Alate_One
Well-known member
Being unwilling to acknowledge there is a race problem means you will perpetuate the race problem. That is inherently unequal.
What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Being unwilling to acknowledge there is a race problem means you will perpetuate the race problem. That is inherently unequal.
Alate_One
Well-known member
That is an issue addressed by the book I linked in the OP. Their explanation was this: People tend go to church where they feel most comfortable, not to be challenged or make a difference. Given there is freedom of religion in the USA and churches are supported by the people that go to them, (and if they don't like a church there's another down the street) that means most churches become a homogenous groups after some time. Segregation in housing plays a role, but the other factors tend to win out.
It's really a two-step thing. First, there's the dichotomy, which it seem like you're starting to recognize, and that part is completely a priori. And then there's how you handle the dichotomy without direct evidence. Do you assume that the problem is the people, or do you assume that the problem is the system? I'm inclined to assume the problem is the system barring fairly strong evidence to the contrary. I have reasons for making that assumption (particularly the fact that you're assuming that the racial disparities occur in ways not captured by the nuance in the law), which I've addressed above, but ultimately, I would concede that this is more an assumption than hard fact. You seem to want to make the opposite assumption. But lets call it what it, by definition, is.
You of all people should know that empiricism isn't the only means to knowledge.
That's just a straw man. Racism doesn't always self-identify, and it isn't always even intentional. That doesn't mean it isn't racism.
Both is an acceptable answer in terms of the original construction. The dichotomy doesn't mean that only one answer is always the right one in every situation.
All I'm asking is that the police work on catching white criminals as frequently as those of other colors, and prosecutors and judges work on sentencing equality. The laws are a result of a political process that is supposed to be participatory. When it targets mostly minorities, it's easy for the majority to passively endorse it. But if the majorities were being impacted just as much as minorities, it might cause us to rethink how we handle prisoners and crime, and it might actually break the cycle for a lot of people.
Right, it's both.
You don't have a problem with crime?
So would I. It's not a part of my argument. I'm honestly not sure where you got it. There are only a few traits, even genetic ones, that are absolutely binary like that. Even the BRCA1 and 2 genes only gives a highly elevated risk of breast cancer. But...a shockingly high proportion of black people in this country will end up there are some point in their lives.
Specifically, which part? Use a dictionary if you need to.
That would be taking an argument that I'm not making to an extreme that basically no one would follow. Of course, black people who commit crimes should be punished, but that should happen in the same manner as white people who commit similar crimes, all the way from the initial discovery of the crime through prosecution, sentencing, and punishment. If a disparity persists, let it be justified in concrete terms with evidence, not because you assume that there must be circumstances that justify the disparity.
What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?
What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?
One of the inconvenient facts about racism, slavery, Jim Crowe, KKK, and the like are they are all rooted into, or arms of, the Democrat party...it is their heritage & legacy.
What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?
One of the inconvenient facts about racism, slavery, Jim Crowe, KKK, and the like are they are all rooted into, or arms of, the Democrat party...it is their heritage & legacy.
I'm not sure who's it's inconvenient to. It's a widely acknowledged fact that the parties switched alignments on race issues, and frequently members. When the Republican Party was founded, it wasn't conservative by the standards of the day.
That makes a great narrative for you libs I know, but, that is all it is just rhetoric. The Democrat party is just as racist as they have ever been despite all their self loathing to the contrary but, you just keep trying to convince yourself by spewing that ridiculous drivel. Your heritage cannot be denied or erased.
PureX
Well-known member
They don't admit to it outright, because they are cowards. As are most politicians. But their voting record is as clear as day. And so is the racist hyperbole they encourage at every opportunity against Obama, though they are too spineless to engage in it directly.
It's a pretty easily documented fact. But I realize that conservatives seem to think they can have their own facts, so I don't really expect to convince you.
What heritage? I'm not a Democrat, never have been.
Oh yes you are. You and all on the left group people according to pigment and talk about it all the time. You are as racist as Anna. She can't help herself either.
Until you have direct empirical evidence for one or the other, you should make no assumption at all. You should simply suspend judgment.
That's why I'm insisting that a simple disparity isn't evidence of anything.
If we are discussing an empirical matter of fact, we need empirical evidence. It's really that simple.
Nonetheless, you get my point. Show me clear, unequivocal evidence of racism. Don't show me something that's open to interpretation. Show me something which is undeniably racist.
But you can't do that, can you? Because if you could have, then you and you other social liberals already would have.
I'm still uncomfortable with the dichotomy as stated. Either systematic bias or else racial defect. I'll grant that the disparity is due either to the operation of the system, the defect of the persons "caught" by the system, or else, both. I.e., there's a disparity either because:
1. The system works in such and such a way.
2. Because criminals work in such and such a way.
3. Or both 1 and 2.
In fact, I assert 3. Again, you insist on using these vague terms and formulations. I want to stick to the concrete:
There are lots of black convicts because:
1. There are lots of black criminals and
2. Police are good at catching them, DAs are really good at trying them and judges and juries are really good at putting them away.
And I repeat: there's nothing wrong with this.
1. What you are saying is racist. Why should it matter if they catch white criminals, black criminals, asian criminals, or whatever? They should be catching criminals. Period. If they're catching criminals, then the system works. It doesn't matter what the race of those criminals is.
2. You're assuming that all factors are equal. They may not be. Again, this sort of thing should be left to the discretion of the police, DAs, judges, etc. They should be doing whatever "works" and is suitable given their time, manpower, resources, etc.
It doesn't make sense for policemen to go looking in the suburbs for white criminals when the ghetto already is a known high crime area. If my goal were to catch criminals, then I would be going to go where I know I can catch them. I would be going to go where I am getting a lot of reports of criminal activity.
Again, you cry "racism." I answer "common sense."
If people aren't reporting crimes in the white suburbs and the white suburbs aren't known to be particularly dangerous or infested with criminal activity, but the ghetto is, then the ghetto is where the police should be. It's really that simple.
If that produces a disparity, then so be it. There's nothing wrong with that. They're catching criminals. Mission accomplished.
What you are saying is utterly irrelevent when we are talking about law enforcement and criminal justice. The political interests of the people in question doesn't matter. Criminality alone is relevent.
Utter non sequitur.
Yes. A shockingly high proportion of black people in the country will end up in prison...because a shockingly high proportion of black people in the country are criminals.
Again: so what?
As far as I know, police don't have a habit of targetting middle class black people in the suburbs. They target and "profile" based what's proven, experientially, to be useful at catching criminals. It works.
There's no cause for complaint in any of this.
You're rejecting a possibility simply on the grounds that it would be racist to assert it. I'm denying that you can deny something on those grounds. Maybe reality is racist. We need empirical evidence to support or reject that.
No, not necessarily. The police should be doing whatever works the best.
Again, I deny that the disparity matters. The only way it would matter is if those black people were innocent. The job of the police is to catch criminals. It doesn't matter if those criminals are white, black or anything else. Who cares if way more black people are locked up than white people (ignoring, of course, the possibility that black people are more likely to commit various kinds of crimes)? Fact is, they're guilty and they deserve to be in prison. The job of the police is to catch criminals? Well, they've caught them! They've done their jobs.
Who gives even a single fig what the racial numbers are? That's just stupid.
Last edited:
Good point!
Yes. But they were not all "run by Democrats."
And the Democratic party has changed a lot since then.
Life is not black/white, either/or. It is nuanced and complex and many are not really ready yet to look the changing world in its face yet.
This is why simple folks still live in a medieval spiritual universe, even as it is crumbling down around them.
Rexlunae, a brief corollary to my previous point:
If you want me to care about the disparity, you'll have to do one of two things:
1. You'll have to start pointing out a whole bunch of innocent black people who are in jail.
2. You'll have to start pointing to a bunch of guilty black people who are in jail, and tell me about how the arresting officers would have made a better use of police department time, resources, manpower, etc. by patrolling area A and arresting x, y and z non-black criminals instead, who were actually guilty of worse crimes. And even then, you'd have to show that the only or primary reason why they didn't patrol that area instead and arrest those non-black criminals is racially motivated.
If you want me to care about the disparity in sentencing, you'll have to show me that the cases that you're citing are actually equal in everything but race and sentence. [In fact, I seriously doubt that they are.]
If you can't do any of these, then your objection is: "But they're black! It's not fair. WHAAAAAAAH!"
And I'm not impressed. Sorry.
If you want me to care about the disparity, you'll have to do one of two things:
1. You'll have to start pointing out a whole bunch of innocent black people who are in jail.
2. You'll have to start pointing to a bunch of guilty black people who are in jail, and tell me about how the arresting officers would have made a better use of police department time, resources, manpower, etc. by patrolling area A and arresting x, y and z non-black criminals instead, who were actually guilty of worse crimes. And even then, you'd have to show that the only or primary reason why they didn't patrol that area instead and arrest those non-black criminals is racially motivated.
If you want me to care about the disparity in sentencing, you'll have to show me that the cases that you're citing are actually equal in everything but race and sentence. [In fact, I seriously doubt that they are.]
If you can't do any of these, then your objection is: "But they're black! It's not fair. WHAAAAAAAH!"
And I'm not impressed. Sorry.
:rotfl: Documented by who? Liberals? what a joke! The facts my friend are the history, which again cannot be erased nor denied. Liberals/Democrats are racists and always have been.
Oh, I see...so you will be voting for the old socialist/communist hippie Sanders this go around...:chuckle:
Well Said!
You sound like a Progressive to me?
Anyway, labels are a way of disappearing as an individual and validating behavior as a group.
So long as one defines oneself as VICTIM, one is victim.
And victims tend to see abusers everywhere!
Alate_One
Well-known member
It doesn't fit the definition. Seeing race, and describing one as inherently worse or better are two different things.
Pretending you don't see race and then continuing behavior that leads to differential outcomes is worse. That is what you and most other conservative white people are doing. You don't do it intentionally, but the outcome is the same as if it were intentional.
Your response is to do what you just did, name call anyone that points out what's actually happening. Running around calling people racist isn't going to fix the problem. Recognizing there is a problem is the first step.
ClimateSanity
New member
The problem in America is not race or skin pigment. It is an unassimilated culture. Raise a black child with white parents whose family is stable and the chances of them becoming incarcerated drops to white levels.
PureX
Well-known member
Actually, it doesn't.ClimateSanity said:
Australia tried that exact thing on a national scale and it was a dismal failure. And the reason it failed so badly is that it was trying to make black people 'white'. And no one was fooled. Not the blacks, and not the racist whites, who of course remained racist whites. In fact, it did even more damage to the people the program was supposed to be helping by taking them away from their families and culture and forcing them to be raised in a white culture that was never really going to let them in, as adults, anyway.
We can't stop racists from being racists. All we can do is stop them from abusing those they think are inferior because of their race. And that's really the only valid, workable solution for it. It won't stop racism, but it could stop the damage racism does to everyone it touches.
72% of blacks are born to unmarried mothers
and
you want to blame racism?
and
you want to blame racism?