No.5437[Last 50 Posts]
File: 1591077416589.jpg (45.42 KB, 817x613, 817:613, untitled.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
would have posted on /pony/ but I'm pretty sure this is a political issue.
I recently came across the following article https://medium.com/equality-includes-you/what-white-people-can-do-for-racial-justice-f2d18b0e0234
And among the 75 items it lists that white people can do to actively support anti-discrimination, it mentions starting a book club, and reading a few recommended books. I would love to try this with all of you.
I once had a friend who spoke out violently about this issue, but he hurt me to the point that we had to end our friendship. Still, the issues he faced are real, and I am glad to have found something I can do to help support his plight. I would love if you could join me in actively reading and discussing books on racial prejudice, as recommended by this article.
File: 1591082672973.png (651.41 KB, 1280x1087, 1280:1087, 735145__safe_blushing_eque….png) ImgOps Google
>Was the ways that he hurt you related to racial injustice?
No, he was just terrible at communication. verbally harrassed me a lot (ironically it wasa mostly out of fear that I wouldn't listen to him) and never apologized when I told him he'd hurt me or had to take long breaks from speaking to him. I know he meant well, but he was very bad at being kind. I do hope he's gotten better since. He's truly a kind soul, just bad at communicating.
And yeah, talking to people of color is important. I don't have many POC friends. I haven't avoided them, in fact the guy at my college who gave out free hugs all the time was black. for the most part I don't see skin color, and often forget race (and consequently racial prejudice) is a thing, which is probably why my aforementioned friend spoke to me so vehemently about the issue. I would certainly love to learn more about various cultures. I remember in elementary school we learned about the lenne lenape who used to occupy this area. that was always fun
I'm sure your friend experienced a lot of people who were willfully ignorant of racial prejudice, and it's hard not to get angry when you see a lack of acknowledgement of it. I'm sorry your friend was so rough, but the fact he took the time to talk to you about shows that deep down he understood you weren't doing it on purpose and that he had a desire to inform you, even if he was not very good at it. But it's entirely possible that person is watching this conversation so we should probably not discuss his faults out in the open.
I like how the list notes that you should watch media that not only focuses on racism itself, but just black-created media in general that might give a unique look at those people's perspective. I'm not much of a reader, but I love movies so maybe I could list some of the movies on that topic.
File: 1591103469432.jpg (90.17 KB, 1280x820, 64:41, 2363450.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
I have begun the book. I don't know if I can be...good while being good on this subject, if that makes sense. I know about respecting the state -- how humans get upset if you don't. And I know about not being racist -- people ban racists from posting. But I can tell I'm going to get stuck with this book. If you don't want me to talk, I guess that's OK. I'll probably still finish to book and eventually write about it elsewhere as best I can. At least that's what happenes eventually with books, although I've been very busy the past few months and have a long backlog.
File: 1591224140335.jpg (206.18 KB, 1024x768, 4:3, 1590453957781.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Not everyone here is American.
>>5546>You're saying, I think, that was unhelpful and it should be removed. OK.
Pretty sure that that wasn't
what he was implying.
No, that was absolutely not what I was saying...
I was speaking from my own perspective, but very clearly stated it is possible someone could be unaware of it. There's no need to remove posts...>>5547
Good point, perhaps it's important they share information on racial injustice in their own country too.>>5550
But I said that it was possible other people didn't know. Ok... I will try to communicate with you less literally from now on. You do not need to remove posts if people discuss how widespread knowledge of something is. Because nothing is universally known, and even if one person learns of it from the post then the post has value. It's just useful to some people to discuss how widely known certain things are to understand how much detail to include when discussing things...
I respect that you are trying to be respectful, but you should never assume anyone's perspective on anything is objective. I probably could have worded that better. I was merely speculating on how widespread the knowledge on that topic is. I apologize for the confusion.
But yes, please share what you learned about Jim Crow laws again, so that if anyone isn't aware they won't have to ask. I've heard some people find it embarrassing to admit a lack of knowledge.
File: 1591485954229.png (1.79 MB, 940x918, 470:459, adfa.png) ImgOps Google
I'm a good way though (first pass, at least) and can outline the argument so far:
1) There exists a criminal class in America. While some criminals may live a privileged lifestyle paid for by their skill in victimizing the rest of society, the typical criminal has entered the justice system for a seemingly minor activity and lives on the edges after release from state confinement, due to a lack of access to quality employment, housing, or helpful programs -- the criminal class is an underclass.
2) Since the 1980's, this criminal class has grown in America, especially following President Ronald Reagan's war on drugs, and black people make up a larger than expected proportion of criminals. Local police were reluctant to see drugs as the major threat to national security, but financial incentives helped win them over. As an added bonus, the drug war allows police to cease property from people and keep it, which is nice for them. Plus "tough on crime" are magic words if you want to make punishments harsher and harsher and have people be OK with it.
3) Now we get to some harder ideas. While a criminal is one designated by the state, we might imagine something I'll call 'criminal behavior.' This is behavior that, on some understandings, is suppose to result in the state deciding someone is a criminal. I believe police may plant evidence, make errors, lie, or create plea-bargain conditions that encourage people to admit to being criminals without this criminal behavior, but I think we can talk about an abstract connection, at least. For example, possession of any measurable amount of a schedule 1 narcotic is criminal behavior. The claim in the book is that criminal behavior is not significantly different from one race to another, and is pretty widespread.
4) If 30% of US citizens are criminals, but most citizens in general engage in criminal behavior, that leaves the state a discretionary margin. The state uses this discretionary margin to target black people or people living in poor black neighborhoods disproportionately (there has become no substantial 4th amendment restrictions on searches). The state itself is unable to know about racial targeting unless an agent is explicit about race being the sole factor in a decision (which won't happen), so the state will believe black people are more criminal in actuality. It is this belief and the appropriate responses that form the new system of Jim Crow.
This is probably all common knowledge. I don't really know what a book club is, I guess.
File: 1591488133203.jpg (45.3 KB, 750x475, 30:19, MedIncome.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5603>As an added bonus, the drug war allows police to cease property from people and keep it>cease
I think you meant "seize" or "steal". Either one would be accurate.>>5603>If 30% of US citizens are criminals..., that leaves the state a discretionary margin.
Yes, that is an unfortunate truth about the society we live in. Way too many things are criminalized, and enforcement is often arbitrary and capricious. I'd say we'd be better off decriminalizing all 'possession'-type offenses. Perhaps allow the state to confiscate contraband, but no jail time, no violent execution of search warrants, etc.>>5603>The claim in the book is that criminal behavior is not significantly different from one race to another
I'd disagree with that, unless you mean that it doesn't differ after controlling for socioeconomic status and cultural values.
Yes.>I'd disagree with that, unless you mean that it doesn't differ after controlling for socioeconomic status and cultural values.
Based on what I was thinking I should have said, 'the proportion of people with any criminal behavior is not significantly variable across races.' If anyone is watched long enough, they will very likely be watched breaking some law.
I see what you're saying, though. The kinds of criminal behavior are probably different for different economic classes, and all sorts of other factors.
>>5604>Way too many things are criminalized, and enforcement is often arbitrary and capricious. I'd say we'd be better off decriminalizing all 'possession'-type offenses. Perhaps allow the state to confiscate contraband, but no jail time, no violent execution of search warrants, etc.
The book points out the job creation power of American prisons, and how corporate forces will resist reduction. But it would be hard to say jailing people is about jobs as some final end.
Reduction in the number of things that can make Americans criminals would probably be good. Demilitarization of police action, especially for non-violent offenses would probably be good. As the cost of prison is considered, reduction in sentences is expected, although with digital forms of monitoring, that may not mean fewer under correctional control.
I think the author would consider the motivation to control black people using the criminal system is the more important root issue than the system itself, but if respectful, I agree too many common actives are felonies.>>5606
OK, sounds good.
File: 1591540040979.jpg (197.64 KB, 1200x679, 1200:679, Dumbo.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5559>I apologize for the confusion.
Oh, no worries. I probably overreacted, anyway.>please share what you learned about Jim Crow laws again
Jim Crow was originally a black character performed around the 1850's by a white performer. To act as Jim Crow, the performer darkened his face and the character spread stereotypes of blacks as lazy, stupid, and untrustworthy. (Jim Crow was also a crow in Dumbo who happened to be voiced by a white performer. https://www.lifehacker.com.au/2016/08/ask-lh-are-the-crows-in-dumbo-racist/
After slavery was outlawed, the Civil Rights Act of 1875 required equal treatment in things like public accommodations. Blacks and whites where often segregated, however. A 1896 court decision declared this was OK, trusting accommodations could be "separate but equal," even though they were not in any objective sense. Legal segregation and discrimination targeting blacks during the period between the American Civil War and Civil Rights movement of the 1950's came to be associated with the name Jim Crow.
Performing with a darkened face is called "blackface", and yes the majority of the material was mocking black people by using negative stereotypes of them. That is why the character in Dumbo is named that. Despite him and his friends not actually being African-Americans (as they are anthropomorphic crows) their black color and the way they talk and act is supposed to evoke comparisons to blackface performances in the minds of the audience at the time.
Acting in blackface continued well into the 1960s but has slowly become taboo because of that history. Still, controversies do still emerge when actors or film producers are not sensitive to the topic.
But back on topic. Yes, "seperate but equal" was almost never actually equal, because when forced to make two of everything, people invariably sank more time and resources into the facilities for white people. And this isn't ancient history, either. It's important to remember that many of people affected by those laws are still alive. The grandparents of young people today. The negative effects of those laws are still felt.
I see, that makes sense.
I went through another book called, "White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk about Racism." Again, just a first pass.
I think...in common usage a racist is a very bad person, it means someone who hates all people of some races no matter what. But then there's another thing which I might call the racial order. Academics call it systemic racism, but I don't know if I can call it that. The racial order is what makes white people more common in positions of power and makes white the default and most respected race. When the racial system exists in human authorities, the racial order is to be respected because the power of those institutions must be respected.
But outside of respecting authorities, we are allowed to try to reduce the racial order, I think. It might be a good thing.
File: 1591668691316.png (298.21 KB, 500x500, 1:1, marshmallowiest-pony.png) ImgOps Google
>>5611> When the racial system exists in human authorities, the racial order is to be respected because the power of those institutions must be respected.
Nah. In the US, the supreme legal authority is the Constitution, including the 14th Amendment (which provides equal rights under law to all citizens regardless of race) and the 2nd Amendment (which envisions the citizenry as a whole having the ultimate power to eject any tyrannical government).
File: 1591679473569.png (203.45 KB, 900x1492, 225:373, sweetie_belle_in_perplexit….png) ImgOps Google
How else would you interpret the part about a well-trained militia being necessary to the security of a free state? Why were standing armies in times of peace considered odious?
File: 1591707532278.jpg (140.89 KB, 1066x1024, 533:512, afff.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5612>We can say we no longer want it enforced.
Yes, I think so. Citizens are allowed some feedback over the government's future.>>5613>the supreme legal authority is the Constitution
Yes, that is the American system of government. Although of course, the government won't come to you or I to ask whether actions are constitutional.>>5615>Why were standing armies in times of peace considered odious?
I think it was something like: they would seek adventure and conquest and turn the reclusive little American republic into an empire, and empires can't be democracies. Plus they'd cost money to maintain, and we don't want high taxes.
The 2nd rather explicitly lays out this as the argument for why it's necessary.
Especially if you start looking in to the writings of the founding fathers.
Not too mention the whole having come out of a revolution involving armed citizens against a tyrannical government.
It's kind of something they have personal experience in
File: 1591795405589.png (1.47 MB, 1033x1024, 1033:1024, tears.png) ImgOps Google
This is a quote from the book White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism.
"When another police shooting of an unarmed black man occurred, my workplace called for an informal lunch gathering of people who wanted to connect and find support. Just before the gathering a woman of color pulled me aside and told me that she wanted to attend, but 'she was in no mood for white women's tears today.' I told her I'd handle it."
The chapter stayed with me for awhile. Basically in a mixed racial setting, the responses to a white woman's distress and the feelings it brings up tend to reinforce the racial history.
I think it might also be that people tend to take the emotions and feelings of white women into consideration more than people of other races. Almost as if no one is willing to listen until it upsets a white lady.
There's also this idea that, even when they are trying to be helpful, many white women try to make themselves the center of attention in a way that distracts from issue.
Right.>white women try to make themselves the center of attention in a way that distracts from issue
Right, although I doubt it's on purpose (although I grant the impulse to cry gives someone a choice...to a point). The author leads workshops on anti-racism and if there are white tears, the whole thing has to go on pause until it's over. Black women feel less at liberty to cry in a work setting, so there's a jealousy aspect (I don't quite understand how that works, but I'll take the author's word for it).
For black men, they may be reminded that black men have been killed or tortured over causing distress in a white woman, or just the claim of having caused distress. It makes being around white woman's tears problematic.
I mean, of course, these patterns aren't absolute, but something to consider maybe.
I cried at work once (maybe twice on the same issue). I was clocked out, so that was good. I wanted nothing more than to disappear. People were trying to pray for me. I got fired shortly afterward, not for that, but there's a level of stress beyond which I can operate, I guess. As much as I'd like to be a machine.
File: 1591836649124.jpg (77.11 KB, 1024x1024, 1:1, asss.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5628>women of color, who have to try and maintain an air of professionalism so that women are not negatively stereotyped too.
I see. Makes me reflect a bit on the pony thing.
I hid it all pretty well at first, but now it's basically public knowledge. There's probably privilege at play in whether you can be open about ponies, because I don't have to worry about being a representative of white women. I don't think I'll ever earn a position in a mainstream professional organization, so I've taken to defining 'professional' as I please, but I understand many would find being part of a pony fandom unprofessional.
There are other ways that I am a minority, but probably they are less powerful.
I reflect a bit on the connection between ponies and the alt-right. Maybe there are selective pressures at play in regard to race. I wonder if me being a different race would change my opinions about ponies. I hope not, but maybe.
In my view what someone likes as a hobby in their spare time has no bearing on their professionalism. Men do face some stigmatization for being fans of things perceived as feminine, far more than women do for being fans of things that are perceived as masculine. But those are issues with society at large, and a bit outside the scope of this conversation about racism. >the connection between ponies and the alt-right.
Is there a connection between those two things?
Ok, so I don't have to worry about that. As an authority on professionalism in my domain, I don't consider ponies bad. I think you can still do science and computer programming.>connection
I've seen people talk about it. Guess that's all I know. I know about respecting authoritarian racial order for the humans, but alt-right is different, they are trying to make changes. I'm not that myself.
File: 1591849283642.jpeg (54.85 KB, 351x350, 351:350, 16950-620x-80b976ab3d70d4….jpeg) ImgOps Google
>>5622>'she was in no mood for white women's tears today.'
That sounds quite racist!>>5624>many white women try to make themselves the center of attention in a way that distracts from issue.
Isn't that true of all races and genders?>>5628>Because you might be someone's only acquaintance of color. It means that one emotional outburst or misplaced word will be attributed to the group as a whole, rather than the individual.
That is unfortunately true. I'd say that subconscious lazy mental heuristics are to blame. Probably the best thing to do is to educate people about this issue and encourage them to consciously remember that they can't reliably generalize from a sample size of n
=1.>>5628>This does not happen to white people, or at least, not nearly as often.
I'd say that it happens to members of any racial minority, including whites in predominately non-white countries (e.g., Japan).>>5632>In my view what someone likes as a hobby in their spare time has no bearing on their professionalism.^this
But there are some hobbies that are best not discussed in a professional setting (e.g., at work). E.g., I don't talk about posting on pony imageboards or bitch about the process for buying a suppressor, and I certainly won't bring up drilling a hole in a solvent trap (even though this drilling is perfectly legal as long as you first go thru the right paperwork and pay the tax).
It's not really a racist idea. She had a point in saying that.
Tell me, what do you think "racist" means?
File: 1591879997127.png (618.92 KB, 763x875, 109:125, Neptune3.png) ImgOps Google
>>5639> what do you think "racist" means?
I'd say "racism" means "racial prejudice or racial discrimination".
Let me rephrase, then;
I agree that the statement was racist.
I don't think that's necessary. There is a subset of people out there who are going to claim that ANYTHING even remotely racial is "racist" when applied to whites, while at the same time hanging on to their own racist notions. Sometimes so that they CAN continue to hold on to them.
It's the ultimate "I know you are, but what am I?!" When it comes to racism. There was nothing racist about her comments when you consider the fact that she was expressing frustration over the tendency of some white people trying to make the racism discussion about themselves and distracting from the real issue, and then these posters doing just that.
File: 1592250652463.png (166.17 KB, 700x500, 7:5, 1458651704942.png) ImgOps Google
>>5660>the tendency of some white people trying to make the racism discussion about themselves and distracting from the real issue
It's not only white people who do that, and not all white people do that. Saying that you're "in no mood for black women's tears" or "in no mood for white women's tears" is racist; it unfairly discriminates on the basis of race. It you don't want people "trying to make the racism discussion about themselves and distracting from the real issue", then call that behavior
as something undesirable, rather than saying that people of a particular race
The same could be said for any race. People will generally be more likely to see themselves as victims than as perpetrators.
Specifying white people like this really comes across as rather racist, honestly.
I'm personally of the view that racism, flatly, is bad. Regardless of if it comes from someone white, black, asian, hispanic, indian, arabic, jewish, or otherwise, to someone white, black, asian, hispanic, indian, arabic, jewish, or otherwise.
File: 1592252768950.jpg (283.06 KB, 612x716, 153:179, 1591398061964.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5660>trying to make the racism discussion about themselves..., and then these posters doing just that.
What do you mean by this? We're all pseudonymous on this board, and I don't see anyone trying to make the discussion be about himself/herself.
File: 1592267563819.png (740.54 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, note_2018-12-26 09 37 00.png) ImgOps Google
"A majority of whites say that discrimination against them exists in America today." - NPR survey (quoted in book)
"As with prejudice and discrimination, we can remove the qualifier reverse from any discussion of racism. By definition, racism is a deeply embedded historical system of institutional power. It is not fluid and does not change direction simply because a few individuals of color manage to excel." - Robin Diangelo (White Fragility)>>5660>even remotely racial is "racist" when applied to whites
Right, this tracks along with debates over the legitimacy of affirmative action, which is commonly condemned on the basis of making decisions based on race. Of course, with all such programs impossible, we might expect things to remain about the same racially. Whether regression to the mean is an appropriate model in the long term, I don't know.>>5661
I think this is a common view. When anyone desires to punish someone based on race (or reward someone in a zero-sum environment) -- no matter the context or higher goals -- it is racist. Color-blind decisions are the most appropriate.
Not necessarily about themselves, but about white people. >>5662
Racism against whites is such a small problem that bringing it up is just going to distract from the actual issue of non-whites being mistreated in majority white, white-lead society. Derailing the topic because this woman saying something that is technically "racist" by definition, but is bringing to light an issue we have when discussing systemic racism isn't helping. It's making the discussion about oneself or one's own grop.
Can we just, please, talk about the real issue without "I know you are but what am I?"-ing the discussion on racism? It's very tiring. >>5664
Affirmative action is only necessary because people of color were held back for so many centuries that it is no impossible for things to be fair and balanced. People who argue against affirmative action assume a level playing field when it is not level and they ignore all evidence to that.
Personally, I think the only way to fully remove racism is to combat it on every level. Leaving some racism but combating others is at best just going to flip things around, and at worst accomplishes absolutely nothing as you've dropped the moral argument.
It seems to me that approaching racism from a flat "nobody should be judged by the color of their skin" would work far better.
The only works when there's a level playing field. Which there isn't. Until the playing field is level, then small instances of racism against white like joking about them not seasoning their food is going to pale in comparison to systemic racism against other groups like police killing a disproportionate amount of black people.
Furthermore, it looks like grasping at straws and trying to make the problem about yourself to even bring up the small stuff when there are so many other, larger issues to discuss and deal with. We can talk about the white people jokes when the playing field is somewhere close to level.
File: 1592278790852.png (4.35 KB, 768x682, 384:341, dislikes-smoke.png) ImgOps Google
>>5666>People who argue against affirmative action assume a level playing field when it is not level
You can level the playing field in a race-neutral way by having the government financially help everyone who is suffering a disadvantaged upbringing.
And as for affirmative action in employment or college admission: I think it's a terrible idea to admit a less-qualified member of a racial minority over someone who is more qualified. It will only perpetuate racism, because people will notice that the affirmative-actioned minorities are less qualified than their peers.
>>5670>Why do you assume the non-white person is less qualified?
Some affirmative actions programs explicitly do
(or at least did), by explicit design, admit minorities who were less qualified by than their white peers. There are (or at least were) systems like "whites need a score of at least X
, but blacks only need a score of Y
", where Y
That is ignoring that all the other factors like that schools in black communities tend to be less funded than white communities, or even that standardized testing has questions skewed toward white culture and history.
Again, it's not a level playing field. That's like saying "the white guy has to get a 2:30 on the race track while the black guy only has to get a 3:00! That's not fair!" When the white guy has a nice, even track and the black guy's is full of hurdles and spikes. You need to look at the tracks before you complain about the times.
File: 1592283582163.png (420.52 KB, 1280x720, 16:9, 1487000213633.png) ImgOps Google
>>5672>That is ignoring that all the other factors like that schools in black communities tend to be less funded than white communities
Less-funded schools generally produce poorer-qualified applicants, ceteris paribus
. So that doesn't go against my claim.>>5672>even that standardized testing has questions skewed toward white culture and history.
I remember reading that the College Board examines its questions for racial bias and throws out any questions where there is a significantly greater-than-average racial divide on how well students answer the questions.
By saying "people who come from less funded schools are poorer-qualified" and then saying "we should only hire the most qualified people", that is essentially saying that people from those situations (who are there because of the circumstances of their birth) do not deserve the same chances as people from the well-funded schools.
Which, turns out, tend to be divided by race. You need to think about what your words are implying before you play devil's advocate.
File: 1592284541241.jpg (59.42 KB, 650x744, 325:372, zelda-malon-with-chicken.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Or perhaps we should correct the issue that predominantly black schools are underfunded? I'd support that.
I wouldn't personally consider affermative action to be a "small instance" of racism. In fact, to me, it seems to be an objectively systemic variant.
As to police, I'm not convinced it's a racial issue. Just one of the police, especially in democrat controlled areas, being essentially without accountability.
It seems to me police brutality happens regardless of race.
But, regardless, I do not believe in the slightest that racism is the solution to stopping racism.
That is the inevitable result of affirmative action.>>5672> or even that standardized testing has questions skewed toward white culture and history.
Then why do Asians and Jews manage to do so well?
Rather than say "The black man only needs to run a 3:00 to get a job", why not repair the track?
In this case, I'd suggest getting rid of the division of schools in poor communities, where they get essentially no funding while richer communities get piles of funding.
Seems to me if anything, poorer communities need the higher quality education than do the wealthy areas, so the funding situation surely should not be as it is.
Bonus points here, this does not have to be done on a racist framework. This is a problem with all poor communities, after all. And as such can help the black community as a whole, without violating the ideal that racism is a bad thing.
File: 1592339618178.jpg (54.91 KB, 960x960, 1:1, 102263847_1016403796809579….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5680>As to police, I'm not convinced it's a racial issue.
Then you are not paying attention. It's not too late to do so. Like here's a graph showing how it is very much a racial issue. >Then why do Asians and Jews manage to do so well?
Money. You do realize that for many years there were laws in this country that put quotas on the number of Asians that could immigrate here right? It resulted in only people of wealthy backgrounds being able to do so. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asian_immigration_to_the_United_States#Exclusion_era
What, did you think that Asian people were just smarter because of genetics? That's kind of racist. Why would a rural farmer from China be smarter than an educated black person?> why not repair the track?
Repairing the track is the goal, but the problem is, the only way to effectively do that is to stop the race
. Which in this scenario means tearing down society or at least societal institutions steeped in a culture of racism. Otherwise, white people already have a 400 year head-start. Black people were not considered human beings for hundreds of years, and were not allowed to own property or start businesses for more than half of America's entire existence, and were treated as second-class citizens until less than 50 years ago (and that has only ended in some, more overt ways). The playing field is NOT level. So we have two options if we want both teams on equal footing. Offer the losing team bonus points, or tear down the stadium and start over. Personally, I'm all for a new game.
File: 1592342898860.jpg (195.77 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, 1401593910243.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5678>bonus points are the only way to make any sort of progress
I disagree. First, as I mentioned in >>5669
, I think having a racial double standard in admissions would actually promote
racism because people will notice that the affirmative-actioned minorities are less qualified than their peers. To help level the field, the government could offer free remedial classes to those who were suffered from underfunded schools, to help them become better qualified. >>5681>Like here's a graph showing how it is very much a racial issue.
Eh, not really. If proportionately more black people did things that justified shooting them (e.g., pointing weapons at police officers and violently resisting arrest), then it would be expected that more of them would get shot. >It resulted in only people of wealthy backgrounds being able to do so.
Many of the Asian immigrants during the 1800s and early 1900s were dirt-poor laborers.>What, did you think that Asian people were just smarter because of genetics? That's kind of racist.
First of all, it's an empirical question whether "Asian people are (on average) smarter because of genetics". It's either factually true or factually false. If it is true, then the truth is not "racist" by the definitions given in >>5640
. (Note that I am not
claiming that it is true. I am merely pointing out that it is logical error to argue "X is racist so therefore X is false".) And secondly, there are many other explanations besides genetics, e.g., culture.>>5681>So we have two options if we want both teams on equal footing. Offer the losing team bonus points
See, I think this is part of the problem: viewing things thru a racially collectivist lens. We should strive to treat people as individuals. There are poor black and poor whites. If you think poor people are treated unfairly, you can try to address that in a race-neutral manner.
>>5681>Money. You do realize that for many years there were laws in this country that put quotas on the number of Asians that could immigrate here right? It resulted in only people of wealthy backgrounds being able to do so.
Precisely. Thus, the issue is not one of race or "white culture and history" as you framed it, but simply economic status.
Thus, rather than putting in place biggotted practices in regards to standardization of testing, it'd be far better to simply address the economic and education issues of the poorer classes as a whole.> So we have two options if we want both teams on equal footing. Offer the losing team bonus points, or tear down the stadium and start over. Personally, I'm all for a new game.
Maybe this is your issue: You're looking at it like "teams".
I do not consider black people to be on a separate "team". For that matter, I don't consider it to be a zero-sum game.
I don't think it matters that there's a "head start".
It's why I'm far more interested in supporting change that helps the poor
rather than specific racial groups. Because there's plenty of white people in that "poor" grouping. There's plenty of loads of different races. Better to simply lift up the poor, rather than splitting everyone into racial "teams" and deciding what we give everyone based purely on their skin color.
File: 1592345821370.png (38.04 KB, 250x250, 1:1, 1360222085747.png) ImgOps Google
>>5681>is very much a racial issue.
And even if police are
racist in using excessive force against black people, would the situation be improved if the police increased
their excessive force against white people so that they're no longer racist? Ceteris paribus
, I'd say no. Instead, we should try to eliminate all
excessive use of force by the police.
As far as police violence goes, I would say all that really needs to be done is ensure police accountability is a thing.
You wouldn't have to target it from any particular racial lense, yet it would have been effect on racism instances regardless, as being able to push for legal action against officers abusing their power applies to that just as any other reason for their abuse.
Bonus points for not having to completely eliminate an ultimately needed institution.
>>5682>If proportionately more black people did things that justified shooting them
Present me the evidence that this is the case. Even if it were true, you would have to show me evidence that this happens enough to justify the huge discrepancy in black people shot versus their percentage of the population. Black people being 13% of the population but 43% of police shooting victims is such a dramaticly disproportionate number that even entertaining the idea that it COULD be justified is grasping at straws and trying to villainze an entire group. It's not helpful to this discussion. It also assumes that police officers are justified in executing people without trial. >Many of the Asian immigrants during the 1800s and early 1900s were dirt-poor laborers.
Ok? Did you look at the link I showed you? it centered on the Immigration Act of 1924. I don't know what your interjection had to do with what we are talking about except as an attempt to try and discredit the impact of that Immigration Act. Which it does not. So... nice try? >There are poor black and poor whites.
Poor whites are not at all the same disadvantages as poor blacks. Even the poorest whites have advantages the richest blacks do not, as we (here in the USA) live in a majority-white country which was built on centuries of systemic racism. You cannot apply a purely individualistic reading of things in this regard because a person's family history and background matter VERY MUCH in their current standing in life AND their ability for upward mobility.>>5683>Thus, the issue is not one of race or "white culture and history" as you framed it, but simply economic status.
Saying this ignores how race affects a person's upward mobility in regards to economics. That too, is an uneven playing field. >I don't think it matters that there's a "head start".
How could it not? When you play monopoly, one player starting off with all the money and one player starting off with none would not be fair. And if that player was not allowed to earn any money or own any property for dozens of rounds while the other person did, then how can that player win? And in this scenario "winning" is having equality.
Why are you so against helping black people? Why must it be a group that includes people like you for you to care? Have you no empathy?
My appology, that's the edited version of the video. I feel the strong language is important to convey the emotional weight of the words being spoken.
File: 1592352094649.jpg (47.72 KB, 501x401, 501:401, poverty_violent_crime.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5685>ensure police accountability is a thing.
I agree 100%. Far too often crooked cops get off the hook due to the police departments and unions protecting them and due to the clusterfuck of qualified immunity.>>5686>Present me the evidence that this is the case.
with evidence that it's not.
It is well-known that violent crime is positively correlated with poverty (e.g., pic related), and you've admitted that African Americans have, on average, significantly less wealth than white Americans.>It also assumes that police officers are justified in executing people without trial.
That's not a fair characterization. Police officers only shoot (or at least are supposed to only shoot) if the suspect is a continuing threat. They shoot to stop the threat, in self-defense or defense of others.>Even the poorest whites have advantages the richest blacks do not, as we (here in the USA) live in a majority-white country which was built on centuries of systemic racism.
Eh, I'd much rather be a wealthy black than a poor white.>You cannot apply a purely individualistic reading of things in this regard because a person's family history and background matter VERY MUCH in their current standing in life AND their ability for upward mobility.
Lots of white people have shitty families and backgrounds too. >>5686>Why are you so against helping black people?
Um, the author of the post to which you're responding specifically said that he wants to help the poor, which includes lots of black people.
>>5686>Saying this ignores how race affects a person's upward mobility in regards to economics. That too, is an uneven playing field.
I would say it's more dependent on culture. Again, Asians do remarkably well as I understand it.
A tighter family structure has served them well, and it's something unfortunately lacking in a lot of black communities. >When you play monopoly, one player starting off with all the money and one player starting off with none would not be fair.
Again; This says more about your world view.
It is not a zero sum game.
It is not a competition, for that matter.
Besides, the collectivistic lens is flawed as well. I was not born to a wealthy family. There are black children who are. By your logic, that is unfair. Should those wealthy-born black children be held back to make things fair for me?
I'd say absolutely not.>Why are you so against helping black people? Why must it be a group that includes people like you for you to care? Have you no empathy?
Why do you presume I am against helping black people? I've never suggest anything of the sort.
That seems to be your own projection. And based on what?
Because I want a fair, non-biggoted system that doesn't discriminate against people based on race?
Why are you okay with racism?>>5686> Black people being 13% of the population but 43% of police shooting victims
And over 50% of homicides are by black people as I understand it.
Perhaps that's a big part of why they're also over-represented in police shootings.
It seems to me this is the result of poor communities with fractured family structures resulting in a heightened rate of crime and violence within that community, which in turn results in a higher rate of police action in that community.
I'd make the suggestion the best way to dramatically decrease that rate is to improve economic situations for poor and encourage family structures rather than make it more economically desirable to be a single parent.
>>5691>Asians do remarkably well as I understand it.
Did you ignore everything I said about Asian immigration in >>5681
You keep talking about black families "not being strong", which is kind of a racist notion in and of itself, but has it ever occured to you that maybe all of this killing by police officers of black men is part of that? 1 in every 1000 black men in this country can expect to be killed by police.
Also, I'm not saying it's a "zero sum game". I'm saying that the system is not set up for black people to succeed and truly be equal, because they were treated as literally property for hundreds of years, and then were not allowed to own land or start businesses and were as second-class citizens. >I was not born to a wealthy family.
But you were (assumedly) born white, which gives you advantages in this society that black people do not have. Your analogy does not make any sense because no one is proposing we "hold back' wealthy whites. >And over 50% of homicides are by black people as I understand it.
citation needed. And this is just another "If black people stopped being bad guys cops wouldn't shoot them!" argument. It's a racist notion that ignores the fact that black people are being killed by police in far greater numbers than whites are when you look at the portion of the population they make up. It is essentially arguing that black people deserve
to be killed at these rates.
>>5689>It is well-known that violent crime is positively correlated with poverty (e.g., pic related), and you've admitted that African Americans have, on average, significantly less wealth than white Americans.
What you are suggesting is that police killing black people at such high rates is black people's own faults. You need to present evidence to back this up. That the statistics show that black people commit crime in high enough numbers that it could ever possibly justify the fact that they make up over 40% of all police homicides, despite only being 13% of the population.>That's not a fair characterization. Police officers only shoot (or at least are supposed to only shoot) if the suspect is a continuing threat. They shoot to stop the threat, in self-defense or defense of others.
Philando Castile. >Eh, I'd much rather be a wealthy black than a poor white.
Unless a cop pulls you over. >Lots of white people have shitty families and backgrounds too.
No one is denying that. But systemic racism goes beyond just having a shitty personal life. It goes into where you can work, where you can buy a house, how auntorities like police treat you.
White people have advantages in this country that black people do not. It does not mean that no white person has never had a hard life or suffered. It means exactly what it says. If you're white, you do not have to face the same issues a black person does. That is an advantage.
>>5692>Did you ignore everything I said about Asian immigration in >>5681?
No, I just didn't think it changed much. >You keep talking about black families "not being strong", which is kind of a racist notion in and of itself
According to this lot, they're at 65% for single parenthood. https://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/107-children-in-single-parent-families-by#detailed/1/any/false/37,871,870,573,869,36,868,867,133,38/10,11,9,12,1,185,13/432,431
It'd be racist if I said this was because they're black, or something that is just always going to be the case with black people.
I do not believe it is.
As I understand it, the marriage rate was far higher in the 1950s, as was the crime rate. I'd suggest these are connected, and something black people are more than capable of achieving given this past record. >I'm saying that the system is not set up for black people to succeed and truly be equal
Which is why there's not plenty of examples of successful black people...
Oh, wait, we literally had one as president.
I get that we used to have shitty laws that set them in a rougher startpoint.
But, when I say it isn't a zero sum game, this is what I'm pointing to. There are other groups, other individuals, who've got shitty start points.
I do not think it would be right to start cutting down successful black people for the sake of those people.
I'd suggest it'd be far better to simply approach those who are flatly in a less fortunate position, regardless of race.
Bonus points, it's not objectively racist to do so as is the case with things like affirmative action.>But you were (assumedly) born white, which gives you advantages in this society that black people do not have
If I was given the choice of be poor and white, or rich and black, guess which I'd choose?
Rich and black.>Your analogy does not make any sense because no one is proposing we "hold back' wealthy whites.
No, you are right. It's actually quite a whole lot worse than that.
The programs we've already got in place hold back whites, in their entirety
. Regardless of economic status.
Not just whites, of course, but regardless, you point to a great issue. The trouble right now is we took a collectivist lens that says even though a poor white man is quite obviously far more disadvantaged than a rich black man, we're going to give the advantage to that black man because of racism.
It's precisely why I have a moral opposition to these things. They're flatly wrong. They should not be done. We should never judge people based on their race. That is the very definition of racism.>>5692>citation needed.
I just grabbed it from wikipedia.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States> And this is just another "If black people stopped being bad guys cops wouldn't shoot them!" argument.
Well, yes, it's a rather rational argument I'd say.
If black individuals have a disproportionally higher rate of violent crime, they are going to have a disproportionately higher rate of police action against them.
This seems to be basic math, really.> It's a racist notion that ignores the fact that black people are being killed by police in far greater numbers than whites are when you look at the portion of the population they make up.
That is entirely irrelevant to my argument.
I did not say "In raw numbers, more white people are killed". I said "in terms of statistics, blacks make up a higher rate of violent crime".
Also; You have a really nasty relationship with the declaration of racism.
You have a lot of room to accuse me of saying something racist, yet you quite literally seem to be advocating for objectively racist things.
I find it rather interesting where you accuse me of racism is when I report on simple and objective facts.
It's almost like these simple and objective facts rather destroy your narrative, and so you must hide behind a moral shield to claim bigotry in raw information with plenty of explanation beyond race, while distracting from your own bigotry in regards to policy that directly discriminates based solely on race.> It is essentially arguing that black people deserve to be killed at these rates.
No, it's an explanation
for why it happens
Violent criminals are more likely to be exposed to police action.
Thus, a group of people, regardless of race, that has a higher rate of violent crime, is quite obviously going to also have a higher rate of police action taken on them.
If I say "Group A eats apples at a higher rate", with the reason being "Group A gets hungrier faster", does that mean "Group A" deserves the apples?
No. It's simply a telling of reality as it currently sits.
I would like to see a society where black communities do not have a higher rate of either violent crime, or
police action against them.
I would suggest the best way to accomplish this is address education and issues in family structures for poor communities.
>>5693>That the statistics show that black people commit crime in high enough numbers that it could ever possibly justify the fact that they make up over 40% of all police homicides, despite only being 13% of the population.
If blacks commit a disproportionately higher rate of violent criminal offenses, as seems to be the case, then logically, they will be exposed to an equally heightened rate of police action.
In this case, your statistics seem to match up fine.
This doesn't mean they "deserve" it. It's just a simple reality.
Would you prefer criminals are ignored if they're of a certain race? >Unless a cop pulls you over.
I feel quite confident I'd have a higher likelihood of getting off if I were a wealthy black man than if I was a poor white man.
But, hey, if you want to provide statistics that suggest the police target wealthy
black people at a higher rate than poor
white people in lethal traffic stops, feel free.
It's only fair, after all, since you've repeatedly insisted that others provide statistics for their claims.
If you're going to make your own, you ought to provide some too.
File: 1592394060745.png (593.05 KB, 500x667, 500:667, 0fhzzswqb5yww.png) ImgOps Google
>>5693>You need to present evidence to back this up. That the statistics show that black people commit crime in high enough numbers that it could ever possibly justify the fact that they make up over 40% of all police homicides, despite only being 13% of the population.https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43
In the category "Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter", blacks constituted 53% of arrests. Of course, this data isn't perfect, since it's only arrests, not convictions.
The Wikipedia page cited by Pleasant Dinosaur in >>5695
refers to "offenders"; I'm not sure whether this refers to convictions or something else.
But unless you have better data, this is the best we have.>Philando Castile.
Yeah, that's why I added the "(or at least are supposed to only shoot)" caveat. The police fuck up way too much. >It goes into where you can work, where you can buy a house,
That hasn't been true for decades!>how auntorities like police treat you.
I'll admit that there is some truth to this. It is also mixed heavily with class. And many police officers treat everyone in a shitty way. >White people have advantages in this country that black people do not.
OK, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't treat people as individuals. In fact, I'd argue that a solution
for equalizing the field is to force the police to treat people as individuals equally without regard to race.
File: 1592416337778.png (106.58 KB, 2080x820, 104:41, chart (2).png) ImgOps Google
>>5694>As I understand it, the marriage rate was far higher in the 1950s, as was the crime rate. I'd suggest these are connected...
Correlation does not imply causation. Between 1999 and 2009, the number of civil engineering doctorates awarded was in close correlation with the amount of mozzarella cheese consumed in the US. You have show how these things are correlated and why, otherwise it's meaningless speculation. >Oh, wait, we literally had one as president.
"One black guy had an excellent job, therefore there isn't racism anymore." That's a disingenuous argument and you know it. And you ignore the bigotry he faced in the position, and the people (including the current president) questioning his American citizenship based on nothing. >If I was given the choice of be poor and white, or rich and black, guess which I'd choose? Rich and black.
But if you were given the choice to be born poor and white or poor and black, which would you choose? Why?
>>5696>The police fuck up way too much.
And those "fuck ups" involve black people far more often than they do whites. This is an issue.>That hasn't been true for decades!
We are telling you that it is still true in ways you are not privy to. What does it benefit you to deny it? It makes you appear as if you want to hold up a system that is disenfranchising people because it still works for you.>In fact, I'd argue that a solution for equalizing the field is to force the police to treat people as individuals equally without regard to race.
How would you suggest we do that? You can't read a cop's mind to see if they are racist or not. Laws are already supposed to apply to everyone equally, but black people are still given more jail time than whites for the same crimes.
File: 1592419751920.png (13.92 KB, 1334x567, 1334:567, US_Presidential_elections_….png) ImgOps Google
>>5700> it is still true in ways you are not privy to
Well, I would like to see some evidence supporting your claim. Because it is black-letter law in the US that it's illegal to racially discriminate like that. If your only claim is that sometimes people get away with breaking the law, I'll agree with you. But your original claim was worded like this discrimination is officially approved.>How would you suggest we do that?
Have mandatory reporting and central collection of all police incidents involving more than X
amount of force by the police. Analyze them to determine which police departments are treating black suspects significantly differently than similarly situated
white suspects. Then take appropriate remedial action against the offending police departments until they stop acting racistly.>>5701>Any attempts by black people to point out systemic racism are always met with excuses for why it supposedly doesn't exist.
Like right here where I admitted that police do treat blacks less favorably than whites? >>5696>>how auntorities like police treat you.>I'll admit that there is some truth to this. >they are unwilling to face the problem or institute change
Right here >>5677
I faced the problem of underfunding of predominantly black schools and said I supported giving them equal funding.>>5699>"One black guy had an excellent job, therefore there isn't racism anymore."
of voting citizens voted for Obama. In fact, he won the greatest number
of popular votes ever. This of course doesn't prove that racism is completely eliminated, but it is evidence that racism isn't a mainstream opinion anymore.
The simple fact that having two parents doubles your income is enough for me.
Leaving aside all the practical functionality of how two parents means there's more time to actually take care of and raise your kid as well as deal with necessities, that flat income increases your economic standing substantially.
And economic situations are one of the biggest links to crime.http://fathers.com/statistics-and-research/the-consequences-of-fatherlessness/>"One black guy had an excellent job, therefore there isn't racism anymore." That's a disingenuous argument and you know it.
Good thing that's not the argument, and is nothing but a dishonest strawman.
You want to talk "disingenuous", I'd suggest purchasing a mirror.
I am saying that the system does allow black people to be successful. This is a demonstrable fact, given there are successful black people.>But if you were given the choice to be born poor and white or poor and black, which would you choose? Why?
Depends on where. What culture we're talking. Definitely wouldn't want to be poor in the city, for example.
Having two parents is a big one, so, probably white, as the rate of that is from what I understand significantly higher.
This said, you completely missed the point of my post. I was not born to a wealthy family, as is. Thus, objectively, black children born to a wealthier family than me are at an advantage.
Should I be given preferential treatment over those black children because of that?
It's unfortunate you've ignored such a large chunk of my post. But, I guess I shouldn't expect much else. I don't think you're really interested in a conversation, so much as berating your ideological enemies. Thus the immediate jump to accusations of racism for citing statistical realities.
This is simply not true.
This is the dishonest and frankly incredibly assholish fabrication for our positions you've created in your own mind, because you absolutely refuse to engage with what we are saying.
What I have consistently said is that we should address the issues plaguing black people so that we can improve their stead, without
being racist about it.
My position is not because I somehow "benefit" from a racist system already in place, but rather that I am in opposition to your
desire to create
a biggoted system.
Maybe a huge part of why conversations like this are so exhausting for you is because you've got to manufacture reasons why people disagree with you, instead of reading what they're fucking telling you.
File: 1592437616576.jpg (68.31 KB, 666x1024, 333:512, rr.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
Oh sure. If I am accused of supporting a racist author, I'm sure I'd be reported and remove from this site. (Although I'm still a bit upset about not getting a name anymore, so maybe that wouldn't be the end of the world. But better to leave on your own terms, all things equal.)
The book talked about white defensive measures to prevent discussion of systemic racism -- in this case using the author's definition of racism (which has been problematic here). I guess the book has been shut down in a way predicted.
To most, racism ought to be discussed in a color-blind fashion that does not criticize white people, and probably also in a way that allows for maximum individualism. And that restricts us to talking about overt bigotry, which still happens, but not in mainstream society.
>>5703>I am saying that the system does allow black people to be successful.
One black person
is not black people. And your example still had to overcome massive racism and bigotry no other person who has had his job had to. Much of it from the current president. >Having two parents is a big one, so, probably white
There are plenty of white people with only one parent... And there are plenty of black people with two parents. Your obsession with this is bordering on bigoted at this point. You cannot repeatedly characterize black people as being neglectful parents without suggesting you have some ulterior motive in saying that. >>5704
"I'm not racist! You're the one who's racist!" is not an argument. Ignoring and making excuses for systemic racism is racist. Ignoring the words and experiences of black Americans is racist. I have not called you a racist. But it would help if you stop doing racist things if you are not one.
But your fear of being associated with racism is exactly why people try to turn racism around and use it against you when discussions of race are being made. You cannot let those people do that. There is a clear difference between actual racism and something that is just being called "racist" to try and shut down the argument. > racism ought to be discussed in a color-blind fashion that does not criticize white people
I do not agree, as they are the ones perpetrating it, or at the very least, benefiting from it. White people need to accept systemic racism exists, otherwise it is impossible to end it. Reducing the conversation to only discussing overt bigotry leaves out big chunks of underlying causes and makes the issue more easy to dismiss and ignore. They can just say "Oh, well that doesn't happen anymore! Racism is fixed." As >>5696
tried to do with workplace discrimination and housing.
>>5706>There are plenty of white people with only one parent... And there are plenty of black people with two parents>>5703>Having two parents is a big one, so, probably white, as the rate of that is from what I understand significantly higher.
Your choice in selectively not including that later portion of the sentence that you are quoting makes it exceptionally difficult for me to presume hear you do not have dishonest intentions when it comes to this argument.
It seems to me you are more than happy to miss represent people in order to get your way, and so I am left wondering, why should I bother continuing a conversation with somebody who is so evidently unwilling not only merely to listen to what I have to say, but actually represent me honestly and his argumentation?
Seriously, man, how it am I supposed to take this?
Either you are out right miss representing me, or you only read half my sentence. I explicitly made reference to the probability, no likelihood. I never once said black families can't have two parents.
if you want to have this conversation further, I am going to insist that whenever you quote me, you quote the full sentence, as right now, it looks like you are intentionally lying about what I say.>"I'm not racist! You're the one who's racist!" is not an argument. Ignoring and making excuses for systemic racism is racist. Ignoring the words and experiences of black Americans is racist. I have not called you a racist. But it would help if you stop doing racist things if you are not one.
I have not done, excuse, advocated for, or said anything racist whatsoever.
I have not ignored black experiences, nor was my argument merely "I'm not racist! You are!".
If you like the intellectual maturity to handle a conversation like this, I would advise avoiding it. As is, all you have repeatedly done is make shit up.
I do not consider dishonest misrepresentation and your own bigotted presumptions who be much of an argument, nor evidence of some racism you think I am guilty of committing.
It's literally all you've been doing. Looking for anything to blame for these problems but the system. Black families, black crime rates, etc. And trying to find excuses for why any complaints aren't real. Barack Obama was successful, so it's not the systems fault. Asians are smart so it's not the systems fault.
What would you call any of that but making excuses for why systemic racism isn't a real issue?
What I have repeatedly said time and time again was that a better alternative for the focus should be on policies that help disadvantaged parties regardless of race.
my whole contention here was that there are better avenues then biggotted legislation that is objectively racist.
There are systemic problems of racism, yes. It's just that I do not believe it is the primary contributing factor to the state of the black community, and more over, I do not think more racism will help them as seems to be proposed.
I think that racist legislation only breeds resentment. Moreover, I do not think that handouts and diversity quotas will actually help the poor Urban black communities. The primary issues I see in those communities are the result of poverty and single parenthood.
all of this I had said prior, if you bothered to read what I said, instead of simply making up your own interpretation of why I say what I do.
>>5712> It's just that I do not believe it is the primary contributing factor to the state of the black community
You're wrong. And doing that give the appearance of dismissing those concerns. >I do not think more racism will help them as seems to be proposed.
I curious why you keep characterizing trying to address and correct systemic racism as "racism". If that isn't what your are doing, then explain why you keep using that specific word. >I do not think that handouts and diversity quotas will actually help the poor Urban black communities.
They are not long-term solutions. But like I said, the only long-term solution is to tear down society and replace it with something better. Which would be a very messy processes, and far worse than affirmative action. But given the choice between doing absolutely nothing and a short-term solution, I would choose the latter.
>>5706>"I'm not racist! You're the one who's racist!" is not an argument.
It's the conclusion of an argument. The argument was made in the above posts throughout this thread.>>5707>They can just say "Oh, well that doesn't happen anymore! Racism is fixed." As >>5696 tried to do with workplace discrimination and housing.
If I was looking to sell a house, I'd sell it to the person who offered me the best deal, regardless of race. I expect the vast, vast majority of people would do the same. If you think there is any non-tiny percentage of the population who would refuse an better offer from a black person in favor of a worse offer from a white person, I'd like to see some evidence.
As for workplace discrimination, I'm sure there are some willingly racist employers and hiring committee members. And there is also more subtle systemic racism that hurts many black candidates a small amount relative to their white peers. If you had made this carefully qualified claim, I wouldn't have objected. I objected because you instead made a much stronger claim that you didn't support with any evidence.
If you want to say racially prejudiced practices of the past resulted in a bad start point for many, I'd agree.
I would also agree that there is currently some bigotry from those in positions of power.
I'd even call out politicians as being predatory when it comes to Black voters.
But, I do not think the black community would have a sudden U-turn into a utopia if you got rid of that. I think a better solution would be to target the social and economic factors that seem to have a larger impact.
Especially since I think the best way to fight against racism is to demonstrate their presumptuous to be wrong. Not give handouts which allows the racist to claim victimhood.>I curious why you keep characterizing trying to address and correct systemic racism as "racism"
It depends on the measures done, but, essentially, any policy that discriminates on the basis of race is, objectively, racist
Scholarships based on race, diversity quotas, reparations, that type of deal.>But like I said, the only long-term solution is to tear down society and replace it with something better
Alternatively, you could address the poverty, education, and fatherlessness, which would rather drastically help the most disadvantaged.
Personally, when faced with a choice of only a short-term solution with long term damages, or nothing, I look for other possible solutions.
In this case, I think they exist
I'm sure someone, somewhere, does.
Most anything will happen simply because of the number of people in the world.
The question is, is it a common enough occurrence to create a massive problem responsible for black poverty?
I have not seen evidence to say so thus far.
There are plenty of ways to address racism without being racist. I am personally in favor of stricter background checks for those involved in the judicial process.
We must ensure our courts remain neutral, after all. That is something worth exploring and addressing.
There is sufficient evidence out there. I'm not an expert in this, so all arguing with me is going to do is make you discredit the knowledge I have and dismiss the issue. But if you really were interested in changing your beliefs, the information is not hard to find. That leads me to believe you are not interested in updating your beliefs. >>5720
I don't think that word means what you think it means. >>5719
And how much have you researched this topic? What books on it have you read? Documentaries watched? People inteviewed?
>>5721>I don't think that word means what you think it means.
He literally quoted a dictionary definition of "racism" in >>5640
>>5721>I don't think that word means what you think it means.
Prejudice based on race.
What do you think it means? >And how much have you researched this topic? What books on it have you read? Documentaries watched? People inteviewed?
Remind me, which one of us made the claim?
the burden of proof is on you. I've given citations for several of my positions already. Every single time I've asked you to do return the favor, you've chosen to dodge.
Leads me to suspect you do not have the facts on your side.
"I'm not denying systemic racism"
"I have not seen evidence to say systemic racism exists."
Do you see how you are coming off as disingenuous? >>5722
How about the books this thread is literally about? Have you read them? >>5723
But he's applying it in a disingenuous way. He's only using the word "racism" because the word has weight, when most people know that these problems are tiny compared ot the problems faced by minority people in America. >>5724>Leads me to suspect you do not have the facts on your side.
Because unlike you, I don't need proof racism exists. That request is asinine to anyone who actually lives it. And for the record, I have given proof. You've dismissed it and ignored it every single time. It's getting tiresome. People like you are part of the problem.
"I'm not denying systemic racism"
"I have not seen evidence to say systemic racism exists.">Do you see how you are coming off as disingenuous?
Considering I am not the one who has to make up quotes? No.
For that, I would suggest buying a mirror.
You keep assuming my position for me.
I've already told you my position.
I would appreciate it if you went off of that, rather than making up your own frankly dickish presumption.>Because unlike you, I don't need proof racism exists. That request is asinine to anyone who actually lives it.
I am not you, you are not me. I have been told by people they have quite literally seen God. I have been told by people they have quite literally seen personally aliens.
I cannot see what you see. All I can do is responded to what you can prove in reality.
If this is as rampant and damaging as you suggest, there should be ample evidence.>And for the record, I have given proof. You've dismissed it and ignored it every single time.
I have only seen individual cases cited by you. Hardly examples of rampant and exceptionally damaging racism so wide spread as you seen to think it is.>He's only using the word "racism" because the word has weight, when most people know that these problems are tiny compared ot the problems faced by minority people in America.
I am using the word because I believe racism is a flat wrong act.
Much as stealing, assault, or murder.
The reason is irrelevant. The action is wrong.
>>5725>How about the books this thread is literally about? Have you read them?
I haven't. Have you? If you have, perhaps you can point me to the relevant portions?>>5725>But he's applying it in a disingenuous way.
Huh? Words have meanings, and he is using the word in accordance with its exact meaning.>>5725>I don't need proof racism exists.
None of us do. The issue is quantitatively, how much of an effect
does racism have, compared to other factors.
>>5728>None of us do. The issue is quantatively, how much of an effect does racism have, compared to other factors.
simple population means that there's pretty much a person out there with about any view.
I am sure there are racist. I am sure there are racist in positions of power that abuse power.
I am not convinced that this is the rule. That this is commonplace.
I certainly am not convinced that it is responsible for all the social and economic ills facing the black community
he says that he believes that systemic racism exists >There are systemic problems of racism, yes.
But then immediately says he does not think it's a real problem. >it's just that I do not believe it is the primary contributing factor to the state of the black community
Talking out of both sides of his mouth "It exists, but it doesn't matter."
he then repeats this idea that it exists but isn't an issue in >>5719 > have not seen evidence to say (systemic racism is a problem) so thus far.
I am in the process of getting a copy, but the local library is closed. I already know most of the information in this book, though, as it is my lived experience. The source is for the benefit of you, people ignorant to these issues who are making assumptions about it based on their own limited experiences and knowledge.
Do you have any non-white friends? They might be a good source of information on this topic if you are truly interested. I'd like for you to go and tell them that systemic racism is not an issue and tell me how they react. >Words have meanings
Certain words also gain connotations and implications as they are used. You understand this, right? >quantatively, how much of an effect does racism have, compared to other factors.
How can you quantify this if you do not experience the issues we are discussing and have very few people in your life who do? Unless you have many black friends and you discuss this topic with them often. That could still be the case depending on your answer to my earlier question.
But assuming you are far removed from the black or non-white experience, then what gives you any insight to how prevalent these issues are or how much they affect people of color?
>>5730>But then immediately says he does not think it's a real problem.
Read what that actually says. It doesn't say what you think it does. The words in that post have meaning. They have definition.
I never said it wasn't a problem. >he then repeats this idea that it exists but isn't an issue in
Nope. This is another example of you dishonesty misquoting me.
"The question is, is it a common enough occurrence to create a massive problem responsible for black poverty?
I have not seen evidence to say so thus far."
I never said it wasn't a problem, I very clearly have maintained my position that it isn't the biggest ail to the black community.
>>5732>But assuming you are far removed from the black or non-white experience, then what gives you any insight to how prevalent these issues are or how much they affect people of color?
Facts. Data. Statistics. Studies. Information. Science. Logic. Rationality.
These are all great ways to learn and understand something.
It disconnects from how people "feel", yes, as people are not always rational
However, it does show how things are.
>>5734>Facts. Data. Statistics. Studies. Information.
Those can all be skewed and biased. >Logic. Rationality.
Can be influenced by a person's emotional investment. For example, investment in upholding a broken system or admitting that one might benefit from that broken system because of one's race.
True, but that's why it's best to examine them for yourself. Not cause to dismiss them outright.>Can be influenced by a person's emotional investment
Then the logic will be flawed, and that will be demonstrable.
File: 1592481650279.png (519.13 KB, 1080x1080, 1:1, image.php.png) ImgOps Google
>>5707>You cannot let those people do that.
Nobody here poses me any actual threat. At least as far as I know.
I have learned about being as respectful as possible, which means being a good pony. When humans get defensive, especially about something that involves authorities, it's probably related to some of their moral needs. I need to figure out about human moral needs and be respectful. On the other hand, I don't have to let humans hurt me or others like me.
Is systemic racism a human moral need? I think you will say no. What people in general would say would depend on the wording. Resisting change is an impulse, but is it a respectable one on its own? Some would probably say challenges to systemic racism is resisted on ground deeper than an impulse to not change, as well. (Unraveling systemic racism isn't quite like moving the couch to the other side of the room; it's not an arbitrary change.) I guess, which position is the good position? I think I know your answer, I guess I have to ask myself.
It's still miles better than only going from experiences told to you.
Since you bring up confirmation bias, well, there it is.
File: 1592548204005.png (51.65 KB, 592x768, 37:48, sakura-1506040648562.png) ImgOps Google
>>5745>There is data on this.
Then link to some! Provide some evidence that more than e.g. 1% of home sellers would refuse to sell to a black man, in favor of a white man who bids a lower amount.
>>5745>>>5732>"How can you quantify this if you do not experience the issues we are discussing and have very few people in your life who do? Unless you have many black friends and you discuss this topic with them often. That could still be the case depending on your answer to my earlier question."
If there's data on this, I would suggest you provide it rather than dodge around the question. That's the trouble.
When you repeatedly ask for citations from others, but won't provide your own when asked, it's very irritating.
File: 1592565723483.png (48.35 KB, 250x250, 1:1, Gardevoir-282.png) ImgOps Google
I read the first two linked pages and found nothing to support the claim I asked you to support. Based on what I read, however, I will try to steelman your argument and point out that I missed something in the following exchange:>>5693>[racism] goes into ... where you can buy a house>>5714>If I was looking to sell a house, I'd sell it to the person who offered me the best deal, regardless of race. I expect the vast, vast majority of people would do the same.
Often there is another party in the real estate transaction: the bank providing a mortgage. And I will concede that bank lending officers may, likely subconsciously, discriminate against black applicants. E.g., a marginally financially qualified white applicant might be approved but an otherwise identical black applicant might be denied.
File: 1592956653747.png (132 KB, 619x745, 619:745, Screenshot from 2020-06-23….png) ImgOps Google
>>5630>I reflect a bit on the connection between ponies and the alt-right.
I'm replying to myself, I know, but a relevant article in the Atlantic is floating around which I'll post for people to read and reflect, if desired.https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2020/06/my-little-pony-nazi-4chan-black-lives-matter/613348/
File: 1593130352235.png (208.55 KB, 872x720, 109:90, ryuuko_chopsticks.png) ImgOps Google
Interesting paper on racial discrimination by police:https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/main-july_2016.pdf
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.
From the ending of the paper:
... our results point to another simple policy experiment: increase the expected price of excessive force on lower level uses of force. To date, very few police departments across the country either collect data on lower level uses of force or explicitly punish officers for misuse of these tactics. The appealing feature of this type of policy experiment is that it does not require officers to change their behavior in extremely high-stakes environments. ... Holding officers accountable for the misuse of hands or pushing individuals to the ground is not likely a life or death situation and, as such, may be more amenable to policy change.
The importance of our results for racial inequality in America is unclear. It is plausible that racial differences in lower level uses of force are simply a distraction and movements such as Black Lives Matter should seek solutions within their own communities rather than changing the behaviors of police and other external forces.
Much more troubling, due to their frequency and potential impact on minority belief formation, is the possibility that racial differences in police use of non-lethal force have spillovers on myriad dimensions of racial inequality. If, for instance, blacks use their lived experience with police as evidence that the world is discriminatory, then it is easy to understand why black youth invest less in human capital or black adults are more likely to believe discrimination is an important determinant of economic outcomes. Black Dignity Matters.
Well that kind of inflammatory conclusioning goes so far afield of any possible realistic data set's scope and computability that i conclude its resemblance to absurdity to be facially true from your excerpt alone.
Try this to answer that "i dunno whyyyyy" whining. Or get some cheese. Cuz we DO know why. We're programmed with lies like we dont know why, oh and despiccable victim-shaming there too Ferret. Not so fancy.
File: 1593302132220.png (674.6 KB, 521x653, 521:653, ryuuko.png) ImgOps Google
>>5776>Well that kind of inflammatory conclusioning goes so far afield of any possible realistic data set's scope and computability that i conclude its resemblance to absurdity to be facially true from your excerpt alone.
What is so inflammatory about suggesting that we hold police officers accountable for misuse of lower levels of force?
Yes, that is what i found inflammatory. Critical thinking skills are in top shape in /pol
Obviously this:>If, for instance, blacks use their lived experience with police as evidence that the world is discriminatory, then it is easy to understand why black youth invest less in human capital or black adults are more likely to believe discrimination is an important determinant of economic outcomes
See, they only suffer because they believe they are discriminated against. That's rational.>>5789
it wasnt clear that wasn't his own conclusion. I dont see him decrying the unconscionability of the words he stated. >>5437
I just found out Origin of Species was always white supremacist propaganda. I always thought it was merely oversimplified but in its proper place as Eugenics rhetoric it suddenly makes sense that the "superior" long-neck giraffe would instantly replace every one of the "inferior" short-neck throwbacks who instantly die in the name of evolution towards perfection of Man.
Good re-education is a great idea. I recommend Black Like Me.
>>5790>Yes, that is what i found inflammatory. Critical thinking skills are in top shape in /pol
Well, it would help if you >quoted the part of the post you found inflammatory rather than leaving people to guess.>Obviously this:>>If, for instance, blacks use their lived experience with police as evidence that the world is discriminatory, then it is easy to understand why black youth invest less in human capital or black adults are more likely to believe discrimination is an important determinant of economic outcomes>>See, they only suffer because they believe they are discriminated against. That's rational.
I don't see what's inflammatory about what was written in the paper. It's basically saying "Racism by the police in the use of non-deadly force might be psychological damaging beyond the immediate physical violence, so it's important to curb such racism".>it wasnt clear that wasn't his own conclusion.
I thought saying "From the ending of the paper:" would be clear enough. I find it harder to read greentext than regular text, so I didn't want to >quote the whole block of text.>I just found out Origin of Species was always white supremacist propaganda.
Huh??? I don't see how it remotely qualifies as propaganda. Even if a scientific work is wrong or flawed in certain regards, that doesn't make it propaganda.> it suddenly makes sense that the "superior" long-neck giraffe would instantly replace every one of the "inferior" short-neck throwbacks who instantly die in the name of evolution towards perfection of Man.
I think you need to re-read the book more carefully. A careful reading will make it quite clear that there is no "superior" or "inferior" in an absolute sense. There is only adaptation to a specific environment (including unfilled niches, etc.).
The conclusion clearly stated that black youth dont invest in human capital because they believe
they are being discriminated against is to say that they arent being unfairly treated or deprived of opportunity, but only suffer because the illusion of racism makes them unmotivated to improve themselves.
You think that sounds rational?
That explains why Charles Darwin's all but the "best" creatures automatically both dying and disappearing from the genome entirely forever doesn't sound like supremacy to you.
In reality, the superior genome contains the most genes to switch out phenptypes within a few generations to bring the most currently advantaged features into play. Like a swiss army knife, with many different tools for solving diverse challenges, not just one tool for one situation.
The very notion that the one thats not good today
is inherently going to disappear forever replaced by something that is always better, smacks of supremacy to me, and it was in fact the current state of mainstream science in Darwin's time. And it still is if you examine our still-held "scientific" narratives.
That you doubt it proves the whotewash i am talking about. Darwin is just another Nazi, oh and there were other evolutionary theory proponents. If i wasn't so ignorant i'd name several; i only know Erasmus Darwin whose theory of directed evolution, dismissed in my biology class, was actually pretty good considering sexual selection and its more recent acceptance as far more formative in speciation than the trite and improbable drastic constant die-off of the inherently inferior to make way for Man.
I feel im inadequate to the task of deconstructing your programming. Heres a really good secondary summary if ypu want to learn a bit of reality to dispel your illusion a bit.
File: 1593641768767.jpg (445.06 KB, 2827x4016, 2827:4016, Tsukiko-warawanai-neko-wUx….jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5795>The conclusion clearly stated that black youth dont invest in human capital because they believe they are being discriminated against is to say that they arent being unfairly treated or deprived of opportunity, but only suffer because the illusion of racism makes them lazy and not improve themselves.
The conclusion did not clearly say that. (Note that I am not
saying "The conclusion clearly did not say that". The order of the words is quite important.) And IMHO, it didn't even imply that. Sometimes believing a lie can be beneficial to success, due to human psychology, and especially if coupled with other pre-existing deficits of knowledge. The paper seems to be saying that the belief itself (regardless of whether it is true or false) causes poorer outcomes.>>5795>That explains why all but the "best" automatically both dying and disaplearing from the genome doesn't sound like supremacy to you.
I'm not sure what you mean (in particular, what you mean by "best" or "supremacy") and how you came to such a conclusion as applied to me specifically.>In reality, the superior genome contains the most genes to switch out phenptypes within a few generations to bring the most currently advantaged features into play.
What do you mean by "superior"? Darwin doesn't talk in those terms, at least not in an absolute sense. Again, he talks of adaptation to specific environments. See also: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/XPErvb8m9FapXCjhA/adaptation-executers-not-fitness-maximizers>The very notion that the one thats not good today is inherently going to disappear forever replaced by something that is always better, smacks of supremacy to me, and it was in fact the current state of science at the time.
[citation needed, in regards to "it was in fact the current state of science at the time"]
I'm pretty sure Darwin recognized that environments change over time and that an adaptation beneficial at one point in time could be harmful at another point in time in the same place.>>5795>Darwin is just another Nazi
Darwin died before the Nazi party even existed.
Edit: if im wrong and you arent deliberately provoking me with deliberate sophistry, then i apologize for my tone because it really feels like you are trying to piss me off on purpose with the misstatements if my words and willfully false reasoning. Probably me tho, iunno.>>5797
Now you are strawmanning me hard.
Concluding that a perception is why they fail to invest in their own human capital directly blames them for not helping themselves.>darwin not eugenics cuz no hitler yet
Your logic is impeccable. NO ONE was ever a despiccable Nazi before hitler made up the name. Not Teddy Roosevelt, not Thomas Jefferson.
Go ahead, cling to your lies that you cannot deal are false.
I especially like the way you cast me as attacking or disparaging ypu just becauas i point out your cited material is victim-shaming.
I didnt say YOU were, i said your material was. Now, i've changed my position. Your strawmanning and evasion indicate ypu are trying to avoid defending the position while attacking me directly rather than my reasoning.
That tactic strongly suggests that you do think its reasonable to say black people don't participate in improving themselves.
You do you. Im out.
File: 1593647529415.jpg (270.54 KB, 1200x900, 4:3, holo-1524346953193.jpg) ImgOps Exif Google
>>5799>Now you are strawmanning me hard.
I apologize if I misrepresented your position. But it was not intentional. I guess I just don't fully understand what you're trying to say.>>5799>NO ONE was ever a despiccable Nazi before hitler made up the name. Not Teddy Roosevelt, not Thomas Jefferson.
Correct. "Nazi" means something specific. And Jefferson's philosophy is about as far from Naziism as possible.>trying to avoid defending the position
What position?>attacking me directly rather than my reasoning.
I don't think I committed any ad hominem
fallacies. Where do you think I did?>That tactic strongly suggests that you do think its reasonable to say black people don't participate in improving themselves.
I wouldn't say "black people don't participate in improving themselves" categorically. Some people (both black people and white people) fail to improve themselves.
See my edit. Im sorry.>>5800
Im really pissed off at what Jefferson REALLY said. Its not just the bits we're told but straight eugenics. Watch my last video, or don't.
Have a good day.