Total Posts:37|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Double Standards of Racism

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
So, I've done a bit of discussion about the Michael Brown shooting both here and IRL, and I've noticed the issue tends to give way to the protests, which tend to give way to issues of racism. This, I have a problem with.

The charges of racism basically go "see, it's another white officer killing a black suspect. Why must blacks fear the police?" and less "the killing was wrong because he was unarmed".

However, according to a mother jones article, since 1968, blacks are shot at an average rate of 4.2x that of whites. This rate was about 8x that of whites in the 70s, down to about 2x that of whites in most of this millennium.

Now, that sounds bad, but consider this:
Over 50% of police shootings are white.
Blacks also are 3.7x more likely to commit violent crimes. (using 2011 FBI data and 2010 census population)
http://www.motherjones.com...
http://www.fbi.gov...
http://www.infoplease.com...

So, really, if you think about it in this light, blacks are LESS likely to be shot than one would statistically imagine, over the last decade or so. I'd imagine the vast majority of shooting deaths by police center around those suspected of violent crimes, which are defined as murder/non-negligent homicide, robbery, forcible rape, and aggravated assault, because the criminal is violent and/or has much more to lose if caught.

So, to the title.....
When I bring up the fact that blacks have a higher rate of violent crime, people rationalize this. They say, it's due to their environment, their poverty, their education. The typical reasons, and there may well be truth to this. HOWEVER, if there is truth to this, then why is it racist if the police take this into account?

How is it not a double standard to rationalize violent crime based on race, but when dealing with said race, it is racist to grip that holster 3.7x tighter, given the very same statistics?

Also, another fact I saw, but don't remember where, is that 10% of the shooting death are down by black officers. Their targets are 78% black. This, too, runs counter to the belief that white cops are killing blacks. I'd assume most black cops are in urban areas, and the higher concentration of black deaths are also in urban areas.

So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot. So, if someone can help me understand it, I am much obliged.
Because from where I sit, it seems like an excuse to let out pent up rage, and an opportunity to score points for whatever ulterior motives one has, whether that motive is political, advocate-related, or just good old-fashioned racism against "the man".

Now, this is not to say Ferguson PD is an "honest" police force, or that animosity is not earned from them from the community. Nor is it to say Wilson is not racist, or excuse what he did. This is to explore the topic of charges of racism, as a whole, against the police, as a whole.

----
Further, my issue with the race-baiters and this issue is even worse when seeing the declining trend of rates of blacks being shot. A promising trend, given the relative steadiness of white deaths. In fact, it appears racism is much less a factor than it used to be in the police force, which should be applauded and recognized.
....but, for some reason, isn't. I wonder why?
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:27:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot. So, if someone can help me understand it, I am much obliged.

I think it's fairly simple. This country has had a history of shooting/killing black people without legal recourse, to include lynchings and what not. The law did not protect them and many times blacks were left to defend themselves with whatever means they had at their disposal. This of course makes them more violent as a demographic than other races that historically had far less prevalence of this specific kind of maltreatment.

Is it still relevant today? Well, history is always relevant, IMHO.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 9:39:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:27:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot. So, if someone can help me understand it, I am much obliged.

I think it's fairly simple. This country has had a history of shooting/killing black people without legal recourse, to include lynchings and what not. The law did not protect them and many times blacks were left to defend themselves with whatever means they had at their disposal. This of course makes them more violent as a demographic than other races that historically had far less prevalence of this specific kind of maltreatment.

Is it still relevant today? Well, history is always relevant, IMHO.

Yeah, I get that.
I don't deny that cops allowed racism mobs to form and were racist in their dealings. However, the figures I have shown, suggest that is 20 years past. So, these young men full of rage and hate towards the police are unjustified.

But that then fuels the police's reasoning to be less forgiving and take less risks when dealing with blacks, which causes more strife, which reinforces the feelings of oppression, and round and round we go.

The fact is, the claims for racism are not as strong as they used to be.
And that needs to be stated, explictily, by those in "power" (NAACP, politicians, etc.). If people only see themselves as a victim in a system that isn't getting any better, what hope is there for them?

And, again, the issue I want to explore is why you can say what you say, which is lumping all blacks into one group with a cause and effect, while the police lumping them in the same group would be viewed as racist (i.e. exercising more caution).
My work here is, finally, done.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:07:43 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:39:30 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:27:21 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot. So, if someone can help me understand it, I am much obliged.

I think it's fairly simple. This country has had a history of shooting/killing black people without legal recourse, to include lynchings and what not. The law did not protect them and many times blacks were left to defend themselves with whatever means they had at their disposal. This of course makes them more violent as a demographic than other races that historically had far less prevalence of this specific kind of maltreatment.

Is it still relevant today? Well, history is always relevant, IMHO.

Yeah, I get that.
I don't deny that cops allowed racism mobs to form and were racist in their dealings. However, the figures I have shown, suggest that is 20 years past. So, these young men full of rage and hate towards the police are unjustified.

But that then fuels the police's reasoning to be less forgiving and take less risks when dealing with blacks, which causes more strife, which reinforces the feelings of oppression, and round and round we go.

The fact is, the claims for racism are not as strong as they used to be.
And that needs to be stated, explictily, by those in "power" (NAACP, politicians, etc.). If people only see themselves as a victim in a system that isn't getting any better, what hope is there for them?

Yeah I don't know. I'm not following this case very closely so I don't have much else to add, sorry.

And, again, the issue I want to explore is why you can say what you say, which is lumping all blacks into one group with a cause and effect, while the police lumping them in the same group would be viewed as racist (i.e. exercising more caution).

It might have to do more with the police specifically doing it. If someone advised me to drive with caution in Oakland (which is predominantly black), I wouldn't consider them to be racist. There's a lot of reasons that have little to do with race to exercise caution there. Now if the police exercised caution there, I wouldn't consider that racist either, but if that caution translated to incidents like Rodney King, well, I'd consider that to be a huge problem. With that power as a cop comes a lot of responsibility and thus a lot more of the blame when things go wrong.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:09:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I mean, I don't think politicians would be charged with racism if they tried to reach out to the black community, even if they're not black. I really think the point you're making might be specific to cops.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 10:33:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
On the quantities in violent crimes within the AA community I blame the drug laws. Sending people who have done nonviolent crimes into the same prisons that we place murders and hardcore criminals results in those previously nonviolent criminals becoming more violent. Plus educational imprisonment (prisons that give convicts GED's, trades, and even college degrees) decrease the decreases recidivism and also converts ex-cons into productive members of society. FBI statistics show that as a percentage whites tend to be higher than blacks or both are comparable in terms of numbers, though this could just be you extrapolating in terms of overall population of each group so I shall show the calculations.

The Number of Violent Criminals Arrested (V)
Blacks: 155,088
Whites: 236,394

Total Population (P)
Blacks: 42,020,743
Whites: 231,040,398

Crime as a Percentage of Population (C = (V/P)*100)
Blacks: (155,088/42,020,743)*100 = 0.36907486381 = .37%
Whites: (236,394/231,040,398)*100 = 0.10231717138 = .1%

Now at a first glance this looks really awful (especially due to the facts that these are 2010 population numbers with 2012 crime statistics) however when you calculate for recidivism rates among violent criminals, as one can find at this link: http://www.bjs.gov...# , those previously calculated for statistics are essentially the same group of people being arrested over and over again. I am not that good at statistics and I believe that that tool I used prior may not be the most accurate rendering of recidivism rates so I shall post this link: http://www.bjs.gov... so that you all can look at better calculated statistics. There is a good documentary called Hoodwinked that discusses how statistics about the AA community don't paint the most accurate picture of the actual state of the AA community.

http://whatblackmenthink.com...

But I digress.
https://www.youtube.com...
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
SuperRobotWars
Posts: 3,906
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 11:08:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Enthusiasm for topics always die down after I post something. How quaint.
Minister Of Trolling
: At 12/6/2011 2:21:41 PM, badger wrote:
: ugly people should beat beautiful people ugly. simple! you'd be killing two birds with the one stone... women like violent men and you're making yourself more attractive, relatively. i met a blonde dude who was prettier than me not so long ago. he's not so pretty now! ha!
:
: ...and well, he wasn't really prettier than me. he just had nice hair.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/2/2014 2:20:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
So, I've done a bit of discussion about the Michael Brown shooting both here and IRL, and I've noticed the issue tends to give way to the protests, which tend to give way to issues of racism. This, I have a problem with.

The charges of racism basically go "see, it's another white officer killing a black suspect. Why must blacks fear the police?" and less "the killing was wrong because he was unarmed".

However, according to a mother jones article, since 1968, blacks are shot at an average rate of 4.2x that of whites. This rate was about 8x that of whites in the 70s, down to about 2x that of whites in most of this millennium.

Now, that sounds bad, but consider this:
Over 50% of police shootings are white.
Blacks also are 3.7x more likely to commit violent crimes. (using 2011 FBI data and 2010 census population)
http://www.motherjones.com...
http://www.fbi.gov...
http://www.infoplease.com...

So, really, if you think about it in this light, blacks are LESS likely to be shot than one would statistically imagine, over the last decade or so. I'd imagine the vast majority of shooting deaths by police center around those suspected of violent crimes, which are defined as murder/non-negligent homicide, robbery, forcible rape, and aggravated assault, because the criminal is violent and/or has much more to lose if caught.

So, to the title.....
When I bring up the fact that blacks have a higher rate of violent crime, people rationalize this. They say, it's due to their environment, their poverty, their education. The typical reasons, and there may well be truth to this. HOWEVER, if there is truth to this, then why is it racist if the police take this into account?

How is it not a double standard to rationalize violent crime based on race, but when dealing with said race, it is racist to grip that holster 3.7x tighter, given the very same statistics?


Also, another fact I saw, but don't remember where, is that 10% of the shooting death are down by black officers. Their targets are 78% black. This, too, runs counter to the belief that white cops are killing blacks. I'd assume most black cops are in urban areas, and the higher concentration of black deaths are also in urban areas.

So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot. So, if someone can help me understand it, I am much obliged.
Because from where I sit, it seems like an excuse to let out pent up rage, and an opportunity to score points for whatever ulterior motives one has, whether that motive is political, advocate-related, or just good old-fashioned racism against "the man".

Now, this is not to say Ferguson PD is an "honest" police force, or that animosity is not earned from them from the community. Nor is it to say Wilson is not racist, or excuse what he did. This is to explore the topic of charges of racism, as a whole, against the police, as a whole.

----
Further, my issue with the race-baiters and this issue is even worse when seeing the declining trend of rates of blacks being shot. A promising trend, given the relative steadiness of white deaths. In fact, it appears racism is much less a factor than it used to be in the police force, which should be applauded and recognized.
....but, for some reason, isn't. I wonder why?

You know, I really hate this Ferguson case. This particular case isn;t the best example of what the people of Ferguson were protesting. Well, some of them at least. I think your point are vaild although the part about blacks really being less likely to be shot by cops is just not true. Black males are actually 21 more times likely of being shot as of 2012. We are also more likely to be convicted of a low level crime, which, imo, would make some statistics invalid. Keeping that in mind, I think we could trace this type prejudice back a long time, which would render many statistics regarding black people invalid.

I think the underlined problem is that race still is an issue in this country and black people know it. But it is also unrealistic for black people to think that it will go away. Becuase this country protects those who may have those beliefs. I also feel that, r.i.p. Michael Brown, kind of had it coming. Regardless of whether or not he was armed, he did rob a store.

To your point, it is a bit of a double standard to rationalize violent crime based on race but call it racist to shoot first given the satistics. But we expect or government not generalize an entire race of people regardless. Honestly, it's hard for a rational black person to complain, becuase some of the most prominent black males in our country aren't really the greatest role models. I don't know man.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 8:09:07 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:33:22 AM, SuperRobotWars wrote:
On the quantities in violent crimes within the AA community I blame the drug laws. Sending people who have done nonviolent crimes into the same prisons that we place murders and hardcore criminals results in those previously nonviolent criminals becoming more violent. Plus educational imprisonment (prisons that give convicts GED's, trades, and even college degrees) decrease the decreases recidivism and also converts ex-cons into productive members of society. FBI statistics show that as a percentage whites tend to be higher than blacks or both are comparable in terms of numbers, though this could just be you extrapolating in terms of overall population of each group so I shall show the calculations.

The Number of Violent Criminals Arrested (V)
Blacks: 155,088
Whites: 236,394

Total Population (P)
Blacks: 42,020,743
Whites: 231,040,398

Crime as a Percentage of Population (C = (V/P)*100)
Blacks: (155,088/42,020,743)*100 = 0.36907486381 = .37%
Whites: (236,394/231,040,398)*100 = 0.10231717138 = .1%

Now at a first glance this looks really awful (especially due to the facts that these are 2010 population numbers with 2012 crime statistics) however when you calculate for recidivism rates among violent criminals, as one can find at this link: http://www.bjs.gov...# , those previously calculated for statistics are essentially the same group of people being arrested over and over again. I am not that good at statistics and I believe that that tool I used prior may not be the most accurate rendering of recidivism rates so I shall post this link: http://www.bjs.gov... so that you all can look at better calculated statistics. There is a good documentary called Hoodwinked that discusses how statistics about the AA community don't paint the most accurate picture of the actual state of the AA community.

http://whatblackmenthink.com...

But I digress.
https://www.youtube.com...

This may well be true, but it is beyond the scope of the OP.
The fact that people admit, for various reasons, that blacks are more likely to commit crimes (in this case violent crimes), yet claim it is racist for people to act on said admission (e.g. cross to the other side of the street).

Also, recidivism is an issue, but I do not know how much of one it really is, and the cause, I assure you, is more complex than just who your jail mates were. It is a societal discrimination, and when you can't get a job, it is not surprising you turn to crime.
At least in jail, you eat three times a day and are sheltered.

Also, note how the numbers vary significantly. For example, murderers' recidivism is drastically different than rapists and robbers, and it does not say what the new crime is. For all I know, it is probation violation, so drinking could be a "new crime".
My work here is, finally, done.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 8:21:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 10:07:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It might have to do more with the police specifically doing it. If someone advised me to drive with caution in Oakland (which is predominantly black), I wouldn't consider them to be racist. There's a lot of reasons that have little to do with race to exercise caution there. Now if the police exercised caution there, I wouldn't consider that racist either, but if that caution translated to incidents like Rodney King, well, I'd consider that to be a huge problem. With that power as a cop comes a lot of responsibility and thus a lot more of the blame when things go wrong.

It doesn't have to be police.
It is viewed as racist for me to lock the doors if I see a black man at my door (regardless if I lock it if any man is there).
It is viewed as racist if I cross the street or don't make eye contact.
It is racist to be more concerned about a black man shoplifting than a white man, even if (I do not know if the numbers support this) the numbers show that it is more likely a black man will steal than a white man.

So, it's not racist to acknowledge these facts, but it is racist to react to them?
That is what I find odd.
Also, the fact that people don't consider it racist to speak for an entire group of people based on some of those people's plights.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 8:29:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
There was absolutely nothing racist about black rioters looting black shops.

If you can make a case that police are mowing innocent blacks down in the streets with their hands up, then it is genuine racism.

Ferguson was not that case.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 8:49:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/2/2014 2:20:21 PM, Df0512 wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

You know, I really hate this Ferguson case. This particular case isn;t the best example of what the people of Ferguson were protesting. Well, some of them at least. I think your point are vaild although the part about blacks really being less likely to be shot by cops is just not true. Black males are actually 21 more times likely of being shot as of 2012.
First, I did not say that blacks were less likely to be shot. I said that a shooting victim is more likely to be white, and that is true. Pay close attention to statistics, friend, for they are easy to manipulate.
Second, your 21x stat is mostly false. If you are referring to what I think you are, that applies to 15-19 yr old black men from 2010-2012, which, shooting deaths total about 406/yr.
http://www.propublica.org...
Notice the EXTREMELY small sample size, and the underlined qualifiers that get you to that stat.
Compare that black teens in this time are 21x more likely, yet blacks overall are about 2.5x more likely. I hope you see my point about blacks constantly being told they are a victim. Also, using the sources from the OP (and making many assumptions and not comparing apples to apples), black youths (under 18) are 6.3x more likely to be shot than white minors. I think the issue is clear that youth causes police to shoot more often, which makes more sense. Youth are more petulant towards authority, are often filled with anger, and think they are invincible.

We are also more likely to be convicted of a low level crime, which, imo, would make some statistics invalid. Keeping that in mind, I think we could trace this type prejudice back a long time, which would render many statistics regarding black people invalid.
The former may well be true, and that creates problems for them, and systematic and institutional discrimination still has effects. I don't deny that.
The stats are not invalid, as they represent fact.
Tell me, do you think the typical black man is aware that the "more likelihood" of him being shot by police compared to a white man has gone down dramatically over the last half-century?

I think the underlined problem is that race still is an issue in this country and black people know it. But it is also unrealistic for black people to think that it will go away. Becuase this country protects those who may have those beliefs. I also feel that, r.i.p. Michael Brown, kind of had it coming. Regardless of whether or not he was armed, he did rob a store.
I'm not so sure they know it. I think they assume it, and look for it.
Take this example:
I am at a crosswalk in a city, and a black man crosses the walk and looks at my car. I lock the doors. He hears the doors lock and thinks "it's because I'm black, isn't it?".
However, if I would have done that with a white person, it is not racist. The black man does not know this, so he assumes this is another case of discrimination, when it wasn't. If these false positives add up, what kind of picture does this paint?

I have known black men who actively look for slights to exploit (or they genuinely believe, which is really sad) within a company. If you think you are victim, you will view the world from that lens, and everyone is out to get you.

To your point, it is a bit of a double standard to rationalize violent crime based on race but call it racist to shoot first given the satistics. But we expect or government not generalize an entire race of people regardless. Honestly, it's hard for a rational black person to complain, becuase some of the most prominent black males in our country aren't really the greatest role models. I don't know man.

It's more than the police.
Look at the Zimmerman case. He was not a cop, and was exercising concern. What happened after that, again, no one can be sure.
However, if it is more likely that Martin was up to no good, then it should be tolerated that Zimmerman was concerned about a young black man, who, as you say, is more likely to be dangerous (assuming that is why their death rate is so high).
But, that's not what happened, was it? It was race baiting and racism off the bat.

And, no, Zimmerman is hardly a saint, but that is not the issue.
My work here is, finally, done.
Greyparrot
Posts: 14,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 8:58:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 8:49:08 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
It's more than the police.
Look at the Zimmerman case. He was not a cop, and was exercising concern. What happened after that, again, no one can be sure.
However, if it is more likely that Martin was up to no good, then it should be tolerated that Zimmerman was concerned about a young black man, who, as you say, is more likely to be dangerous (assuming that is why their death rate is so high).
But, that's not what happened, was it? It was race baiting and racism off the bat.

And, no, Zimmerman is hardly a saint, but that is not the issue.

Again, make the racist's case that there are White "Zimmermans" mowing down innocent Blacks with their hands up.

Zimmerman was not that case either.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 9:04:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 8:21:03 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/2/2014 10:07:43 AM, wrichcirw wrote:

It might have to do more with the police specifically doing it. If someone advised me to drive with caution in Oakland (which is predominantly black), I wouldn't consider them to be racist. There's a lot of reasons that have little to do with race to exercise caution there. Now if the police exercised caution there, I wouldn't consider that racist either, but if that caution translated to incidents like Rodney King, well, I'd consider that to be a huge problem. With that power as a cop comes a lot of responsibility and thus a lot more of the blame when things go wrong.

It doesn't have to be police.
It is viewed as racist for me to lock the doors if I see a black man at my door (regardless if I lock it if any man is there).
It is viewed as racist if I cross the street or don't make eye contact.

None of the above is convincing to me. I've never head of any of that to be considered racist. I remember the speech Obama gave after the Treyvon Martin ruling where he noted that before he was a senator, people would lock their car doors if they saw him walking by. I'm not black and that's never happened to me before. That seems a bit different from what you're talking about...I'd actually keep the door to my place locked even if no one was at the door.

It is racist to be more concerned about a black man shoplifting than a white man, even if (I do not know if the numbers support this) the numbers show that it is more likely a black man will steal than a white man.

This one is an interesting point. I had to think about this a bit.

I would think it behooves a storeowner to keep a close eye on EVERYONE in their store. To show bias based solely on race is, well, racist. Now, if they're wearing gangster colors and what not that's one thing, but if a black man is wearing a suit and tie with a rolex and you're afraid they're going to steal a bag of doritos, yeah IMHO that's racist.

I suppose you're going to say I'm discriminating based upon perceptions of socioeconomic status. Guilty as charged, and I think there's nothing wrong with that. We live in a meritocracy as far as I'm concerned.

So, it's not racist to acknowledge these facts, but it is racist to react to them?
That is what I find odd.
Also, the fact that people don't consider it racist to speak for an entire group of people based on some of those people's plights.

Not sure what you mean here.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/3/2014 4:55:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
First, I did not say that blacks were less likely to be shot. I said that a shooting victim is more likely to be white, and that is true. Pay close attention to statistics, friend, for they are easy to manipulate.
Second, your 21x stat is mostly false. If you are referring to what I think you are, that applies to 15-19 yr old black men from 2010-2012, which, shooting deaths total about 406/yr.
http://www.propublica.org...
Notice the EXTREMELY small sample size, and the underlined qualifiers that get you to that stat.
Compare that black teens in this time are 21x more likely, yet blacks overall are about 2.5x more likely. I hope you see my point about blacks constantly being told they are a victim. Also, using the sources from the OP (and making many assumptions and not comparing apples to apples), black youths (under 18) are 6.3x more likely to be shot than white minors. I think the issue is clear that youth causes police to shoot more often, which makes more sense. Youth are more petulant towards authority, are often filled with anger, and think they are invincible.

You did say blacks were less likely to be shot. See: "So, really, if you think about it in this light, blacks are LESS likely to be shot than one would statistically imagine, over the last decade or so". Maybe I some how misunderstood this? I don't know why you say the sample size of that statistic was small. That used FBI records of all dealy police shhoting for 2 years. I do agree with you that youth are more "petulant towards authority". I think that is a contributing factor.

The former may well be true, and that creates problems for them, and systematic and institutional discrimination still has effects. I don't deny that.
The stats are not invalid, as they represent fact.
Tell me, do you think the typical black man is aware that the "more likelihood" of him being shot by police compared to a white man has gone down dramatically over the last half-century?

No I don't believe one black person is unawre of that. But I do believe that a large group of black man aren't aware of how the likeihood of them being shot more often truely affects them. Because it doesn't. There isn't a epidemic of black youths being shot in this country. Just young black kids you are more "petulant towards authority". The reason I say that the statistic could be invalid is because the stats don't take into account prejudice. So when you state a statistic like blacks being 3.7X more likely of commiting violent crimes, I can't help but to think of the statistic I posted about blacks being more likely to be convicted of a low level crime. And there are some low level crimes that are considered violent.
I'm not so sure they know it. I think they assume it, and look for it.
Take this example:
I am at a crosswalk in a city, and a black man crosses the walk and looks at my car. I lock the doors. He hears the doors lock and thinks "it's because I'm black, isn't it?".
However, if I would have done that with a white person, it is not racist. The black man does not know this, so he assumes this is another case of discrimination, when it wasn't. If these false positives add up, what kind of picture does this paint?

I have known black men who actively look for slights to exploit (or they genuinely believe, which is really sad) within a company. If you think you are victim, you will view the world from that lens, and everyone is out to get you.

Well black people do know it but cause it is true. 100%. Black people are treated unfairly by some in this country. The real problem is that some black people do assume it, and look for it. Thats why we have the ferguson protesters.The fact is that there are people who would lock the car just because he was black and wouldn't if he was white. More then I think care to admit. Where I split with this group is the consenus on how often and how it affects black people as a whole. IMO I think a guy locking his car just because I am black is part of what it means to be black in this country. It should be a obstical we over come not continually harp on. Michael Brown put his self in a situation where he could be shot, period. I don't/won't/havn't put myself in that situation so I dont feel, even though I am a 27 year old black male, that any of that really effects me.

It's more than the police.
Look at the Zimmerman case. He was not a cop, and was exercising concern. What happened after that, again, no one can be sure.
However, if it is more likely that Martin was up to no good, then it should be tolerated that Zimmerman was concerned about a young black man, who, as you say, is more likely to be dangerous (assuming that is why their death rate is so high).
But, that's not what happened, was it? It was race baiting and racism off the bat.

And, no, Zimmerman is hardly a saint, but that is not the issue.

Well I didn't say young black men were more likely to be dangerous but this is why I really can't blame some black people for how they feel. I mean I know generally white people probably are racists or race-baiters but I myself have experienced some of the same situations as the one you posted above. And not just that others as well. I am 6'5 so I am a pretty big guy. I think some white people are just uncomfortable
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 9:45:48 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/3/2014 4:55:14 PM, Df0512 wrote:
First, I did not say that blacks were less likely to be shot. I said that a shooting victim is more likely to be white, and that is true. Pay close attention to statistics, friend, for they are easy to manipulate.
Second, your 21x stat is mostly false. If you are referring to what I think you are, that applies to 15-19 yr old black men from 2010-2012, which, shooting deaths total about 406/yr.
http://www.propublica.org...
Notice the EXTREMELY small sample size, and the underlined qualifiers that get you to that stat.
Compare that black teens in this time are 21x more likely, yet blacks overall are about 2.5x more likely. I hope you see my point about blacks constantly being told they are a victim. Also, using the sources from the OP (and making many assumptions and not comparing apples to apples), black youths (under 18) are 6.3x more likely to be shot than white minors. I think the issue is clear that youth causes police to shoot more often, which makes more sense. Youth are more petulant towards authority, are often filled with anger, and think they are invincible.

You did say blacks were less likely to be shot. See: "So, really, if you think about it in this light, blacks are LESS likely to be shot than one would statistically imagine, over the last decade or so". Maybe I some how misunderstood this?
I also explained why I imagined this statistic: by assuming the people most likely to be giving trouble to police are those who commit violent crimes.
However, this is probably not true, since DWI, drug-induced criminals for any charge, and various other charges are probably more likely, since there is probably a less heavy-handed approach to their initial confrontation (i.e. one guy, as opposed to a few with guns at the ready)
I don't know why you say the sample size of that statistic was small. That used FBI records of all dealy police shhoting for 2 years. I do agree with you that youth are more "petulant towards authority". I think that is a contributing factor.
3 years, actually.
And the 21x stat is based on only 1217 cases.
For all we know, 20 of those kids were in a gang shoot out, which represents 1.5% of the sample for three years.
If we extrapolate:
That is a sample of 1217 cases in three years, compared to 27.9 million arrests of all ages, or 406 deaths in 9.3 million arrests of all ages.
In 2011, there were over 1 million arrests of people under 18.

That is a small sample.
That is like judging all McDonalds by the performance of one store, of which you were only there for ten minutes.


The former may well be true, and that creates problems for them, and systematic and institutional discrimination still has effects. I don't deny that.
The stats are not invalid, as they represent fact.
Tell me, do you think the typical black man is aware that the "more likelihood" of him being shot by police compared to a white man has gone down dramatically over the last half-century?

No I don't believe one black person is unawre of that. But I do believe that a large group of black man aren't aware of how the likeihood of them being shot more often truely affects them. Because it doesn't. There isn't a epidemic of black youths being shot in this country. Just young black kids you are more "petulant towards authority". The reason I say that the statistic could be invalid is because the stats don't take into account prejudice. So when you state a statistic like blacks being 3.7X more likely of commiting violent crimes, I can't help but to think of the statistic I posted about blacks being more likely to be convicted of a low level crime. And there are some low level crimes that are considered violent.

What does low level crime have to do with this?
This is VIOLENT crime, which is defined as ONLY:
Murder
Non-negligent manslaughter
Forcible rape (I assume this is not just rape, but forced)
Aggravated assault (which is not all assault, but usually assault with a weapon)
Robbery (not to be confused with larceny, theft, or burglary. Robbery would be mugging, home invasion, or carjackings - crimes of theft where the victim is present)

These are not low-level crimes, so I don't see discrimination being a factor, and further, this is based on arrests, not convictions.
I'm not so sure they know it. I think they assume it, and look for it.
Take this example:
I am at a crosswalk in a city, and a black man crosses the walk and looks at my car. I lock the doors. He hears the doors lock and thinks "it's because I'm black, isn't it?".
However, if I would have done that with a white person, it is not racist. The black man does not know this, so he assumes this is another case of discrimination, when it wasn't. If these false positives add up, what kind of picture does this paint?

I have known black men who actively look for slights to exploit (or they genuinely believe, which is really sad) within a company. If you think you are victim, you will view the world from that lens, and everyone is out to get you.


Well black people do know it but cause it is true. 100%. Black people are treated unfairly by some in this country.
People are untreated unfairly by some. Period.
Yes, there are racists, and there are "reverse racists". But there is also much race baiting done by others, both black and white, and that just needs to stop, so the general public can see who the racists really are.
Crying wolf and all that....
The real problem is that some black people do assume it, and look for it. Thats why we have the ferguson protesters.The fact is that there are people who would lock the car just because he was black and wouldn't if he was white. More then I think care to admit. Where I split with this group is the consenus on how often and how it affects black people as a whole. IMO I think a guy locking his car just because I am black is part of what it means to be black in this country. It should be a obstical we over come not continually harp on. Michael Brown put his self in a situation where he could be shot, period. I don't/won't/havn't put myself in that situation so I dont feel, even though I am a 27 year old black male, that any of that really effects me.
That is good to know, and I am glad you are mature to realize this. Unfortunately, most people aren't mature, as most don't involve themselves in intellectual endeavors such as this site. ;)

However, the problem isn't in them looking for it, it is the countless false positives people claim to find. Everything is racist if you spin it hard enough, like that 21x stat you cited.
I knew a guy who seemingly sued every employer he ever had, and anyone who done him wrong. The guy was an idiot, and either was committing fraud, and that is why he didn't talk to anyone, or genuinely believed everyone was out to get him. This is what I mean when I say if you believe you are a victim, it taints your thinking. (advice I should start taking, TBH)




Well I didn't say young black men were more likely to be dangerous but this is why I really can't blame some black people for how they feel. I mean I know generally white people probably are racists or race-baiters but I myself have experienced some of the same situations as the one you posted above. And not just that others as well. I am 6'5 so I am a pretty big guy. I think some white people are just uncomfortable

How do you define "racist" or "racism"?
I think that is a bold accusation to say whites a generally racist, but it depends on what you mean. I'd say all people are racist, and a racist act is not necessarily bad or wrong, but I'm always told my definition is wrong.
My work here is, finally, done.
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 11:14:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I don't know why you say the sample size of that statistic was small. That used FBI records of all dealy police shhoting for 2 years. I do agree with you that youth are more "petulant towards authority". I think that is a contributing factor.
3 years, actually.
And the 21x stat is based on only 1217 cases.
For all we know, 20 of those kids were in a gang shoot out, which represents 1.5% of the sample for three years.
If we extrapolate:
That is a sample of 1217 cases in three years, compared to 27.9 million arrests of all ages, or 406 deaths in 9.3 million arrests of all ages.
In 2011, there were over 1 million arrests of people under 18.
That is a small sample.
That is like judging all McDonalds by the performance of one store, of which you were only there for ten minutes.

Its more like judging how fast some one can make a Mcdonalds burger by how fast they can sweep or fill up a cup of soda before they make the burger. Those other have nothing to do with the statistic I posted. They pulled 1217 cases that involved deadly police shootings of male between ages 15-18. That is the demographic in question. Not arrests of all ages under 18.

No I don't believe one black person is unawre of that. But I do believe that a large group of black man aren't aware of how the likeihood of them being shot more often truely affects them. Because it doesn't. There isn't a epidemic of black youths being shot in this country. Just young black kids you are more "petulant towards authority". The reason I say that the statistic could be invalid is because the stats don't take into account prejudice. So when you state a statistic like blacks being 3.7X more likely of commiting violent crimes, I can't help but to think of the statistic I posted about blacks being more likely to be convicted of a low level crime. And there are some low level crimes that are considered violent.

What does low level crime have to do with this?
This is VIOLENT crime, which is defined as ONLY:
Murder
Non-negligent manslaughter
Forcible rape (I assume this is not just rape, but forced)
Aggravated assault (which is not all assault, but usually assault with a weapon)
Robbery (not to be confused with larceny, theft, or burglary. Robbery would be mugging, home invasion, or carjackings - crimes of theft where the victim is present)

Well Aggravated assault is not assualt with a weapon. It varies depending on seriousness. Domestic violence could also be considered a low level crime. But that doesnt matter. My point is black males are more likely to be convicted of low level crimes.

These are not low-level crimes, so I don't see discrimination being a factor, and further, this is based on arrests, not convictions.

Maybe but this is a whole different debate.

I'm not so sure they know it. I think they assume it, and look for it.

Well black people do know it but cause it is true. 100%. Black people are treated unfairly by some in this country.
People are untreated unfairly by some. Period.
Yes, there are racists, and there are "reverse racists". But there is also much race baiting done by others, both black and white, and that just needs to stop, so the general public can see who the racists really are.
Crying wolf and all that....

Casting the same shadow of discrimination on everyone is not fair. Black people have an issue wih THIS country uniqe and seperate from any other issue is THIS country. Black people haev literally fought with this country to gain basic human rights and some simply believe the fight hasn't finished. There are some cases that I think are great examples of this, and there are some cases that exploit this (fuerguson). I was rasied in south mississippi, I have seen racism. However, I am now sitting at a computer freely writing you and drinking Ocean Spray Cran-Grape juice. It is delicious. What do have to complain about.

The real problem is that some black people do assume it, and look for it. Thats why we have the ferguson protesters.The fact is that there are people who would lock the car just because he was black and wouldn't if he was white. More then I think care to admit. Where I split with this group is the consenus on how often and how it affects black people as a whole. IMO I think a guy locking his car just because I am black is part of what it means to be black in this country. It should be a obstical we over come not continually harp on. Michael Brown put his self in a situation where he could be shot, period. I don't/won't/havn't put myself in that situation so I dont feel, even though I am a 27 year old black male, that any of that really effects me.
That is good to know, and I am glad you are mature to realize this. Unfortunately, most people aren't mature, as most don't involve themselves in intellectual endeavors such as this site. ;)

This is where we may disagree. I only aggree that maturity is half the problem. The other half are right and have a reason to feel how they do. A few bad apples have spoiled the bunch and now the real message has been lost in immaturity

However, the problem isn't in them looking for it, it is the countless false positives people claim to find. Everything is racist if you spin it hard enough, like that 21x stat you cited.
I knew a guy who seemingly sued every employer he ever had, and anyone who done him wrong. The guy was an idiot, and either was committing fraud, and that is why he didn't talk to anyone, or genuinely believed everyone was out to get him. This is what I mean when I say if you believe you are a victim, it taints your thinking. (advice I should start taking, TBH)

I am trying to determine the reason why you posted this example. Is it because you wanted to show me that all black people are like this or that there are black people out there like this? Well I dnt think all black people are like this and I do knw some are. The fact is that the are still racial issues in this country but many in this country don't want to accept that for whatever reason. Maybe because there is no fix. Racism/racist/race-baiters wil never go away and no one will be held responsible for the struggles black people have/had in this country. My president is black, even though he isn't a very good one, therfore there is nothin in this country a white man can do that a black man can't. We can call it even.

Well I didn't say young black men were more likely to be dangerous but this is why I really can't blame some black people for how they feel. I mean I know generally white people probably are racists or race-baiters but I myself have experienced some of the same situations as the one you posted above. And not just that others as well. I am 6'5 so I am a pretty big guy. I think some white people are just uncomfortable

How do you define "racist" or "racism"?
I think that is a bold accusation to say whites a generally racist, but it depends on what you mean. I'd say all people are racist, and a racist act is not necessarily bad or wrong, but I'm always told my definition is wrong.

The sentence was supposed to say " I mean I know generally white people probably aren't racists or race-baiters but I myself have experienced some of the same situations as the one you posted above".

I define racist as"a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Per google. I think that it can be expressed in many different ways. I am not racist. And I don't believe all people are. I have had the objective morality debate and I get it but some things I think deserve to be wrong. Just wrong. Because of what it could mean and has done to humanity.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 12:14:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 12/4/2014 11:14:20 AM, Df0512 wrote:

That is a small sample.
That is like judging all McDonalds by the performance of one store, of which you were only there for ten minutes.

Its more like judging how fast some one can make a Mcdonalds burger by how fast they can sweep or fill up a cup of soda before they make the burger.
It's an apt analogy, since you are comparing a very small sample and trying to apply it to the industry as a whole.
Those other have nothing to do with the statistic I posted. They pulled 1217 cases that involved deadly police shootings of male between ages 15-18. That is the demographic in question. Not arrests of all ages under 18.
15-19, and I don't have access to those numbers.
I do have access to 17 and under, and I'm going to assume that MORE arrests are made of 18 and 19 year olds than of 14 and younger.
So, that is 1217 police interactions over over 3 million arrests. Arrests are not the only interactions police have with these people, and of others, so the number is even higher.
1217/3,000,000 = 4.06 x 10^-4 = 0.000406 = 0.04% of police interactions.
That is a small sample.
The stat is true, but is horribly misleading and means next to nothing.
It is too small to make assumptions about racism in police force, which is what it is trying to do.

Well Aggravated assault is not assualt with a weapon. It varies depending on seriousness. Domestic violence could also be considered a low level crime.
http://www.fbi.gov...
Aggravated assaultR13;An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Simple assaults are excluded.

Aggravated assaults are not "low level" crimes. They are felonies.
It is where you beat the crap out of someone and/or use a weapon. It is NOT a simple bar fight or slapping your lover or family quarrel.

But that doesnt matter. My point is black males are more likely to be convicted of low level crimes.
Blacks are more likely to be convicted of all crimes to my knowledge, though I am basing this off what I've heard. Again, is this an issue of racism, or of poverty (i.e. better lawyers)?


Casting the same shadow of discrimination on everyone is not fair. Black people have an issue wih THIS country uniqe and seperate from any other issue is THIS country. Black people haev literally fought with this country to gain basic human rights and some simply believe the fight hasn't finished. There are some cases that I think are great examples of this, and there are some cases that exploit this (fuerguson). I was rasied in south mississippi, I have seen racism. However, I am now sitting at a computer freely writing you and drinking Ocean Spray Cran-Grape juice. It is delicious. What do have to complain about.

Yes, there was much badness done to blacks in the country, and it likely still exists. But, do you believe it is as bad as when your parents were teens?
That is my point, and I think we agree that the true issues and cases are lost in the straw man cases others fight for.

This is where we may disagree. I only aggree that maturity is half the problem. The other half are right and have a reason to feel how they do. A few bad apples have spoiled the bunch and now the real message has been lost in immaturity
They have all have reasons. It doesn't mean they are justified.

I am trying to determine the reason why you posted this example. Is it because you wanted to show me that all black people are like this or that there are black people out there like this? Well I dnt think all black people are like this and I do knw some are.
To show that racism can be found anywhere, if you look for it spin it.
People like that guy actually hurt race relations, because guess what, now that business owner is scared to hire another black guy, since it cost him over $30K in legal fees fighting his ridiculous cases (yes, multiple).
And, no, I have no idea if people do this en masse, though I wouldn't be surprised. Everyone is looking to sue people in America, and no one wants to blame themselves. I only know what the most vocal people say, so, I, as a white person, have no idea how truly bad it is for the black individual, since the most vocal cases I see, like Ferguson, are over-reactions, and they, too, don't improve the stupid layman white guy who just goes "whelp, that's blacks for ya, rioting and looting because they don't get their way".

But, this is more of an attack on civil leaders who milk these types of cases.
But, unfortunately, I am smarter than the average person, and the average person doesn't make this distinction.

The fact is that the are still racial issues in this country but many in this country don't want to accept that for whatever reason. Maybe because there is no fix.
I'm not sure there is one. This might be the best it gets.

Racism/racist/race-baiters wil never go away and no one will be held responsible for the struggles black people have/had in this country. My president is black, even though he isn't a very good one, therfore there is nothin in this country a white man can do that a black man can't. We can call it even.
I wish more people thought like you.

I define racist as"a person who believes that a particular race is superior to another. Per google. I think that it can be expressed in many different ways. I am not racist. And I don't believe all people are. I have had the objective morality debate and I get it but some things I think deserve to be wrong. Just wrong. Because of what it could mean

Ah, I define it very differently, and your typo is noted.
I define it simply as discrimination based on race, and discrimination is simply to treat two things differently, which sounds bad, but isn't inherently or necessarily bad.
For example, I treat my wife much better than I treat other people, let alone other women. That is discrimination.
For example, refusing to hire white actors to portray Nelson Mandela is racist, since the only reason is their skin color. But, we don't have a problem with that, because we want the movie to be as realistic as possible.
The issue of discrimination is why and how good those reasons are.
My work here is, finally, done.
Fly
Posts: 2,045
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 1:54:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
The Michael Brown case is full of unknowns and is a relatively vague example of excessive force by law enforcement. All the more reason it needed to be more fully explored than it was. Even legal experts have opined that Wilson got the softball treatment in the investigation.

In a tragic, seemingly sick twist of fate, we now have the much more clearly defined example of the Eric Garner tragedy. And the grand jury decided not to convict yet again. Many are saddened, but few are shocked-- and that is a horrible stain on our justice system. The vicious cycle continues...
"You don't have a right to be a jerk."
--Religion Forum's hypocrite extraordinaire serving up lulz
Df0512
Posts: 966
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/4/2014 4:53:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Those other have nothing to do with the statistic I posted. They pulled 1217 cases that involved deadly police shootings of male between ages 15-18. That is the demographic in question. Not arrests of all ages under 18.
15-19, and I don't have access to those numbers.
I do have access to 17 and under, and I'm going to assume that MORE arrests are made of 18 and 19 year olds than of 14 and younger.
So, that is 1217 police interactions over over 3 million arrests. Arrests are not the only interactions police have with these people, and of others, so the number is even higher.
1217/3,000,000 = 4.06 x 10^-4 = 0.000406 = 0.04% of police interactions.
That is a small sample.
The stat is true, but is horribly misleading and means next to nothing.
It is too small to make assumptions about racism in police force, which is what it is trying to do.

I don't think the statistic is misleading. I just think some people don't agree with what it means. Which is that racism is impacting the numbers. There is a specfic demographic and subject they where analysing. I don't think they need to make assumptions about anything. This is just the truth of the matter. Throwing other variables into the mix doesn't change those results. The are what they are.

Well Aggravated assault is not assualt with a weapon. It varies depending on seriousness. Domestic violence could also be considered a low level crime.
http://www.fbi.gov...
Aggravated assaultR13;An unlawful attack by one person upon another for the purpose of inflicting severe or aggravated bodily injury. This type of assault usually is accompanied by the use of a weapon or by means likely to produce death or great bodily harm. Simple assaults are excluded.

Aggravated assaults are not "low level" crimes. They are felonies.
It is where you beat the crap out of someone and/or use a weapon. It is NOT a simple bar fight or slapping your lover or family quarrel.

Fine. I may be thinking of simple assault.

But that doesnt matter. My point is black males are more likely to be convicted of low level crimes.
Blacks are more likely to be convicted of all crimes to my knowledge, though I am basing this off what I've heard. Again, is this an issue of racism, or of poverty (i.e. better lawyers)?

Both, but the fact that racism is even part of the problem means that we are fighting in unfair fight. And we can't say what the repercussions of that truely is until we know what is like for recism not to exist. But that is just unrealistic.

Casting the same shadow of discrimination on everyone is not fair. Black people have an issue wih THIS country uniqe and seperate from any other issue is THIS country. Black people haev literally fought with this country to gain basic human rights and some simply believe the fight hasn't finished. There are some cases that I think are great examples of this, and there are some cases that exploit this (fuerguson). I was rasied in south mississippi, I have seen racism. However, I am now sitting at a computer freely writing you and drinking Ocean Spray Cran-Grape juice. It is delicious. What do have to complain about.

Yes, there was much badness done to blacks in the country, and it likely still exists. But, do you believe it is as bad as when your parents were teens?
That is my point, and I think we agree that the true issues and cases are lost in the straw man cases others fight for.

This is where we may disagree. I only aggree that maturity is half the problem. The other half are right and have a reason to feel how they do. A few bad apples have spoiled the bunch and now the real message has been lost in immaturity
They have all have reasons. It doesn't mean they are justified.

Well I think it is justified, half of it atleast. Just not realistic.

I am trying to determine the reason why you posted this example. Is it because you wanted to show me that all black people are like this or that there are black people out there like this? Well I dnt think all black people are like this and I do knw some are.
To show that racism can be found anywhere, if you look for it spin it.
People like that guy actually hurt race relations, because guess what, now that business owner is scared to hire another black guy, since it cost him over $30K in legal fees fighting his ridiculous cases (yes, multiple).

This is a concept that I think a lot of people have about black people. Instead of accepting that as a isolated incident, he generalizes and assumes all black males are this way. Black guys didnt cost him $30K, that black guy did. Him lumping all black guys into the pot only widens that gap between races and more importantly Americans. Mybe it isn't racism or race-baiting but it is stereptypical.

And, no, I have no idea if people do this en masse, though I wouldn't be surprised. Everyone is looking to sue people in America, and no one wants to blame themselves. I only know what the most vocal people say, so, I, as a white person, have no idea how truly bad it is for the black individual, since the most vocal cases I see, like Ferguson, are over-reactions, and they, too, don't improve the stupid layman white guy who just goes "whelp, that's blacks for ya, rioting and looting because they don't get their way".

All to true. This is why I said " Honestly, it's hard for a rational black person to complain, becuase some of the most prominent black males in our country aren't really the greatest role models". Maybe the best example of a black man that some white people have are the people that are on tv or on music videos. In that sense examples like the one you post are more second nature than anything.

But, this is more of an attack on civil leaders who milk these types of cases.
But, unfortunately, I am smarter than the average person, and the average person doesn't make this distinction.

The fact is that the are still racial issues in this country but many in this country don't want to accept that for whatever reason. Maybe because there is no fix.
I'm not sure there is one. This might be the best it gets.

This is the best it gets. I believe if you are black in this country you already have 1 strike against you. I can't say about other races because I'm not another race. But that hasn't stopped me and it shouldn't stop anyone else.

Racism/racist/race-baiters wil never go away and no one will be held responsible for the struggles black people have/had in this country. My president is black, even though he isn't a very good one, therfore there is nothin in this country a white man can do that a black man can't. We can call it even.
I wish more people thought like you.

Thanks. I just think I have forwared thinking. Trying to change the world is impossible. The way I see it, I can just over come obsticles.

Ah, I define it very differently, and your typo is noted.
I define it simply as discrimination based on race, and discrimination is simply to treat two things differently, which sounds bad, but isn't inherently or necessarily bad.
For example, I treat my wife much better than I treat other people, let alone other women. That is discrimination.
For example, refusing to hire white actors to portray Nelson Mandela is racist, since the only reason is their skin color. But, we don't have a problem with that, because we want the movie to be as realistic as possible.
The issue of discrimination is why and how good those reasons are.

I defined racist and you defined racism. I agree with your defintion.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 4:31:10 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot.

I tire of being part of community that is unfairly and disproportionately targeted by police then have people jumping up and down screaming it's not about race when it clearly is.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 8:02:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

The Fool: Although black people are definitely the victims of historical racism and institutionalized racism, and this is part of the reason they are in the position that they are, it's getting really hard to tell who is more racist now, and who is more the victim of everyday racism.

Let's be honest here, white heterosexual cis males(Getting ridiculous) have been demonized to the point where, simply pointing out that someone is a "white heterosexual male" is often taken as some unquestionable knock down argument to whatever opinions they may have. If accused of racism, sexism or homophobia they're not even able to defend themselves, by virtue of "invisibility" .

Against The Ideologist

No questions, "listen then believe" is the new fad.
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2014 8:18:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:31:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


popculturepooka : So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot.

I tire of being part of community that is unfairly and disproportionately targeted by police then have people jumping up and down screaming it's not about race when it clearly is.

The Fool: It's often racial, but is it "racist" in an immoral sense. It's hard to say. It's not like we have a measure of "racist" intent. If because of poverty more black people on average are likely to cause crime is it irrational or unjust for police to lean towards what is more likely than what is not, when it is in fact more likely?

Would you really be willing to bite the bullet and say that they should not expect, it to be more likely??

Put it this way, would you as a police officer whose life is at risk on an everyday basis, not take some precautions by leaning towards what is more likely than not??

Let's be honest even black officers are not going to want to take that risk. I'm sure similar things happen with black officers, there's just less of them, and because they're black, it's not considered a racial issue, and so does not make the news. Even with what's been going on it's really tough to see through all the sensationalism..
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 8:12:38 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/10/2014 4:31:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot.

I tire of being part of community that is unfairly and disproportionately targeted by police then have people jumping up and down screaming it's not about race when it clearly is.

Of what community are you a part that the police target?
Minorities?
Impoverished?
14-20 yr olds?

It seems to be that police like to target these groups, and, it appears that crimes are committed at disproportionate rates among them. So, which came first? The targeting or the crime?

We both know race targeting was huge 50 yrs ago, but that has radically dropped over the past two generations. As I have said, 50 yrs ago, blacks were 8x more likely to be shot by police than whites, now it is closer to twice as likely.

So, the questions is, just because racism can be a factor, does not mean it is a factor.
Where in any of these recent cases do you see the racism?
Is the grand jury racist, or are they just believing the cops? If the latter, the issue is police being beyond scrutiny by the public, which is a very real issue as well.

So, since these shootings and refusals to indict are is so clearly about race, please, explain it to this white boy, because I don't see it. I see how it COULD be there, but that doesn't mean it is.
My work here is, finally, done.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 11:22:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 8:12:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/10/2014 4:31:10 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/2/2014 9:12:57 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:


So, I tire of this constant police bashing of racism every time a black person gets shot.

I tire of being part of community that is unfairly and disproportionately targeted by police then have people jumping up and down screaming it's not about race when it clearly is.


Don't have time to get to all of this so I'll just address some points:

Of what community are you a part that the police target?
Minorities?
Impoverished?
14-20 yr olds?


Minority (specifically black) male.

It seems to be that police like to target these groups, and, it appears that crimes are committed at disproportionate rates among them. So, which came first? The targeting or the crime?

We both know race targeting was huge 50 yrs ago, but that has radically dropped over the past two generations. As I have said, 50 yrs ago, blacks were 8x more likely to be shot by police than whites, now it is closer to twice as likely.


huh?

http://www.propublica.org...

So, the questions is, just because racism can be a factor, does not mean it is a factor.
Where in any of these recent cases do you see the racism?

http://www.addictinginfo.org...

Wilson's testimony was full of racial tropes that we've seen time and time again used to dehumanize or superhumanize blacks in order to justify "extreme" measures. And it was probably subconscious or implicit. This is nothing new.

http://www.vox.com...
http://www.npr.org...
http://www.slate.com...

Is the grand jury racist, or are they just believing the cops? If the latter, the issue is police being beyond scrutiny by the public, which is a very real issue as well.


So, since these shootings and refusals to indict are is so clearly about race, please, explain it to this white boy, because I don't see it. I see how it COULD be there, but that doesn't mean it is.

And these are just smaller parts of a larger trend that has been going on for eons. For example, why aren't there white men being killed in open carry states with REAL GUNS, when there are black men being killed in open carry states with TOY GUNS (John Crawford, Tamir Rice)?

I don't get why people who aren't part of the community insist on telling people who are that that consistently and utterly wrong about their own perceptions.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 12:14:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 11:22:32 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 12/11/2014 8:12:38 AM, Khaos_Mage wrote:

Don't have time to get to all of this so I'll just address some points:


Of what community are you a part that the police target?
Minorities?
Impoverished?
14-20 yr olds?


Minority (specifically black) male.
Clearly you missed the point of this.

It seems to be that police like to target these groups, and, it appears that crimes are committed at disproportionate rates among them. So, which came first? The targeting or the crime?

We both know race targeting was huge 50 yrs ago, but that has radically dropped over the past two generations. As I have said, 50 yrs ago, blacks were 8x more likely to be shot by police than whites, now it is closer to twice as likely.


huh?
Look to the mother jones article I stated in the OP.

http://www.propublica.org...
Notice how that reflects only 15-19 year olds, and only over a three year stretch.
No historical context, and a very small sample. 406 deaths/year.

By my math, that is 515 white boys and 702 black males, and this stat is also why I asked the above question about which group is being discriminated.
Tell me, are black men 21x more likely to be shot than white men?
If not, what is the stat? I've heard 2x.
So, that means that the AGE has much more to do with this stat than race, right?

Also, from this source:
Mostly white officers. But in hundreds of instances, black officers, too. Black officers account for a little more than 10 percent of all fatal police shootings. Of those they kill, though, 78 percent were black.

White officers, given their great numbers in so many of the country's police departments, are well represented in all categories of police killings. White officers killed 91 percent of the whites who died at the hands of police. And they were responsible for 68 percent of the people of color killed. Those people of color represented 46 percent of all those killed by white officers.


So, whites are killing more whites, and blacks are killing more blacks.


So, the questions is, just because racism can be a factor, does not mean it is a factor.
Where in any of these recent cases do you see the racism?

http://www.addictinginfo.org...
I'm sorry, but that headline is stupid. It begs the question: are police forces dehumanizing blacks?
It also implies correlation equals causation.
Ever consider those that had more bias had reason to think that? I don't know, but asking to compare whites and blacks to apes and cats is just a strange question.

Wilson's testimony was full of racial tropes that we've seen time and time again used to dehumanize or superhumanize blacks in order to justify "extreme" measures. And it was probably subconscious or implicit. This is nothing new.

http://www.vox.com...
Wow, his testimony had a few phrases that rang some historical bells.
That does not make it racist.
Look at it objectively for a minute. What is wrong with any of the statements made?
Nothing, except it ALSO sounds like other stuff.

It is confirmation bias.
http://www.npr.org...
It references these other two articles and poisons the well by calling him a "gentle giant" even though it is known he robbed and assaulted a man.
http://www.slate.com...
Again, assuming he is telling the truth, what is racist about it?
That Wilson was overpowered and/or scared?

It is only racist if you believe it is, and as an objective observer, I don't see it.
It might be there, but that is giving this ignorant racist cop quite a boost in his intelligence, isn't it, since he is manipulating others with his speech?


Is the grand jury racist, or are they just believing the cops? If the latter, the issue is police being beyond scrutiny by the public, which is a very real issue as well.



So, since these shootings and refusals to indict are is so clearly about race, please, explain it to this white boy, because I don't see it. I see how it COULD be there, but that doesn't mean it is.

And these are just smaller parts of a larger trend that has been going on for eons. For example, why aren't there white men being killed in open carry states with REAL GUNS, when there are black men being killed in open carry states with TOY GUNS (John Crawford, Tamir Rice)?
I don't know. Could be racism. I'd have to look at the cases.
Are the police shooting these people?
Are these people not being brought to trial?
If not, it is not relevant to the issue at hand.

In a larger scale, yes, it matters and is worth mentioning, but beyond the scope of this thread.

I don't get why people who aren't part of the community insist on telling people who are that that consistently and utterly wrong about their own perceptions.
Because people directly involved with things have passion and self-serving interests and bias and a whole lot of things going on.

You tell me:
if the murderer of your wife got of scot free because the police didn't have a warrant, are you going to care about the intergrity of the justice system? Not likely.
In a similar vein, as a black man who is acutely aware of discrimination, are you really going to be objective when a white cop kills a black man, or you are just going to say "here we go again" without looking at the evidence?

More likely the latter than the former, right?

I want to ask you this, and as a black man, tell me an honest answer:
Are blacks more likely than whites to break the law?
Not be arrested, not falsely accused, but straight up factually breaking the law.
I would say yes, since blacks are more likely to be in poverty, and those in poverty are more likely to break the law.
If so, is it wrong for police to focus on those communities that are more likely to break the law?
Is focusing on ghettos or other poor communities racist, when the focus is due to wealth?
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:22:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The Fool: Told You So

Recall:
"simply pointing out that someone is a "white heterosexual male" is often taken as some unquestionable knock down argument"

". If accused of racism, sexism or homophobia they're not even able to defend themselves, by virtue of "invisibility" .

popculturepooka: I don't get why people who aren't part of the community (White Heterosexual males) insist on telling people who are that [they are] consistently and utterly wrong about their own perceptions.

Against The Ideologist

"No questions, "Listen then believe" is the new fad."
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 1:48:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 1:22:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Told You So

Recall:
"simply pointing out that someone is a "white heterosexual male" is often taken as some unquestionable knock down argument"

". If accused of racism, sexism or homophobia they're not even able to defend themselves, by virtue of "invisibility" .

popculturepooka: I don't get why people who aren't part of the community (White Heterosexual males) insist on telling people who are that [they are] consistently and utterly wrong about their own perceptions.

Against The Ideologist

"No questions, "Listen then believe" is the new fad."

Well, he is correct in saying that an outsider of a community is unable to speak as to the perceptions of the community. I cannot speak to exactly how blacks view the police, or have access to their news sources (like local Ferguson airwaves), as I am not part of the community.

However, there is no reason why an outsider cannot comment upon what the outsider sees, and a fresh set of eyes brings objectivity, or at least a different viewpoint to compare.
My work here is, finally, done.
The_Fool_on_the_hill
Posts: 6,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/11/2014 2:15:43 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 1:48:42 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 12/11/2014 1:22:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Told You So

Recall:
"simply pointing out that someone is a "white heterosexual male" is often taken as some unquestionable knock down argument"

". If accused of racism, sexism or homophobia they're not even able to defend themselves, by virtue of "invisibility" .

popculturepooka: I don't get why people who aren't part of the community (White Heterosexual males) insist on telling people who are that [they are] consistently and utterly wrong about their own perceptions.

Against The Ideologist

"No questions, "Listen then believe" is the new fad."

Well, he is correct in saying that an outsider of a community is unable to speak as to the perceptions of the community. I cannot speak to exactly how blacks view the police, or have access to their news sources (like local Ferguson airwaves), as I am not part of the community.

However, there is no reason why an outsider cannot comment upon what the outsider sees, and a fresh set of eyes brings objectivity, or at least a different viewpoint to compare.

The Fool: I don't think anybody disagrees with that, but there is a problem when there's a conflict of perceptions, because we're talking about mind states here, and we all have exclusive direct access to our own mind states..

One can just flip the script and say, "look, nobody knows what I'm thinking, better than myself, so stop telling me what I'm thinking, when I tell you that's what I'm not thinking.

The response is then "Ah, but you're a "white male" you know the bad guys..
<(8P)
"The bud disappears when the blossom breaks through, and we might say that the former is refuted by the latter; in the same way when the fruit comes, the blossom may be explained to be a false form of the plant's existence, for the fruit appears as its true nature in place of the blossom. These stages are not merely differentiated; they supplant one another as being incompatible with one another." G. W. F. HEGEL
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 1:05:29 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/11/2014 1:22:50 PM, The_Fool_on_the_hill wrote:
The Fool: Told You So

Recall:
"simply pointing out that someone is a "white heterosexual male" is often taken as some unquestionable knock down argument"

". If accused of racism, sexism or homophobia they're not even able to defend themselves, by virtue of "invisibility" .

popculturepooka: I don't get why people who aren't part of the community (White Heterosexual males) insist on telling people who are that [they are] consistently and utterly wrong about their own perceptions.

Against The Ideologist

"No questions, "Listen then believe" is the new fad."



Yeah, white heterosexual males are generally ignorant about their own privilege. That's just fact. When you don't have to deal with certain things or are not aware of them you tend to downplay them or dismiss the concerns of people who do deal with those certain things. There's a reason why there is such a big divide between white perceptions of police officers and black perceptions of police officers.

It wasn't meant as an argument for anything - it was meant as an observation.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!