Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#377 Aug 23 2016 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
SPG wrote:
Which is great, but in this case I think they're one in the same to the people who are the victims. So if you're perhaps wondering about why people might be protesting in the streets, angry about police & racism, it's very much relevant.
This. Whether or not the police officer is acting out of racism is irrelevant when the result is the same.


If all we care about is whether people are justified for being angry? You're correct that it doesn't matter. If we care about figuring out the correct course of action to pursue to reduce the rate at which such things occur in the future? It matters a great deal.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#378 Aug 24 2016 at 5:06 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
SPG wrote:
Which is great, but in this case I think they're one in the same to the people who are the victims. So if you're perhaps wondering about why people might be protesting in the streets, angry about police & racism, it's very much relevant.
This. Whether or not the police officer is acting out of racism is irrelevant when the result is the same.


If all we care about is whether people are justified for being angry? You're correct that it doesn't matter. If we care about figuring out the correct course of action to pursue to reduce the rate at which such things occur in the future? It matters a great deal.
False. Unless people are explicitly avowing racism, we cannot determine what's in their heart. This goes back to you denying institutional favoritism. "Raiding all cities that start with the letter 'A' " is a nonracial policy. However, if that policy affects minorities at a disproportional rate, then it is a key component on figuring out the correct course of action.
#379 Aug 24 2016 at 10:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
When your search includes the word "racism" (or any variation) you are automatically biasing the results to show instances where racism is relevant to the article, or are part of the conclusions of the article. I would hope we would all understand this.
Because that's the only word that'll lead one to biased results.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#380 Aug 24 2016 at 5:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Whether or not the police officer is acting out of racism is irrelevant when the result is the same.


If all we care about is whether people are justified for being angry? You're correct that it doesn't matter. If we care about figuring out the correct course of action to pursue to reduce the rate at which such things occur in the future? It matters a great deal.
False. Unless people are explicitly avowing racism, we cannot determine what's in their heart.


We can't determine for sure what's in their heart no matter what they say. But that in no way falsifies my statement. If anything, it reinforces it. What is the value of chasing after a "solution" which we can never measure accurately or know if we're making progress on? As I mentioned earlier, that's a great approach if you want to eternally make people angry. Because since you can never prove the absence of racism, you can never "solve" the problem via this method, and thus can always have something you can use as a rallying cry to anger and motivate people.

Assuming disproportionate statistical outcomes for blacks versus whites is the problem we want to solve, then we should actually go about solving that problem. It's tangible. We can measure it. We can see if we're making progress. By applying the assumption of a racist cause for the problem, and then chasing after that instead, we inject a middleman into the equation that we can't measure and can't ultimately "solve". Hence, why it's counter productive. We can't ever measure the degree of racism in the hearts of man, but is that really the problem? Or is it the disproportionate outcomes?

I say it's the latter. So let's work on that instead.

Quote:
This goes back to you denying institutional favoritism. "Raiding all cities that start with the letter 'A' " is a nonracial policy. However, if that policy affects minorities at a disproportional rate, then it is a key component on figuring out the correct course of action.


Wouldn't the correct course of action in that case be changing the distribution of minorities in cities, so that there is no disproportionate percentage of them in cities that start with the letter A? Assuming there's some reason why cities beginning with A are the ones being targeted, then it's silly to abandon that (presumably justified) reason. Applying the analogy back to the real world, if robberies occur at a higher rate in black communities than in white, then any effort by police to catch people who commit robbery will result in a disproportionately higher percentage of black people being arrested than white. There are really only three possible solutions to that problem of disproportionate outcomes:

1. Stop arresting people who commit robbery entirely. Zero is zero, so both races would have equal outcomes.

2. Artificially reduce the policing efforts in black communities only so as to make the resulting ratio of arrests for robbery identical for black and white people.

3. Figure out why robberies occur at a higher rate in black communities and fix that.


The first two are both counter productive. While you may equalize the relative ratio of robbery arrests of black versus white people, you're missing the fact that the victim isn't just the black man arrested for robbery by the police. The people he robbed are also victims. So in the process you'd also be increasing the rate at which black people are victims of robbery. In this example, since rates of robbery are higher in black communities, they would be the most harmed by this course of action.

Which leaves us with number 3. Which is the solution I'm advocating. It's honestly the *only* solution that actually addresses the core problem. Again, the problem isn't really the disproportionate rate of police interaction, it's the disproportionate rate of criminal activity in the communities in question. No amount of "fixing" the police interaction ratio ever solve that problem. And while I get that the current "thing" is to be pissed off at the police, the fact is that the disproportionate rate of poverty, crime, gang membership, drug addition, domestic violence, etc, is a vastly greater problem for black communities than anything the police are doing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#381 Aug 24 2016 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
When your search includes the word "racism" (or any variation) you are automatically biasing the results to show instances where racism is relevant to the article, or are part of the conclusions of the article. I would hope we would all understand this.
Because that's the only word that'll lead one to biased results.



So by your logic, since punching you in the face isn't the only action that will result in you being harmed, then there's no harm in punching you in the face. Got it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#382 Aug 24 2016 at 6:45 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
We can't determine for sure what's in their heart no matter what they say. But that in no way falsifies my statement. If anything, it reinforces it. What is the value of chasing after a "solution" which we can never measure accurately or know if we're making progress on? As I mentioned earlier, that's a great approach if you want to eternally make people angry. Because since you can never prove the absence of racism, you can never "solve" the problem via this method, and thus can always have something you can use as a rallying cry to anger and motivate people.
What's in your heart is irrelevant, it's the actions that people care about.


Gbaji wrote:
Assuming disproportionate statistical outcomes for blacks versus whites is the problem we want to solve, then we should actually go about solving that problem. It's tangible. We can measure it. We can see if we're making progress. By applying the assumption of a racist cause for the problem, and then chasing after that instead, we inject a middleman into the equation that we can't measure and can't ultimately "solve". Hence, why it's counter productive. We can't ever measure the degree of racism in the hearts of man, but is that really the problem? Or is it the disproportionate outcomes?

I say it's the latter. So let's work on that instead.
Read above. I don't care if 100% of the police officers are racist.


Gbaji wrote:
Wouldn't the correct course of action in that case be changing the distribution of minorities in cities, so that there is no disproportionate percentage of them in cities that start with the letter A? Assuming there's some reason why cities beginning with A are the ones being targeted, then it's silly to abandon that (presumably justified) reason. Applying the analogy back to the real world, if robberies occur at a higher rate in black communities than in white, then any effort by police to catch people who commit robbery will result in a disproportionately higher percentage of black people being arrested than white. There are really only three possible solutions to that problem of disproportionate outcomes:
]
Gbaji wrote:
1. Stop arresting people who commit robbery entirely. Zero is zero, so both races would have equal outcomes.

2. Artificially reduce the policing efforts in black communities only so as to make the resulting ratio of arrests for robbery identical for black and white people.

3. Figure out why robberies occur at a higher rate in black communities and fix that.


The first two are both counter productive. While you may equalize the relative ratio of robbery arrests of black versus white people, you're missing the fact that the victim isn't just the black man arrested for robbery by the police. The people he robbed are also victims. So in the process you'd also be increasing the rate at which black people are victims of robbery. In this example, since rates of robbery are higher in black communities, they would be the most harmed by this course of action.

Which leaves us with number 3. Which is the solution I'm advocating. It's honestly the *only* solution that actually addresses the core problem. Again, the problem isn't really the disproportionate rate of police interaction, it's the disproportionate rate of criminal activity in the communities in question. No amount of "fixing" the police interaction ratio ever solve that problem. And while I get that the current "thing" is to be ****** off at the police, the fact is that the disproportionate rate of poverty, crime, gang membership, drug addition, domestic violence, etc, is a vastly greater problem for black communities than anything the police are doing.
You're derailing the point. Any arbitrary law and/or practice can have unintended consequences. When that happens, you adjust the arbitrary law and/or practice. This is the institutionalized favoritism that you keep avoiding.
#383 Aug 24 2016 at 8:16 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
What's in your heart is irrelevant, it's the actions that people care about.


Except that in this case, the "problem" is assumed to be the result of racism.

Quote:
Read above. I don't care if 100% of the police officers are racist.


The folks protesting and rioting do though. That's the point you're kinda missing.

Quote:
You're derailing the point. Any arbitrary law and/or practice can have unintended consequences. When that happens, you adjust the arbitrary law and/or practice.


Except "catch people who commit robbery" isn't an arbitrary law or practice. The problem isn't the police enforcing the law. The problem isn't with the law. The problem is a disproportionately higher rate of the law being broken in some communities than others. Blaming the cops in this case is moronic. It's like blaming the mechanic because he spends a larger proportional time fixing Yugos than Toyotas. If the problem is that Yugos break more often than Toyotas, then it's not the mechanics fault. He's reacting to the situation in front of him.

Similarly, if crime rates are higher in black communities than white, then that's the problem. Blaming the cops isn't going to solve anything.

Quote:
This is the institutionalized favoritism that you keep avoiding.


You mean the racism you just insisted didn't matter? Or did you mean some other kind of institutionalized favoritism?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#384 Aug 25 2016 at 5:43 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Except that in this case, the "problem" is assumed to be the result of racism.
NO it's not. That's your talking point to prevent discussing the real problem.


Gbaji wrote:

The folks protesting and rioting do though. That's the point you're kinda missing.
NO it's not. That's your talking point to prevent discussing the real problem.

Gbaji wrote:
Except "catch people who commit robbery" isn't an arbitrary law or practice.
That's why I said and/or practice. It's HOW they decide to find the people who commit robbery.

Gbaji wrote:

You mean the racism you just insisted didn't matter? Or did you mean some other kind of institutionalized favoritism?
See post #236 where I explicitly stated what I'm referencing.

Edited, Aug 25th 2016 1:46pm by Almalieque
#385 Aug 25 2016 at 7:29 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
So by your logic, since punching you in the face isn't the only action that will result in you being harmed, then there's no harm in punching you in the face. Got it.
Well, no, there's also the years upon years of pattern recognition, and even beyond that there's the fact you didn't even read your own links. Also that minor detail that you don't actually know what is logical, so it's a long list of facts showing your racism.

But hey, you be passive aggressive. That always works out.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#387 Aug 25 2016 at 11:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
On the flip side, I believe that no amount of "fighting racism" will be effective if the underlying socio-economic stats don't change. We've kinda gone as far as we can go in this area. You can only "treat people the same regardless of race" to the point where you run into hard differences that aren't your own unfounded biases. It's not my unfounded bias that makes me avoid hanging out in the predominately black neighborhoods in my area late at night. But that's pretty much where we're at now. That's the "problem" that needs to be solved. And it's not racism on my part that is the problem here, it's the socio-economic fact that predominately black neighborhoods are also predominately high crime neighborhoods that most people who can avoid will avoid.
What I think we have here is a catch-22, where poverty reinforces racial stereotypes, and discriminatory exclusion complicates any attempts to leave poverty behind. Focusing on either one while ignoring the other is only going after half the problem.

gbaji wrote:
The idea that we removed those things and somehow magically filled it up with a form of racism that we can't see or quantify, that is in no way overt and broad, but it's somehow able to perform the same social and economic role that segregation, Jim Crow, and a host of other mechanisms used to? Sorry, I just don't buy that.
Speaking of institutional racism, the problem was these things were always there, and never did go away. We simply removed one method of being racist. Like a well-meaning electorate putting caps on direct campaign contributions only to see the rise of the super-PAC. In much the same way we can't claim the "issue" and yes I realize not everyone would see this as an issue, it's just more for illustrative purposes of money influencing elections went away just because we removed the most obvious way for it to happen. Letting everyone drink from the same drinking fountains doesn't mean much if you're still not making it past your first interview for a job after someone realizes you're black. You simply "aren't qualified for the position" and that's the kind of thing that can severely limit your upward mobility.

This is why you see studies point out things like disparity in the homes that are shown by realtors to people of different races, differences in government spending in minority areas, differences in hiring rates among minorities, etc. Any one by itself is only part of the picture, taken as a whole though it's a pretty widespread problem, before we even get to talking about the whole poverty issue, and problems with upward mobility if your social circle is poor as well.

In the end, and a reason that a lot of the argument ends up being stat based, is people aren't going to say they're racist. That's the kind of thing that costs you your business, gets you sent to jail, etc. They're going to have excuses about not visiting business in black neighborhoods, not hiring blacks for good paying jobs, choosing to build a library in a certain neighborhood, only fund their local school instead of the one across town, etc.

Quote:
A cop may be more suspicious of a couple of black men standing on the corner than a couple of white men doing the same thing. But if that increased suspicion is the result of past statistical probability vis-a-vis likelihood of each pair of men being involved in criminal behavior, is his bias because of "racism", or the result of existing socio-economic conditions?
Either way it's a problem. Having excuses for racism doesn't make it not racism.

Quote:
"racism" and "racial bias"
You're probably going to want to elaborate on this difference more. Because honestly, I'm not seeing it at this point.

Edited, Aug 25th 2016 10:38am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#388 Aug 25 2016 at 4:23 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
SPG wrote:
Focusing on either one while ignoring the other is only going after half the problem.
This is what he doesn't want to acknowledge. personal actions vs institutional favoritism.
#389 Aug 25 2016 at 8:58 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Except that in this case, the "problem" is assumed to be the result of racism.
NO it's not. That's your talking point to prevent discussing the real problem.


Gbaji wrote:

The folks protesting and rioting do though. That's the point you're kinda missing.
NO it's not. That's your talking point to prevent discussing the real problem.


Ok. What is the "real problem" that you think I'm avoiding discussing? My entire argument has been that the claim that racism is behind this is wrong, and a distraction from the "real problem" (disparate poverty rates between black and white in the US). So now you're arguing my point I guess? Or are you just so confused that you've turned your argument around?

I'm the one arguing that the real problem is black poverty and not racism. What's your argument?

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Except "catch people who commit robbery" isn't an arbitrary law or practice.
That's why I said and/or practice. It's HOW they decide to find the people who commit robbery.


Yes. And I said: "catch people who commit robbery" isn't an arbitrary law or practice. It's right there in the sentence you quoted.

I'm honestly curious what methods you think the police are using here that are unfair or "arbitrary"? Because all I see you doing is looking at the disparate results, and assuming it's because of unfair or biased practices. All I'm doing here is pointing out that the underlying disparate rate of black poverty can easily account for those disparate results without any unfair/biased/whatever practices by the police at all.

Why leap to the most unprovable and unworkable assumption, when there's a much more logical, rational, and reasonable one? Doubly so when that better explanation is something we can actually see and measure and work towards solving. That just makes no sense to me. You want the rate at which police pull over and search black people to change, but you don't care about the rate of poverty among blacks? I think that's totally backwards. The police aren't making people poor. They don't make people join gangs. They don't make them drop out of school. They don't make them take up drug use. Yet, instead of worrying about the fact that black people are afflicted with all of those at a rate several times that of white people, you worry about the police?

Again. Totally backwards thinking IMO.




Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

You mean the racism you just insisted didn't matter? Or did you mean some other kind of institutionalized favoritism?
See post #236 where I explicitly stated what I'm referencing.


Then why not see my response to that post:

gbaji wrote:
Ok. But we're specifically speaking about effects of racial disparity, right? So what form of favoritism would cause that resulting disparate result?


You never answered that question. This entire topic is about disparate policing by race. So when you blame that on "institutional favoritism", it's kinda hard to not assume you really mean "institutionalized racism". I'll once again give you the opportunity to explain what sort of favoritism you think could be in play here that would result in racially disparate results that isn't really just a synonym for "racial bias".

It just bizarre to me that every part of your argument certainly seems to be arguing that racial bias by cops is why things like "stop and frisk" affect blacks at a higher rate than whites, and why blacks are shot more often by police than whites are. But when I argue against racial bias as a primary cause, instead of defending your position with some kind of argument and maybe facts and logic, you pivot to the side and insist that you're not claiming that at all.

If you're not arguing that these things are the result of police racial bias, then what are you arguing? And don't freaking say "favoritism". That's another word for "bias". And guess what? Bias that affects groups differently based on their race is "racial bias". Which means you're just spinning around in circles at this point.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#390 Aug 25 2016 at 9:42 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
You never answered that question.
All up in your Kool-Aid, huh?


gbaji wrote:
I'll once again give you the opportunity to explain what sort of favoritism you think could be in play here that would result in racially disparate results that isn't really just a synonym for "racial bias".
Far be it for me to speak for Alma, but...he means racial bias. Does that help?

gbaji wrote:
It just bizarre to me that every part of your argument certainly seems to be arguing that racial bias by cops is why things like "stop and frisk" affect blacks at a higher rate than whites, and why blacks are shot more often by police than whites are. But when I argue against racial bias as a primary cause, instead of defending your position with some kind of argument and maybe facts and logic, you pivot to the side and insist that you're not claiming that at all.
Can you quote where Alma claimed the bolded bits were not due to racial bias, because I missed that.

gbaji wrote:
Which means you're just spinning around in circles at this point.
Which will be the case for you and all of us because you refuse to accept the obvious, overwhelming evidence of racism that is driving the problem. I can only hazard a guess as to why you have this strange, unreal, bizarre, strange, peculiar, odd, funny, curious, outlandish, abnormal, eccentric, unconventional, unusual, unorthodox, extraordinary belief that racism "has a tiny impact" in modern America (was it Ayn Rand..did Ayn Ran touch you in a no-no place teach you that?
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#391 Aug 26 2016 at 5:32 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Ok. What is the "real problem" that you think I'm avoiding discussing? My entire argument has been that the claim that racism is behind this is wrong, and a distraction from the "real problem" (disparate poverty rates between black and white in the US). So now you're arguing my point I guess? Or are you just so confused that you've turned your argument around?

I'm the one arguing that the real problem is black poverty and not racism. What's your argument?
I'm saying that the state of Black America is the result of both personal actions and institutionalized favoritism and that conservatives (like you) only focus on the former and liberals only focus on the latter.

Gbaji wrote:
Yes. And I said: "catch people who commit robbery" isn't an arbitrary law or practice. It's right there in the sentence you quoted.
So, as long as the robbers are caught, how they were caught is irrelevant?

Gbaji wrote:
Ok. But we're specifically speaking about effects of racial disparity, right? So what form of favoritism would cause that resulting disparate result?
First, you responded that it could be both, which was my point. There was no need to discuss any further.

You initially said "but I can't help but get the sneaking suspicion that when you use the phrase "institutionalized favoritism" you really mean 'institutionalized racism'". When the provided definition didn't include race, you responded with "But we're specifically speaking about effects of racial disparity, right?".

If you were to take the "hiring the more attractive girl over the less attractive girl" as an example, that has nothing to do with race right? Well, who decides who is attractive? If you are attracted to White or Asian women, then you're not hiring Black women.

Edited, Aug 26th 2016 1:43pm by Almalieque
#392 Aug 26 2016 at 5:49 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
It just bizarre to me that every part of your argument certainly seems to be arguing that racial bias by cops is why things like "stop and frisk" affect blacks at a higher rate than whites, and why blacks are shot more often by police than whites are. But when I argue against racial bias as a primary cause, instead of defending your position with some kind of argument and maybe facts and logic, you pivot to the side and insist that you're not claiming that at all.

If you're not arguing that these things are the result of police racial bias, then what are you arguing? And don't freaking say "favoritism". That's another word for "bias". And guess what? Bias that affects groups differently based on their race is "racial bias". Which means you're just spinning around in circles at this point.
I think this deserves a separate post. Just because you are sexually attracted to someone, doesn't mean that you will rape them. It is very possible to be sexually attracted to a person and that person not know it. Therefore, what you think inside your head is irrelevant, until your thoughts become and/or affect your actions.
#393 Aug 26 2016 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
I'll once again give you the opportunity to explain
Well thank you for the opportunity to appease you, your royal suburban white highness. Maybe if your arguments were factual or logical in any way people would be less likely to dismiss you?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#394 Aug 29 2016 at 4:26 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I'll once again give you the opportunity to explain what sort of favoritism you think could be in play here that would result in racially disparate results that isn't really just a synonym for "racial bias".
Far be it for me to speak for Alma, but...he means racial bias. Does that help?


You know it. I know it. Everyone reading this thread knows it. But Alma keeps insisting that's not what he's claiming whenever I actually attempt to address, measure, or examine the issue of racial bias as a cause.

So yeah, it would be even more helpful if Alma would say it and then we could maybe move on.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
It just bizarre to me that every part of your argument certainly seems to be arguing that racial bias by cops is why things like "stop and frisk" affect blacks at a higher rate than whites, and why blacks are shot more often by police than whites are. But when I argue against racial bias as a primary cause, instead of defending your position with some kind of argument and maybe facts and logic, you pivot to the side and insist that you're not claiming that at all.
Can you quote where Alma claimed the bolded bits were not due to racial bias, because I missed that.


Just look at his own response in the next post. The problem is that I'm trying to actually examine the police's actions themselves. What criteria do they use when pulling someone over? What criteria do they use when deciding to search a car or a person? What criteria do they use when choosing to make an arrest? What criteria do they use when choosing to fire their weapon? All of these would seem to be relevant to the topic at hand, and helpful for determining whether the disparate outcomes for blacks are the result of police bias against them, or that their socio-economic condition triggers those criteria more often than other groups. I do this because it would be helpful when deciding whether we should focus our efforts on police training or on trying to address the underlying poverty condition.

But when I make this argument Alma just jumps back to a 10,000 foot statement like the one below. He talks in very vague and very broad terms about "institutional favoritism" (can't even say "racism" or "racial bias" for some reason). Which is incredibly non-useful IMO.

Quote:
Which will be the case for you and all of us because you refuse to accept the obvious, overwhelming evidence of racism that is driving the problem.


Let's avoid being Alma and instead be very specific. Let's set aside racism or racial bias as a factor in the socio-economic condition of blacks versus whites and look only at racial bias by police in the course of their policing duties. This is relevant in the current "blame the cops" environment (which is what I'm saying is wasteful and counter productive). Do you honestly believe that racial bias by police is more than a very tiny factor in the disparate statistical outcomes we're talking about here? I'm looking just at the current trend of blaming the cops and focusing our attention on somehow changing their practices so that blacks are not stopped at a rate so much higher than whites, and searched at a rate so much higher than whites, and shot at a rate so much higher than whites.

My argument is that focusing on the behavior of the police is the wrong direction to go. Do you agree or disagree? If so why?

I further argue that the movements that are fanning the flames of anger at the cops are not only not helping but are likely just making things worse. They are profiting on the violence that results from their own actions. Again, this is relevant to the topic at hand in a way that "institutionalized favoritism" isn't. We're specifically talking about that anger towards cops by blacks and whether it's justified or is merely leading to events like what we saw in Dallas and doesn't serve to actually solve any part of the actual problem.


Quote:
... belief that racism "has a tiny impact" in modern America


I didn't say that. I said that racial bias by cops has only a very tiny effect on the resulting stats vis-a-vis police interactions with blacks. I've corrected this error at least 2 times previously in this thread. Please at least take the time to read what I'm saying before making assumptions and arguing against that.

For those still filled with dumb:

I am not saying that racism and/or racial bias has no effect on the current socio-economic conditions of blacks in the US (in fact, I've talked about several possible causes of that disparate socio-economic condition and how racism and/or racial bias is involved).

I am not saying that racism and/or racial bias does not exist at all among police (as it does among the general population).

I am saying that what level of racism and/or racial bias does exist among the police does not come close to being a sufficient factor to account for more than a tiny portion of the resulting stats involving police interactions with blacks.

That's what I'm saying. If you counter by saying "but racism exists in the US!", then you have failed to counter what I'm saying. If you argue that "but at least some cops must be racist!", then you have failed to counter what I'm saying. if you argue that "cops pull over (stop, detain, frisk, arrest, shoot) blacks at a higher relative rate than whites", then you are merely pointing out the resulting stats (which are not in question), and not the cause (which is what is in question), and have failed to counter what I'm saying. If you merely call me names without actually addressing my points, then you have failed to counter what I'm saying and have more or less admitted that you just don't have a rational counter.


Can you actually address what I'm arguing here? Anyone? Or do we spend 6 more pages of you guys more or less repeating some variation of the failed arguments I just talked about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#395 Aug 29 2016 at 5:02 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
bijou wrote:
... belief that racism "has a tiny impact" in modern America
I didn't say that.
gbaji wrote:
I am saying that what level of racism and/or racial bias does exist among the police does not come close to being a sufficient factor to account for more than a tiny portion of the resulting stats involving police interactions with blacks.
And yet, you did.

Again.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#396 Aug 29 2016 at 8:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
What I think we have here is a catch-22, where poverty reinforces racial stereotypes, and discriminatory exclusion complicates any attempts to leave poverty behind. Focusing on either one while ignoring the other is only going after half the problem.


Correct. Remember though, that I'm not saying we can't look at instances of racism or racial bias in society as a whole. I'm saying that zeroing in on police actions, seeing that they are unequal based on race, and declaring the police to be a racist/biased institution that needs to change isn't going to be very productive at actually solving the underlying problem. It will be *very* productive at making people angry at police and causing the types of attacks on police that started this thread.

Quote:
Speaking of institutional racism, the problem was these things were always there, and never did go away. We simply removed one method of being racist. Like a well-meaning electorate putting caps on direct campaign contributions only to see the rise of the super-PAC. In much the same way we can't claim the "issue" and yes I realize not everyone would see this as an issue, it's just more for illustrative purposes of money influencing elections went away just because we removed the most obvious way for it to happen. Letting everyone drink from the same drinking fountains doesn't mean much if you're still not making it past your first interview for a job after someone realizes you're black. You simply "aren't qualified for the position" and that's the kind of thing that can severely limit your upward mobility.


Sure. But everything else being the same, the removal of the overtly in place racial blocks should have resulted in a pretty significant relative socio-economic improvement for blacks. And when we add in decades of processes that look for signs of the kind of "quiet racism" that you're talking about and either go after those who engage in such things, or create (at least in theory) counter balancing effects, we should have seen an even more dramatic improvement. But we haven't.

Again, this is a secondary point to my primary point about the futility of going after the police, but if we're going to talk about how racism may affect the underlying black condition, I also tend to think it's questionable to just assume there's so much "invisible racism" out there that must be causing it. While I'm sure there's the occasional person making a judgement like that, it's hard to imagine that it can be that huge of an effect. People lose their jobs in corporate America over even the suggestion of racial bias in hiring. Heck. Businesses go through huge and sometimes ridiculous hoops to avoid the appearance of any sort of bias for anything at all. If anything, businesses will fall over themselves to hire qualified black applicants (and female black applicants are like a double plus bonus).

I'll repeat my earlier belief that I think the welfare system causes a far more disparate negative impact on blacks in the US than any bias in hiring or housing or lending in the private sector. That's obviously a whole topic of itself, but that's my opinion.

Quote:
This is why you see studies point out things like disparity in the homes that are shown by realtors to people of different races, differences in government spending in minority areas, differences in hiring rates among minorities, etc. Any one by itself is only part of the picture, taken as a whole though it's a pretty widespread problem, before we even get to talking about the whole poverty issue, and problems with upward mobility if your social circle is poor as well.


Again though, that's a social issue that can and does go in both directions. Just looking at the realtors thing, they are going to show people houses in locations where they're going to get a purchase decision in the least amount of time/showings. How much of that is the realtor having some innate racially motivated need to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods, and how much is past experience knowing that black customers tend to prefer to move into predominantly black neighborhoods? We already discussed in this thread that there is a form of self segregation that exists in the "black community" and has for some time. Part of the Black Power movement back in the 60s and 70s was to concentrate black voters in single districts and neighborhoods so as to increase the say that blacks had on their local government (and even congressional seats). And while the did increase black representation in legislatures and city councils around the country, it does have some negatives as well.

I keep coming back to the self interest thing. A realtor, for example, would have to have some incredibly strong racist beliefs to intentionally steer people away from a potentially better sale (and higher commission) purely because of some desire to keep races segregated. A similar point can be said about hiring. You want to hire the person that will do the best job. Period. Intentionally choosing otherwise is the same as intentionally taking money out of your pocket and lighting it on fire. So again, I question the degree to which a racist motivation is at play, versus the same stats we're talking about influencing people's decisions. Which is a factor we can certainly talk about from a social awareness perspective, but we've been doing that for decades, and I think people are about as aware of this as we possibly can at this point.

I'll again point out that what was holding blacks back prior to the passage of the civil rights act wasn't just people's opinions, but a systemic set of rules that actively prevented black success. We can certainly assume that even after removing those the opinions remained and somehow still remain and are influencing things, but I believe that the welfare state effectively replaced that systemic process with another one. One that's maybe a bit more subtle, but it's there nonetheless. As I mentioned earlier, we can spend all out time chasing after something we can't see and can't measure, or we can maybe look at something we can see directly and measure directly. We can see the statistics in terms of black participation in various welfare programs. We can also see that the rate at which they do so pretty perfectly matches up to the relative ratios of other stats (like crime, poverty, education, drug use, violent death rates, etc).

If one starts out believing that welfare programs are helpful and thus their presence merely echoes the degree of the existing problem (help goes most to those most in need, right?), then you'll conclude that this isn't a problem. But if you're like me and you believe that welfare programs have the nasty side effect of perpetuating the condition of poverty while merely treating some of the most direct symptoms, then you'll see this as the primary reason why, half a century after dismantling the overt system that was preventing black success, we still haven't seen black success come close to where it should be. If the problem is such a high percentage of blacks growing up in a poverty stricken neighborhood, then a system that practically forces them to do so would seem to be our prime culprit, right? But because it's such a sacred cow of the left, in their minds, it not only can't be the source of the problem, but anyone claiming it is should be attacked for being a mean racist bigot who hate poor people (or something similar).

We didn't just remove one overt system of racial suppression and leave behind the opinions and intentions as you suggest. We replaced one overt system of racial suppression with another system of racial suppression. But because it's been labeled as "help", an entire side of our political ideology refuses to even entertain the possibility that it might be responsible for the social stats we're seeing now. Instead, they eternally chase after examples of racial bias in hiring, and housing, and education, and policing. Basically everything in our country *except* the social welfare system.

Quote:
In the end, and a reason that a lot of the argument ends up being stat based, is people aren't going to say they're racist. That's the kind of thing that costs you your business, gets you sent to jail, etc. They're going to have excuses about not visiting business in black neighborhoods, not hiring blacks for good paying jobs, choosing to build a library in a certain neighborhood, only fund their local school instead of the one across town, etc.


Again then. Why would they do it? You're assuming a motivation for a potentially self harming act, which not only runs the risk of ruin if the motivation is discovered, but absolutely will cost you directly even if it's not. Why? I mean, I'm sure there's a few hard core racists in our society who will chose to lose money in order to stick it to someone who doesn't look like they do, but that seems unlikely to be very widespread. A far more logical explanation is that most of this is the result of very real outcome analysis. And that gets back to the catch-22 you mentioned earlier. I'm not saying at all that I have anywhere near all the answers, but I am quite certain that eternally railing about "racism" isn't likely to be productive in the long run.

It's a method that is very effective at getting people politically motivated and aligned. It's a terrible method if you want to actually work towards equalizing social outcomes by race.

Quote:
Quote:
A cop may be more suspicious of a couple of black men standing on the corner than a couple of white men doing the same thing. But if that increased suspicion is the result of past statistical probability vis-a-vis likelihood of each pair of men being involved in criminal behavior, is his bias because of "racism", or the result of existing socio-economic conditions?
Either way it's a problem. Having excuses for racism doesn't make it not racism.


If it's actually racism, sure. But as was mentioned some time ago in this thread, we can't ever know for sure what's in someone else's heart. So chasing after that isn't likely to be very productive. What you can do is look at individual actions and asses whether they were fair and proper. And in the case of police interactions, what we keep repeatedly seeing is massive outcry over actions that, once the full facts are known, turn out to be perfectly reasonable. Worse, it appears as though there's a deliberate effort to create the outcry as quickly and as loudly as possible before the full facts can be known, precisely to generate as much anger and emotion in that window where rumor and speculation can reign. And that process is what I find deplorable.

Quote:
Quote:
"racism" and "racial bias"
You're probably going to want to elaborate on this difference more. Because honestly, I'm not seeing it at this point.


Racism is the belief that one race is innately superior to another.

Racial bias is the practice of taking an action or making a decision using race as a major, if not the primary, deciding factor.


They are two very different things. Someone can be exhibit racial bias without being racist. For example, when black protesters stop cars driving by looking for any with white people in them, and then attempt to attack the white people if they find them, that is racial bias. They're targeting people by race. That does not mean that they're doing it out of an innate belief in the superiority of inferiority of any race. Similarly, affirmative action programs insert a racial bias into hiring, contracting, and admissions processes. They are not necessarily the result of racism on the part of those who support them (although, ironically, a case can be made it though). When BLM protesters organize their marches and they tell any white people in attendance that they have to walk at the back of the group, they are being ironic (and probably think it's funny), but also engaged in racial bias.

And yes, when a cop decides to look a bit closer at a group of black teens hanging out in a park in a situation where he might not do the same thing if it were a group of white teens, he's also engaged in racial bias. And it also doesn't necessarily mean that he's a racist.

Honestly, I made the point of making a distinction between these because I've been called out on using the terms interchangeably in the past. I made the mistake once in a thread of saying that treating people differently based on their skin color was a form of racism, only to have someone toss the dictionary at me and declare my entire argument wrong because I used the wrong term. When I attempted to say "Ok, change racism to racial bias", they then charged me with "backpedaling" and changing my argument. Nope. I'd said it was "racism", and it wasn't, so therefore I was completely wrong. Never mind that my argument didn't rely on the label used at all. That just didn't matter.

So yeah, I try to be cautious about using the terms incorrectly, even when responding to someone else's incorrect use of the terms. Because even if all I do is quote someone else using a term to describe something, if I use the same term in my response, and it's not the correct one, it's my argument that will be declared null and void. Been there. Seen that. Got like 1000 t-shirts.

I'm well used to people making everything except the point I'm arguing the focus on their response. It's annoying, but that's the reality of arguing unpopular positions on an internet forum.

Edited, Aug 29th 2016 8:53pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#397 Aug 29 2016 at 9:44 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Racism is the belief that one race is innately superior to another.
Huh. I have always thought of racism as a hatred (or disparaging) of another race due to that other races (perceived) deficiencies (or oddities) , not the beholders' perception of their own superiority.


Maybe just me?


Edited, Aug 29th 2016 9:45pm by Bijou

Edited, Aug 29th 2016 9:46pm by Bijou
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#398 Aug 29 2016 at 10:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Racism is the belief that one race is innately superior to another.
Huh. I have always thought of racism as a hatred (or disparaging) of another race due to that other races (perceived) deficiencies (or oddities) , not the beholders' perception of their own superiority.


Yup. That's how most people commonly use the term. And it's fine, right up until you are a conservative on a predominately liberal forum and make the mistake of using the common definition "incorrectly". I was quite surprised to learn that the dictionary definition will say something like this:

Quote:
the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races.

* prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.


Apparently, the whole "view a race as superior to another" is a cornerstone of the issue. I had always just assumed that racism was the act of treating or viewing people differently based on their race. But that's more correctly termed "racial bias" (or "racial discrimination"). The label "racism" itself rests on a belief in innate inferior or superior racial characteristics. Which, I suppose, makes racism far more ugly than racial bias. Um... But that's kinda the point. The more ugly term "racism" is often leveled at people and actions where racial bias is the correct term, and most people don't bat an eye (how often have you heard someone say "that's racist" when referring to anything where one race is treated differently than another, or even just when a person of one race experiences a different outcome than another, regardless of reason?).

The definition of "racist" is similar btw:

Quote:
noun
noun: racist; plural noun: racists

1. a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another.

adjective

1.
having or showing the belief that a particular race is superior to another.


A racist is someone who believes in the theory of racism. A racist act is an act based on said theory.


Quote:
Maybe just me?


Nope. Pretty much everyone. Well, except when the strict dictionary definition is useful in an internet argument, I suppose.


I guess where this is actually relevant is where we separate the measurable facts from the immeasurable motivation. We can't know whether someone is actually a racist, or actually believes in racism. We can, however, measure racially disparate outcomes and actions. The mistake, IMO, is automatically assuming that the presence of one proves the existence of the other. I've also seen the terms used as a dodge in political discussions. Someone will point out a racially biased act by someone who is a minority, only to be told that minorities can't be racist because they aren't acting on a belief in the superiority of their own race. Of course, this neatly avoids the fact that an action can be very much racially biased, without requiring that someone believe anything with regards to superiority or inferiority of any given race.

Which is why I think that talking about "racism" is not very useful. I'd much rather we focus on the actions, assess where they differ based on race, and then look at whether those differences are justified or not. When we start conflating the concepts of racism and racial bias, we get into odd territory where the same person can angrily condemn the fact that cops pull over black motorists at a higher relative rate compared to white motorists, but more or less completely ignore black protesters overtly treating white people not just poorly, but violently, based solely on their skin color. Which is yet another case of racial bias, but that gets a pass because it's racial bias that is assumed to not be in alignment with racism itself and thus doesn't really count.

Which, IMO, just leads us to a double standard that makes the entire topic incredibly difficult to deal with. I'd really love it if we'd drop the whole "which race is historically advantaged and/or viewed as superior/inferior/whatever", and just go with a really simple rule that we should all treat each other based on our actions and not our skin color. Wouldn't that be amazingly fantastic? And simple too! But if we did that, then no one would protest Michael Brown being shot and killed. And the politics of race is itself a very powerful tool. So we spend ridiculous amounts of time obsessing over the parts that don't matter, while ignoring the ones that do.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#399 Aug 30 2016 at 12:28 AM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
I'm saying that the state of Black America is the result of both personal actions and institutionalized favoritism and that conservatives (like you) only focus on the former and liberals only focus on the latter.


I get that you're saying that. You've said it multiple times. Do you get that this response doesn't in any way actually address what I'm talking about?

Quote:
So, as long as the robbers are caught, how they were caught is irrelevant?


I didn't say that. What I'm saying is that you can't assume that if a given percentage of one group is caught committing robberies is higher than another group you cannot assume that unfair methods were used to catch them. You're using the skewed ratio as proof of racial bias by the cops. But it could be something as simple as... oh I don't know... the well documented fact that a higher percentage of black people actually do commit criminal acts. Instead of blaming the cops, or assuming they must be biased in their actions, maybe we should look at why blacks are more likely to engage in criminal behavior than whites.

No amount of "fixing" the behavior of the cops fixes the much more problematic underlying issue. Looking at why blacks commit crime at a higher rate does at least move us in the direction of fixing that underlying issue. And my opinion is that it's the poverty rate difference that is the root cause, so we should be focusing on that problem. I'm not sure why that's the wrong way to go in your mind.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Ok. But we're specifically speaking about effects of racial disparity, right? So what form of favoritism would cause that resulting disparate result?
First, you responded that it could be both, which was my point. There was no need to discuss any further.


Unless I want to know what you mean by "institutionalized favoritism". Which, I do. You're the one who keeps using the phrase. I don't think it's unfair for me to ask what you mean when you say it.

Quote:
You initially said "but I can't help but get the sneaking suspicion that when you use the phrase "institutionalized favoritism" you really mean 'institutionalized racism'". When the provided definition didn't include race, you responded with "But we're specifically speaking about effects of racial disparity, right?".


Yes. That's what I said. What's funny is that you keep repeating what you said, and what I said, but you're not actually answering my question. Let's not forget that we're discussing differences in socio-economic condition by race. When you declare that it's a combination of personal actions and institutionalized favoritism, it's reasonable for me to assume you mean institutionalized racism and/or racial bias/discrimination. But whenever I say "is this what you mean?", so that I'm not committing a straw man argument, you avoid answering. I'm kinda baffled by your behavior here.

Quote:
If you were to take the "hiring the more attractive girl over the less attractive girl" as an example, that has nothing to do with race right? Well, who decides who is attractive? If you are attracted to White or Asian women, then you're not hiring Black women.


And if the deciding factor in that was the skin color of the woman, then wouldn't it be correct to call that racial bias? It's funny because everyone knows that's what you're talking about, but for some bizarre reason you can't just come out and say it clearly. Why the tap dance?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#400 Aug 30 2016 at 7:26 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's annoying, but that's the reality of arguing unpopular positions on an internet forum.
Being racist is an unpopular position, film at 11.
gbaji wrote:
What's funny is that you keep repeating what you said, and what I said, but you're not actually answering my question.
Is it funny because that's what you constantly do? I guess it's a little funny because everyone knows what you're talking about, but for some bizarre reason you can't just come out and say it clearly.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#401 Aug 30 2016 at 9:53 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
Sure. But everything else being the same, the removal of the overtly in place racial blocks should have resulted in a pretty significant relative socio-economic improvement for blacks.
I'm sure it didn't hurt any, but I wouldn't expect to see a large improvement in overall welfare. Again, it's not like people stopped being racist, or acting in a manner that disadvantaged black people, we just made the most overt forms of discrimination illegal. You still have have plenty of ways to discriminate that aren't technically against the law, or at least are nearly impossible to prove. Those first steps were more akin to treating symptoms than an actual cure.

gbaji wrote:
And when we add in decades of processes that look for signs of the kind of "quiet racism" that you're talking about and either go after those who engage in such things, or create (at least in theory) counter balancing effects, we should have seen an even more dramatic improvement. But we haven't.
What kinds of counter-balancing effects are you referring to?

Quote:
Again though, that's a social issue that can and does go in both directions. Just looking at the realtors thing, they are going to show people houses in locations where they're going to get a purchase decision in the least amount of time/showings. How much of that is the realtor having some innate racially motivated need to keep blacks out of white neighborhoods, and how much is past experience knowing that black customers tend to prefer to move into predominantly black neighborhoods?
I think a 50/50 mix of black/white was what was listed in one of the papers I linked earlier? The closer to that ratio, the more appealing the neighborhood was. The big factor for not wanting to move into a white community was fear. Which brings about the interesting point, is that you can probably find fear down in the roots of a lot of the problems if you dig deep enough, and yes it does come from both sides. So where does that get us? You can't force people out of their comfort zone, you can't make them socialize with other races, you can't make them treat other races equally, so the problem perpetuates. Fear separates people, the lack of contact breeds ignorance, and the ignorance begets harmful actions.

Quote:
But because it's been labeled as "help", an entire side of our political ideology refuses to even entertain the possibility that it might be responsible for the social stats we're seeing now. Instead, they eternally chase after examples of racial bias in hiring, and housing, and education, and policing. Basically everything in our country *except* the social welfare system.
Which, isn't going to get an argument from me. Welfare style programs certainly have their place, but don't really address the type of problem were talking about here. You can give someone food to keep them from starving, but there isn't really anything simple you can hand out to someone to make them successful. The problem becomes more nuanced at that point, and not something you can easily wrap a political slogan around.

Quote:
Again then. Why would they do it? You're assuming a motivation for a potentially self harming act, which not only runs the risk of ruin if the motivation is discovered, but absolutely will cost you directly even if it's not. Why? I mean, I'm sure there's a few hard core racists in our society who will chose to lose money in order to stick it to someone who doesn't look like they do, but that seems unlikely to be very widespread. A far more logical explanation is that most of this is the result of very real outcome analysis.
Because people are more biased than you seem to think. They'll overwhelmingly prefer to interact with members of their own race, and will feel uncomfortable if they're repeatedly forced outside of that bubble. Forcing people into an uncomfortable situation is bad for your business.

Quote:
Racism is the belief that one race is innately superior to another.

Racial bias is the practice of taking an action or making a decision using race as a major, if not the primary, deciding factor.
Hmmm, I don't think either of those definitions are what we're looking for as a root of a problem here. Don't know what you want to call it but something closer to: an action that has an unequal effect of the welfare of members of different races. We can talk about indirect or direct effects, fear, ignorance and other things along those lines to expand on the problem. But in general people consistently acting in a way that disadvantages, or at least doesn't equally benefit, members of another race can perpetuate disparity even without malice intentions.

Get past that and then you're at the point where you have to ask yourself whether equal opportunity is enough, or whether equal prosperity is the goal. Which, ugh, is a whole different can of worms...

Edited, Aug 30th 2016 10:13am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 266 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (266)