professor at Harvard in the mid-90s when his (IIRC thoroughly trashed by the likes of Steven Jay Gould & Noam Chomsky et al) pseudoscientific The Bell Curve had appeared. "The debate" was intellectually settled twenty-odd years ago but, as my post (linked above) points out, the 'supremacist struggle' in America is centuries old and is accelerating. Ivory Tower racists like Murray always come off as urbane, sophisticated and even charming, bearing little-to-no resemblance to the usual mouth-breathing, rank-and-file, race-baiting haters who pump-up cable ratings and sell newspapers.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2018/3/27/15695060/sam-harris-charles-murray-race-iq-forbidden-knowledge-podcast-bell-curve
The only thing I'd add is that Klein should be even harder on the Flynn point. If black IQs (along with white) have continued to rise since the 1970s, it's impossible for Murray's argument that you've squeezed out all the environmental factors to be true.
Quoting 180 Proof
You will?
Yet I'd disagree. I think that racists will just abuse the findings of Murray, which is quite obvious: they will pick what they want to hear. Yet if all Americans would be of the same "race" with the same skin color, there still would be those (what you now call racists) who then only would be looking down own the poor, the so-called trash (which actually they are calling the poor whites) and would similarly separate the people into different categories: themselves in a higher category than others. And if some Murray-like academic would dare to say that poor people engage in violent crime far more than the wealthy, the outrage would be the same. How dare this person give ammo to those racists! Yet the obvious thing is that with the poorer segments of any society there is more violent crime among them than the more prosperous people. What is wrong is to judge all poor people. In my view facts don't give any proof to the racist: people should be treated as individuals and I'm against judging people as part of a larger group.
Quoting StreetlightX
And if you don't judge people as individuals but members of their race who then bare a collective responsibility, aren't you the racist here? A shit person at every point?
Would love to know what went through your head when you imagined that this is in any way a response to what I said.
I doubt it.
If racism was defined to be that all Australians are racists (because let's just look at the obvious history of Australia), then wouldn't you be a racist? Likely you (and me) wouldn't agree with the definition racism.
Quoting StreetlightX
Hopefully I understood you correct. Yet the argument was "all Australians are racists". The issue to be recognized would be if you are an Australian or not. Or to make it more clear, let's make it that "all white Australians are racists". Now if you fit into that category (being a white Australian), then would your benefiting of the current system make you a racist?
I don't think so.
I would still start with the classic definition that a racist is:
"a person who is prejudiced against or antagonistic towards people on the basis of their membership of a particular racial or ethnic group, typically one that is a minority or marginalized."
You getting a job interview easier than someone else doesn't in my view make you "prejudiced or antagonistic" toward racial minorities. It really is about your own thinking and own decisions that make you a racist or not. When you decide which people to pick to the job interview is the moment, when you participate in a job interview isn't.
Quoting StreetlightX
Then how to engage those others that aren't avowed racists is the question. Because calling them racists will make them think that they are called to be the "avowed racists", which they are not.
That's one way to spin it...
That's a program for community outreach policing, C3, etc. Exactly what advocates have asked for.
And given both the:
A. Demonstrable low quality of many forces and;
B. Surging murder rates in urban areas and sustained high murder rates in the US generally,
I'd say it might be a wise investment. Several US cities have homicide rates higher than the Latin American states we have refugees fleeing from, it's not like crime doesn't need funding.
I don't think I'd blame it on a "rotting core." Was the US rotting in the 1960s when crime began to rise? Seems to me it was at its apogee then. The Baby Boomers had arguably the best period of widespread economic growth and social stability of any people in the history of the species, and crime boomed. Did the US radically get its act together in the 2000s? Crime plunged from the early 90s on, to its second lowest point in US history, yet income inequality was surging then too, and the foundations of Trumpism were being laid.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/342428 (re: housing discrimination policies)
https://www.dissentmagazine.org/online_articles/redlining-race-and-the-color-of-money (re: more housing ...)
Murica 2021 :point:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/28/us-racial-segregation-study-university-of-california-berkeley (re: us segregation)
https://www.theguardian.com/law/2021/jun/28/un-calls-end-impunity-police-violence-against-black-people-george-floyd (re: us policing)
Quoting 180 Proof
https://www.cnn.com/2021/11/01/us/american-psychological-association-apologizes-racism/index.html
Just read some excerpts of his ideas about low- versus high-IQ women having children ... and I don't think anyone in their right mind reads that and thinks it's urbane, sophisticated, or charming. It's just vile.
It leaves me with two answers. 1. I'm being bullied. 2. More is expected from me personally.
Does systemic racism exist in the US? Yes, probably, however, systemic bullying seems to be the norm. If examples being set are this, you can't really complain.
The point is to undergo a continuos transformation in which we shed our biases and prejudices. There's plenty of things to do in regard to improving race relations, same with women's rights.
The issue is how to address them. Some tactics employed by university students, while well intentioned, backfire, like having, I don't know, 30 or 50 pronouns or whatever. Most people don't care about that to that extent at all.
If we still have serious problems addressing literally half the world's population still, we will have issues to deal with regarding race.
Nothing I do warrants bullying.
I have also been forethought and determined. I am bullied a lot, usually knuckles down to some dispute of my intellect which is also kept(non egotistical; for the discussion or debate).
I feel as if there's a problem in our society or schooling which leads to this sort of bullying.
I can take it but I'm dwindling...
I was always good to other races too. I enjoy them.
I think this is an interesting subject you bring up, but I think it's veering off track from systemic racism to bullying in general. You might start a different thread.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/feb/24/george-floyd-death-police-officers-guilty-civil-rights
All too common, reform is needed, Mr. President.
Are you really serious about your statement?
Upon reviewing my thoughts on this, it occured to me that I can't really find sources of racism historically, other than states themselves, which implies racism IS systemic anytime it iemergent. It was always states the enforced and reinforced ethnic hatred, be it Jewish, or Persian, Greek Poleis even, Roman, Christian, European, Islamic, African, American, what have you. Every single known ethnicity has been subject to this "systemic racism," by every other ethnicity at some point in history that has been enforced by the state apparatus. Does anyone have an example of NON systemic racism in history that can't be directly related back to a state-reinforced cultural auspice?
Yeah