Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#352 Aug 17 2016 at 7:57 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Isn't the more important thing to look at why there's such a massive poverty difference between black and white in this country and maybe fix that instead?
We've all answered that and you handwaved it away. Because in your world there is no racism. Because if there was you would have to admit you are part of the problem. Which you are to much of a coward to do. Which leads to you claiming there's no racism...ad nauseum


And again with the all or nothing approach. I have never said there is "no racism". I have said, repeatedly, that racism alone simply can't come remotely close to explaining the statistical differences we're seeing. I've said this many times now. But you keep responding with absurd straw man responses like this one.

I've "hand waved" it away because the only response I get is "racism. Racism! RACISM!". You've go the logic backwards. I'm not denying the existence of "any" racism. You, on the other hand, are refusing to accept the possibility of a cause for this that *isn't* racism. That's the problem.

Quote:
ALSO: See the ratedowns? I thought I'd mention that's not me. I told you some time ago that I'd stop doing that and I've held to it.


Yeah. I get that people respond emotionally to a topic like this. That's not going to make me stop trying to make them sit down, set their emotions and fears aside, and actually engage their brains in some kind of logical thought process though. May be a waste of my time, but it's my time to waste, right?

Quote:
Just in case, you know, you thought that was me.


Nah. You're one of the people who'll at least engage in discussion. So there's that. Most people just see a post saying anything other than what they have been force fed as the truth, get angry about it, and hit the rate down button as a means of punishing speech they don't like. It's like Pavlov's dogs all over again.

If you're angry, you're not thinking.


Oh. I'll also point out that in two replies, you still haven't provided a source or argument for your claim that racism by police is a major, if not primary, cause for the disparate police stats vis-a-vis black and white. Can you do that? It's possible, that maybe in the course of attempting to do so, you might just discover some thoughts on this that may just change your perception of the issue. If your disagreement is because it's *me* posting this stuff, and you have a preexisting negative view of my positions and ideas, maybe reading a whole host of other people who you don't know and haven't been arguing with on a forum for years, might show you that this isn't some crazy fringe racist notion, but is well established and well documented, and is pretty universally accepted as the actual root cause of the problem among those who actually study this subject.

Just not in the angry public forum poster circles though. There it's a repetition of the same angry rhetoric we see on our TV screens all the time.

Edited, Aug 17th 2016 7:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#353 Aug 17 2016 at 8:06 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,319 posts
gbaji wrote:
If you're angry, you're not thinking.


If you're not angry, you're not paying attention.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#354 Aug 17 2016 at 8:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Just because I was having trouble waking up and this was easier than thinking about proteins...

Provisional model of causes


Well, right off the bat, your first link more or less supports what I'm saying:

Several portions of the article talk about how poor people are more likely to fall into various categories of minor crimes which will result in police interaction, and that blacks are more likely to be poor than whites. The entire section on racial segregation may as well have been lifted from my own posts:

Quote:
3. Racial Segregation

There are two sets of reasons why racial segregation renders African-Americans vulnerable to repeated police interactions. The first relates to policing in black communities. Historically, the police have perceived poor, racially segregated black communities as “war zones” that require ongoing police presence. The most aggressive forms of this presence are tantamount to a kind of military occupation. Moreover, segregation facilitates the extent to which the state can employ policing as a vehicle of social control. That is to say, segregation effectuates what we might call governance through policing, a
state-sanctioned management strategy that requires the police to force engagements with African-Americans as a form of social regulation.

Additionally, because racially segregated black communities lack substantive employment and educational opportunities, some of their members may engage in both low-level and more serious forms of crime. In other words, racial segregation structures not only the production of poverty; it structures the production of crime. The existence of this crime increases African-American contact with the police by fueling tough-on-crime pol-icy initiatives.

Finally, because segregated poor communities have little political pow-er, law enforcement can aggressively police such neighborhoods with impunity. The bottom line is that the more economically and politically powerless a community, the greater that community’s vulnerability to law enforcement contact and thus the possibility of excessive force by the police.

The second way segregation facilitates African-American contact with the police is by normalizing the idea that particular racial groups belong in particular geographic are-as. In some parts of the United States, to know where a person lives is virtually to know that person’s race. For instance, an AfricanAmerican in Pacific Palisades at 9 p.m. is presumptively “out of place” and therefore presumptively suspicious because of the racial geography of Los Angeles County; there are relatively few black people who live in Pacific Palisades. Scholars sometimes refer to this problem as policing “racial incongruity,” and as Bennett Capers observes, “[a]lthough some courts have held that racial in-congruity cannot be a factor in establishing suspicion . . . other courts have held that consideration of racial incongruity may be a factor . . . .” The bottom line is that the existence of racial segregation helps to create a racial logic about race and place, or who be-longs where, that extends to policing.

Importantly, this “who belongs where” logic applies not only to communities where racial segregation is complete. The reasoning applies to “transitional” communities as well—that is to say, those that are undergoing gentrification. Invoking gentrification in the context of a discussion about police violence is particularly important because, as Fanna Gamal notes, “while the constellation of housing and development policies that facilitate gentrification is a growing area of concern for scholars and activists, the intersection of gentrification and the political and social nature of policing remain undertheorized.” The specific gentrification problem I want to emphasize here is that white movement into black urban areas (in, for example, New York, Los Angeles, and Washington, DC) can exacerbate police contact with African-Americans in at least two ways.



And it goes from there. Basically, it spends a lot of time talking about how the environment that blacks live in versus whites has a huge impact on how the police interact with those living there. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, this is all ultimately tied to the underlying poverty stats.

I've quickly looked through a few of the other links, but I haven't found any that actually attempt to claim that racism by police is a major cause of the disparate stats we're talking about. Can you actually maybe look through them yourself and try to find this?

I'll also point out that you're searching specifically for articles talking about racism and policing. But if you search for things like causes for disparate shootings of blacks, you'll get a whole different set of results. Because your starting point already assumes you want to look for racism related articles. What a surprise that most of them talk about racism and how it may affect policing. What's interesting though, is that even among this narrow set, none of them (that I've found) directly claim that racism is the cause of the problem. Most of them just talk about racism as a factor, or in one of them, just did a study of polling data in which people polled *believed* that racism was a factor (shocker that when there's so many people claiming this, that people then poll higher in the trend direction of what people are claiming on TV... NOT!).



Quote:
That's only going back to 2000, and just with a "racism police causes" search in google scholar (and only went through the first 5-6 pages).


Yeah. Again, that might not be the best search if you're trying to figure out if racism actually is the cause of disparate ratios of police shootings of blacks versus whites. It's like someone trying to prove that illegal immigrants commit tons of violent crimes, and uses a search of "violent crimes committed by illegal immigrants" to support his claim.

Quote:
A lot more articles examining different aspects of racism and police action, rather than "proving" that it exists.


Yeah. Because of the search criteria you used.

Quote:
Probably should have gone back further to grab more fundamental articles as there seemed to be a lot done in the 90's in the aftermath of the whole Rodney King thing. Also tracing through some of the citation trees would probably be a good thing to do, but I've got to actually research protein stuff too today, so can't spend too much time on it. Big disclaimer that I'm not involved in the field, so I'm probably missing the more fundamental cited papers, as would be typical when someone blindly tries to research outside of their own field.


Again, you're starting out by looking for articles about racism among police. Maybe start by looking for articles discussing the reason for disparate police shootings of blacks and then go from there? You know, start at the actual thing we're looking at, absent any assumption about what may be the cause.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#355 Aug 18 2016 at 12:41 AM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,244 posts
gbaji wrote:
Oh. I'll also point out that in two replies, you still haven't provided a source or argument for your claim that racism by police is a major, if not primary, cause for the disparate police stats vis-a-vis black and white. Can you do that?
As with you, it's a matter of observation and a functioning brain. I cant offer "proof" any more than you can "prove" that it's not a primary or major cause.
gbaji wrote:
It's possible, that maybe in the course of attempting to do so, you might just discover some thoughts on this that may just change your perception of the issue.
Being as I've worked at a homeless shelter for almost a decade now and that my perception is based on being immersed daily with all the issues that go with that - crime, and racial and poverty issues - I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to base my discussions here on real world experience.

One caveat, I suppose, is that the race issue here is primarily about Native American as opposed to black people. The dynamic is the same, though.
gbaji wrote:
If your disagreement is because it's *me* posting this stuff, and you have a preexisting negative view of my positions and ideas,
Any preexisting negative view of your positions and ideas by me or any other poster here are all on you. You've written plenty enough for a reasonably intelligent poster to have a pretty good read on your personality, positions and ideas. If you come off like an insufferable, racist, elitist dork you created that impression.
gbaji wrote:
There it's a repetition of the same angry rhetoric we see on our TV screens all the time.
I get my news and information from just about everywhere except US TV news. I don't watch it. Hell, I barely watch any TV at all.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#356 Aug 18 2016 at 8:24 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
gbaji wrote:
You know, start at the actual thing we're looking at, absent any assumption about what may be the cause.
Start with the confirmation bias that you agree with.
Friar Bijou wrote:
Being as I've worked at a homeless shelter for almost a decade now and that my perception is based on being immersed daily with all the issues that go with that - crime, and racial and poverty issues - I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to base my discussions here on real world experience.
But he saw an episode of Cops.

Edited, Aug 18th 2016 10:26am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#357 Aug 18 2016 at 9:07 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
gbaji wrote:
And it goes from there. Basically, it spends a lot of time talking about how the environment that blacks live in versus whites has a huge impact on how the police interact with those living there. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, this is all ultimately tied to the underlying poverty stats.
Do you realize that racial segregation, under-development of black neighborhoods, etc can have its roots in racism? If racism contributes to the poverty then blaming poverty for the problem is the basically the same as blaming racism.

http://sf.oxfordjournals.org/content/80/3/937.short
http://socpro.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/1/49

Unfortunately most of the articles on this subject seem to be behind paywalls. Most of the rest are books point back to racial segregation in the first half of the 20th century, and their continuing effects into today. Would you like me to link those? They're a bit more in-depth, but you can't read the whole thing either unfortunately.

gbaji wrote:
I've quickly looked through a few of the other links, but I haven't found any that actually attempt to claim that racism by police is a major cause of the disparate stats we're talking about. Can you actually maybe look through them yourself and try to find this?
Or you could just read the next point in the article you're talking about. The one titled "Criminality Stereotype"? The paper had 6 points of emphasis, and racial segregation is one of sub-points in the first one. And before you point it out, no they're not all about racism. Smiley: rolleyes

Quote:
Yeah. Because of the search criteria you used.
Have any you'd recommend?

Quote:
Maybe start by looking for articles discussing the reason for disparate police shootings of blacks and then go from there? You know, start at the actual thing we're looking at, absent any assumption about what may be the cause.
Okay I'll do it your way. Let's give this a try, I'm searching for the bolded thingy, year range: 2000 to present...

The world is not Black and White: Racial bias in the decision to shoot in a multiethnic context
Race as an Institutional Factor in the Arrest, and the use of Excessive and Deadly Force against African American Males

'But I Thought He Had a Gun'-Race and Police Use of Deadly Force

Or in lieu of continuing to play this game you could just link some of the papers you're talking about, instead of making me hunt for them, or guess which ones they are out of a list of hundreds of articles. Because obviously my google scholar skills are lacking.

Edited, Aug 18th 2016 8:56am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#358 Aug 18 2016 at 9:44 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
someproteinguy wrote:
Would you like me to link those? They're a bit more in-depth, but you can't read the whole thing either unfortunately.

There's zero danger of Gbaji reading a book. Trust me on this.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#359 Aug 18 2016 at 11:49 AM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
35,357 posts
Is there a Cole's notes on it? He'll likely skim that.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.


An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#360 Aug 18 2016 at 3:22 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,146 posts
SPG wrote:
Do you realize that racial segregation, under-development of black neighborhoods, etc can have its roots in racism? If racism contributes to the poverty then blaming poverty for the problem is the basically the same as blaming racism.
Of course he realizes this. That's why he conjures tangents to avoid talking about institutionalized favoritism affecting the state of Black America. When you stay on topic, he avoids you altogether.
#361 Aug 19 2016 at 8:02 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Is there a Cole's notes on it? He'll likely skim that.
Maybe an Amazon review.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#362 Aug 19 2016 at 5:55 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
As with you, it's a matter of observation and a functioning brain. I cant offer "proof" any more than you can "prove" that it's not a primary or major cause.


Fair enough. We all have opinions. But I've at least provided several articles discussing the issue which draw the same conclusion I have come to, and provide similar arguments for said conclusion. I guess I see a difference between "I think something is this way" and "I think something is this way, and here's my rational for thinking that". I'm kinda waiting for the second part of that statement on the "it's because of racism" side of this issue.

Quote:
Being as I've worked at a homeless shelter for almost a decade now and that my perception is based on being immersed daily with all the issues that go with that - crime, and racial and poverty issues - I'm pretty comfortable with my ability to base my discussions here on real world experience.


Which is strange because I would think that you'd be well positioned to have seen directly the link between poverty and crime. Were the people in the homeless shelter there because of racism by police? Were those who had long criminal records all really innocent, but some racist cops came along and made them into criminals? Did those with drug problems have their problems forced on them by racist cops? I guess I just don't see why there's such a strong desire in this context to hand wave away such things, and zero in on the rare occasional instances of police violence, and even then ignore the surrounding circumstances and just paint all police shootings of a person of color as "wrong" no matter what. So an armed man tries to flee the cop, refuses to stop, refuses to drop the weapon, then turns on the cop, with the weapon in his hand, and the cop is still wrong for shooting him?

That's a silly high bar being set for the cop, right?

Quote:
One caveat, I suppose, is that the race issue here is primarily about Native American as opposed to black people. The dynamic is the same, though.


Again though, what's the source of the problem? More importantly, what will actually solve the problem? I've said this several times. If we could wave a magic wand and end all racism (by cops, or heck, by everyone), that would not solve the problem. Those who are poor are still poor. Those who are living in high poverty high crime areas are still living in those areas. Their children are more likely to live in those areas as well. And their children as well. When the current stats show a very disproportionate percentage of blacks (like 4x IIRC) living in those conditions, then those same stats will be perpetuated generation after generation.

Should we be trying to find solutions to the problem? Or just use the fact that a problem exists to fuel anger and resentment. Because it looks to me like we're doing the latter. And You'll have to forgive me if I find that to be counter productive.

Quote:
I get my news and information from just about everywhere except US TV news. I don't watch it. Hell, I barely watch any TV at all.


Wasn't just talking about you though. It's a broader perception of the issue. And the narrative gets spread via many methods. Even if you aren't parroting something you saw on TV, it's a good bet that whatever sources you are using are at least to some degree influenced by the same rhetoric I'm talking about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#363 Aug 19 2016 at 6:05 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
You know, start at the actual thing we're looking at, absent any assumption about what may be the cause.
Start with the confirmation bias that you agree with.


Not sure if that's aimed at me, or elsewhere. I don't think there's any confirmation bias to use a search like "causes of disproportionate police shootings of blacks" when looking for the causes of disproportionate shootings, by police, of blacks. I think there's a ton of confirmation bias when you instead search for "racism by police towards blacks". If that's what you meant to say, then we're on the same page. If not, then you've got your head on backwards or something.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#364 Aug 19 2016 at 6:44 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And it goes from there. Basically, it spends a lot of time talking about how the environment that blacks live in versus whites has a huge impact on how the police interact with those living there. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, this is all ultimately tied to the underlying poverty stats.
Do you realize that racial segregation, under-development of black neighborhoods, etc can have its roots in racism? If racism contributes to the poverty then blaming poverty for the problem is the basically the same as blaming racism.


I have never said that racism was not a primary cause of the current existing condition for blacks in the US. In fact, I've argued strongly that this is the case. What I disagree with is that the cause of the disproportionate rate at which police detain, search, arrest, and shoot blacks is the result of racism by the police officers. Those are two completely different things.

Quote:
Unfortunately most of the articles on this subject seem to be behind paywalls. Most of the rest are books point back to racial segregation in the first half of the 20th century, and their continuing effects into today. Would you like me to link those? They're a bit more in-depth, but you can't read the whole thing either unfortunately.


I completely agree with that. The problem is that that's in the past. The current condition is based on that starting condition. My argument in this area is that the implementation of the modern welfare state by president Johnson in the mid to late 60s has perpetuated those conditions. Blacks should have been free to improve statistically after the civil right act was passed, segregation was ended, etc. But by creating the welfare state right at the time when they were still disproportionately poor and had not yet had time to "catch up", effectively trapped many of them in that state of poverty.

And yeah, I also suspect that racism had a fair amount to do with that as well. The Democrats realized that their earlier methods of keeping blacks as second class citizens was no longer politically viable, and so switched to another means to accomplish the same thing. It's a bit more subtle, but after 50 years, I think we can all see how effective it was.

Quote:
Or you could just read the next point in the article you're talking about. The one titled "Criminality Stereotype"?


Uh huh. It's an interesting section, but it's essentially measuring a well known neurological function of the human brain, which is pattern matching. Here's the thing though, are the police quicker to make those associations because they have an underlying racist view of black people, or is it because their brains have formed that association because it's reinforced more in their day to day lives? What's lost in all of this is that from a cops point of view, he's more likely (relative to racial ratio of all stops) to get shot at by a black suspect than a white. He's more likely to have to deal with a violent subject if that subject is black versus white. It's not "wrong" at all for the cops to make these associations.

What's missing in that study is the follow up to it, which I linked to earlier. A group of researchers noted this faster association pattern and devised a test to see how this affects the actual officers actions. What they found was that while police may mentally match patterns of black faces to violent images (weapons) faster, they were actually slower to react when they did in an actual simulated encounter.

What this suggests is that the police are aware of that association and are more likely to discount it and take more time to verify it when it's a black subject versus a white one. I already discussed this at length.

Quote:
Okay I'll do it your way. Let's give this a try, I'm searching for the bolded thingy, year range: 2000 to present...

The world is not Black and White: Racial bias in the decision to shoot in a multiethnic context[link=http://digitalcommons.auctr.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=enda]


Don't feel like reading through all of them, but this first one just confirms what I wrote above:

Quote:
Two groups of researchers have investigated the effect of race on decisions to shoot with police officers (Correll et al., 2007; Peruche & Plant, 2006; Plant & Peruche, 2005). Correll et al. (2007) found that police officers and community members both showed bias in the speed of their responses (responding more quickly to stereotypic targets). Consistent with prior work, the extent of racial bias in response times did not differ between White and non-White officers. But in spite of this bias in reaction time, police officers were no more likely to shoot an unarmed Black target than they were to shoot an unarmed White. In other words, despite the influence of race on the time taken to make correct decisions, police officers were able to overcome the impact of race and choose whether or not to “open fire” as a function of the weapon held, not the race of the person holding it. Using a different paradigm, Plant and Peruche (2005) found that although police officers initially exhibited racial bias in the decision to shoot, bias decreased with practice. Thus, college students, community members, and police officers all evidenced an implicit racial bias in the time taken to make a decision to shoot; however, police officers were able to overcome this bias when instigating a behavioral response.


The two paragraphs above this one talk about the first point (increased association between black and violence), and even showed that untrained random college students were more likely to make a "shoot" decision based on that bias. But when the same tests were done with police officers, that decision making changed. Another way to look at this is that those who's profession actually involves life or death decisions of this nature (rather than just a harmless test in a lab), did what you would expect and made the correct choices.

My argument is about the degree to which racism and/or racial bias influences police actions and the resulting negative impact on blacks versus say whites. And so far, all the evidence I've seen (even that which you've provided) pretty consistently provides a "no" answer. The actual actions of police do not reflect bias. So when you point to the disparate stats, it's arguably not because of racial bias by police.

Which means we should be looking at other factors. And while the papers you decided to link all examine the racial bias effect (you sure you're still not doing your own parsing here?), it's in the context of "yeah, we know that factors like poverty and growing up in high crime neighborhoods are a huge factor, but we're going to ignore that and examine police bias instead". Which is great for an academic paper. But if we're actually looking at the root cause, and searching for things to fix, we should be looking at poverty instead?

Dunno. It just seems like what I'm proposing should not be that far fetched. Is it?

Quote:
Or in lieu of continuing to play this game you could just link some of the papers you're talking about, instead of making me hunt for them, or guess which ones they are out of a list of hundreds of articles. Because obviously my google scholar skills are lacking.


Pretty sure I've already linked to a few in the course of this thread. I don't want to pull an Alma and insist on you searching for them, but on the other hand, it's a Friday afternoon, it's been a really long and busy week at work, and I woke up with a sore throat and headache, so I'm honestly feeling more like going home and taking some cold medicine and settling down. So I'm just not up for it at the moment.

Maybe Monday.

Edited, Aug 19th 2016 5:44pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#365 Aug 19 2016 at 7:30 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,244 posts
gbaji wrote:
If we could wave a magic wand and end all racism (by cops, or heck, by everyone), that would not solve the problem.
Completely? No. Go a long way toward solving it? Yes. Unless you believe that racism has no bearing.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#366 Aug 20 2016 at 5:26 AM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,146 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If we could wave a magic wand and end all racism (by cops, or heck, by everyone), that would not solve the problem.
Completely? No. Go a long way toward solving it? Yes. Unless you believe that racism has no bearing.
This.
#367 Aug 22 2016 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
gbaji wrote:
If not, then you've got your head on backwards or something.
If you can't figure out how google searches are colored by confirmation bias then let's just cut this short and go with "or something" since you're working way too hard preserving yours.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#368 Aug 22 2016 at 9:31 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
gbaji wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
And it goes from there. Basically, it spends a lot of time talking about how the environment that blacks live in versus whites has a huge impact on how the police interact with those living there. Again, at the risk of repeating myself, this is all ultimately tied to the underlying poverty stats.
Do you realize that racial segregation, under-development of black neighborhoods, etc can have its roots in racism? If racism contributes to the poverty then blaming poverty for the problem is the basically the same as blaming racism.


I have never said that racism was not a primary cause of the current existing condition for blacks in the US. In fact, I've argued strongly that this is the case. What I disagree with is that the cause of the disproportionate rate at which police detain, search, arrest, and shoot blacks is the result of racism by the police officers. Those are two completely different things.
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.

gbaji wrote:
It's a bit more subtle, but after 50 years, I think we can all see how effective it was.
Ironically I was just reading this Saturday...

gbaji wrote:
you sure you're still not doing your own parsing here?
From what I can tell I'm just grabbing the first few links on the page, ignoring the ones that aren't about guns/shooting/etc or are behind paywalls and can't really be read. Those three were all on the first 2 pages. Of course I can't comment to the degree the search program tailors search results based on my previous searches, hence the request for a direct link, given the fuzziness of what may be being returned.

gbaji wrote:
But if we're actually looking at the root cause, and searching for things to fix, we should be looking at poverty instead?
You mean racism? Because we really aren't going to solve one without solving the other.

gbaji wrote:
Pretty sure I've already linked to a few in the course of this thread. I don't want to pull an Alma and insist on you searching for them, but on the other hand, it's a Friday afternoon, it's been a really long and busy week at work, and I woke up with a sore throat and headache, so I'm honestly feeling more like going home and taking some cold medicine and settling down. So I'm just not up for it at the moment.

Maybe Monday.
No worries. In the end I don't think we're actually as far apart on this as the rhetoric would make it out to be. Some portion of this seems to be just talking past each other, and using different words to address the same issues. I don't mean to discount the other problems either, mostly just trying to tease out an understanding of your position.

Get well and stuff. Smiley: thumbsup

Edited, Aug 22nd 2016 9:16am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#369 Aug 22 2016 at 10:21 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
mostly just trying to tease out an understanding of your position.
Truly a mystery worthy of the greatest minds.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#370 Aug 22 2016 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
mostly just trying to tease out an understanding of your position.
Truly a mystery worthy of the greatest minds.
Well the hope was to spend the morning playing Fallout Shelter on my phone, but then we arrive at work and realize there's still 45 minutes until the next objective is reached so yeah... Smiley: frown

Edited, Aug 22nd 2016 9:48am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#371 Aug 22 2016 at 11:59 AM Rating: Good
******
49,561 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
Well the hope was to spend the morning playing Fallout Shelter on my phone, but then we arrive at work and realize there's still 45 minutes until the next objective is reached so yeah... Smiley: frown
I don't like those egg timer games. I always end up loudly arguing with the little pixels to go faster, and you only need to be sat down and talked to by a Chaplin once before that becomes an issue. I've got a Marvel game that kills like two hours. It's one of those "checklist of things to do then try again tomorrow" games. Can't say I'm much of a fan of that type of game either.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#372 Aug 22 2016 at 12:26 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,336 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
someproteinguy wrote:
Well the hope was to spend the morning playing Fallout Shelter on my phone, but then we arrive at work and realize there's still 45 minutes until the next objective is reached so yeah... Smiley: frown
I don't like those egg timer games. I always end up loudly arguing with the little pixels to go faster, and you only need to be sat down and talked to by a Chaplin once before that becomes an issue. I've got a Marvel game that kills like two hours. It's one of those "checklist of things to do then try again tomorrow" games. Can't say I'm much of a fan of that type of game either.
For what it's worth they did a pretty good job with the app, it's mostly me having to start work and hour earlier and not wanting to change my routine Smiley: lol. Playing it doesn't feel like blackmail, and it doesn't have any of those hidden necessary freemium purchases. Imagine it probably has something to do with it basically being a mini advertisement for the PC game series, and Bethesda not being your typical basement-run app software company.

Timers are still timers though; the annoyance knows no end. Smiley: glare

Edit: Or I guess normally it wouldn't, but the quest is complete now. Yay for lunch time. Smiley: thumbsup

Edited, Aug 22nd 2016 11:34am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#373 Aug 22 2016 at 4:01 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,146 posts
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.
#374 Aug 23 2016 at 6:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If we could wave a magic wand and end all racism (by cops, or heck, by everyone), that would not solve the problem.
Completely? No. Go a long way toward solving it? Yes. Unless you believe that racism has no bearing.


You're countering a relative statement with an absolute ("long way" versus "no bearing"). I have never said that racism does not exist "at all", or that it has "no bearing". You're presenting me with a false dilemma, where I must either declare that racism has no effect at all, or accept your position that it's significant enough that eliminating it would go "a long way" towards solving the problem. I'm going to reject that particular fallacy, ok?

What I have stated, repeatedly, is that I do not agree that racism by police is more than a very minor contributor to the problem we're discussing, and that focusing almost exclusively on it instead of on other factors that I believe are much greater contributors is counter productive. Is that really so wrong?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#375 Aug 23 2016 at 6:18 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
If not, then you've got your head on backwards or something.
If you can't figure out how google searches are colored by confirmation bias then...


Um. I'm the one who was pointing out the confirmation bias in a google search, so I'm not sure why you're aiming that at me.

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.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#376 Aug 23 2016 at 7:12 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 posts
someproteinguy 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.


Sure. And that's close to the point I'm trying to make. IMO, the anger currently leveled at the police is misplaced anger derived from the environmental conditions they live in. It should be leveled at the processes that maintain that poverty instead. And yes, I totally get that the police are always going to be seen as a convenient symbol of that environment. It's much easier to point the finger at the cop who arrested your cousin for dealing drugs than it is to point it at a wide assortment of more ephemeral factors that resulted in your cousin dealing drugs on that street corner in the first place. I do get this.

But there's a point between where "the people" point their anger, and where we as "a people" direct our efforts. And it seems as though what's happening is that certain groups have latched onto that anger as a means of self promotion, and use that to feed more anger at the police, and then use that to push for changes to police procedures and other more or less surface level stuff as a means of appeasing the very crowd they just got riled up in the first place. Which, I suppose, may make them look like heroes in the minds of the participants of the angry mob in the short term, but for those of us looking at the issue more objectively, it should be apparent that this isn't actually going to change anything in the long run.

Which is why I see the whole thing as social opportunism at its worst. And the people who suffer are the people whose neighborhoods, already suffering from poverty and crime, become the new war zones in this struggle. A struggle for what really amounts to nothing at all. There's no victory condition in the direction this is headed. Just more violence, death, and tears.

Quote:
Ironically I was just reading this Saturday...


Sadly, that's just one in a long list of examples of this sort of thing. Quite often "helping" isn't actually helpful to the person you help. I think I mentioned upthread somewhere the extension of the classic "feed a man a fish" concept that by feeding a man a fish each day, you tend to reduce the odds that he'll ever learn how to fish for himself. So it may seem charitable at first, but once that charity become institutionalized (or viewed in the context of entitlement), it becomes harmful to the recipient. And that's before even considering the degree of control one gains over the recipient, who is now dependent on you providing for him.

Our current welfare state was founded right at the moment in our history where blacks had just earned civil rights and most of the legal blocks to black prosperity in the US were removed, but they were still disproportionately poor because they had not yet had time to take advantage of that new freedom. We can speculate whether it was done deliberately to trap blacks in poverty, or was implemented by well meaning social thinkers who honestly believed they were "helping", but the end result kinda can't be ignored. Over the last 50 years we should have seen a significant narrowing of the social and economic gaps between black and white. But we haven't.

Some insist on arguing that it's "racism" that causes this, but it's hard to logically accept that racism has increased since the 1960s, much less increased to such a degree that it could make up for the elimination of all of the overt laws and rules and social restrictions that were in place in our society back then. 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. Not when there's a much more direct and logical and frankly measurable explanation at hand.

Quote:
From what I can tell I'm just grabbing the first few links on the page, ignoring the ones that aren't about guns/shooting/etc or are behind paywalls and can't really be read. Those three were all on the first 2 pages. Of course I can't comment to the degree the search program tailors search results based on my previous searches, hence the request for a direct link, given the fuzziness of what may be being returned.


Fair enough. Again though, even reading through some of the links you provided, it's clear (to me at least), that the authors tend to be measuring police actions within the context of a broader socio-economic condition. I'm not seeing anything that attempts to claim that racism by police is the "cause" of those disparate stats. Um... But you do kinda have to get into the whole difference between "racism" and "racial bias". They're not one and the same. 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?

And that statistical effect gets even more muddied when we're dealing with neighborhoods that are themselves strongly racially segregated. Which I've touched on previously in this topic.

Quote:
gbaji wrote:
But if we're actually looking at the root cause, and searching for things to fix, we should be looking at poverty instead?
You mean racism? Because we really aren't going to solve one without solving the other.


Perhaps. But my argument is that if we can figure out how to fix the disparate poverty rates, then 99% of racism and racial bias disappear as well. The example above kinda illustrates this. If poverty rates were the same for black and white, the it's likely that crime rates would be similar as well. Which means that people would not associate "black" with "crime/violence/poverty/etc". Which would dramatically reduce racial bias, and certainly put a massive dent in racism as well (it's a lot easier for someone to believe that their race is innately superior to another when there are such differences in crime and poverty stats between the two).

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.

Hence, my argument that we should focus on that poverty difference. Fix that, and a whole lot of other things are fixed along the way.

Quote:
No worries. In the end I don't think we're actually as far apart on this as the rhetoric would make it out to be. Some portion of this seems to be just talking past each other, and using different words to address the same issues. I don't mean to discount the other problems either, mostly just trying to tease out an understanding of your position.


I'm trying to explain it, but it's difficult sometimes. As I said earlier, it's really easy to point to the last link in the chain and point the finger at it. It's a lot harder to point out that that link is the result of the one before it, which was the result of the one before it, etc, and to argue that we should maybe look further up that chain for root causes, and certainly maybe try to find the one that gives us the most bang for the buck.

Quote:
Get well and stuff. Smiley: thumbsup


Oddly, while I felt awful Friday, I just took some cold stuff when I got home, and right before going to bed, and woke up Saturday feeling more or less fine. So yay!

Edited, Aug 23rd 2016 6:16pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#377 Aug 23 2016 at 7:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 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
*****
10,146 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
******
49,561 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
******
34,824 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 ****** 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
******
34,824 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
*****
10,146 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
******
34,824 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
*****
10,146 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
******
49,561 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
*****
13,336 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
*****
10,146 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
******
34,824 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
****
9,244 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?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#391 Aug 26 2016 at 5:32 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,146 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
*****
10,146 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
******
49,561 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
******
34,824 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
****
9,244 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.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#396 Aug 29 2016 at 8:59 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 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
****
9,244 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
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#398 Aug 29 2016 at 10:38 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,824 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
******
34,824 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
******
49,561 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
*****
13,336 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: 75 All times are in CDT
someproteinguy, Anonymous Guests (74)