glorydaz
Well-known member
Words of wisdom right there. :thumb:
What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?
- Thread starter Alate_One
- Start date
Words of wisdom right there. :thumb:
I truly think that if i said this joke face to face to a black man they would laugh with me and shake my hand. It shows how silly we all are regarding race and racism. Only white folks would take offense to that, it was meant as a joke.
Alate_One
Well-known member
And even if the answer is "it just so happens a racial disparity results", how is that ethical? If you recognize your system is inherently unfair to a certain group, intentional or not, should that not be addressed? Is that your argument?
But there is considerable evidence for unconscious/implicit bias. Watch the following videos and observe the different reactions of passerby based on race and sex. Everyone when asked claims their reactions would have been the same regardless of race.
| What would you do? - Bike Thief | |
| What would you do? - Teen Vandals - Pt1 | |
| What would you do? - Teen Vandals - Pt2 | |
Good post.
ok doser
lifeguard at the cement pond
is it ethical that short people can't reach the cornflakes on the top shelf?
You sound a wee bit angry at wealthy white men? Why?
glorydaz
Well-known member
They don't wanna check that out....it's too much like real life.
Exactly, they want to talk around the real issue, instead of addressing actual issues.
The consequences are irrelevent. If you want to persuade me that something is racist, biased and wrong, you'll have to argue on the basis of the very things themselves, not on the basis of what results.
I deny that the system is unherently unfair. A disparity may result, but that's not the same thing as injustice or a lack of fairness.
I note, Alate_One, that you've ignored most of my posting, and especially the bit about how I asked you to point to specific criminals and tell me why society would be better off if they were on the streets.
Of course, you have no answer to this. :idunno:
Absolutely irrelevent to everything that I've posted.
But it's in your social liberal playbook. It's part of the pre-recording. I get it. -Le sigh.- :sigh:
As I said:
Social liberalism disgusts me.
You have a Ph.D., don't you? Are you really incapable of carrying on a reasonable conversation?
At this point, Alate_One, I'd be satisfied if you (or any other social liberal) can even pass the Turing Test. :nono:
Chair:
Before I answer, I wish briefly to note that absolutely the only reason I am even bothering to answer you is out of a genuine respect for your person. Objectively speaking, I don't think that this posting of yours requires a response. What requires a response, to my mind, is the fact that you have issued said response, and I feel as though even a slight modicum of respect requires that I offer it some degree of attention. So, take that for what's it worth.
1. I have already answered (albeit cursorily) this question previously. The result of our discourse on the matter was your general ridicule and insult. Why do you wish to raise this matter a second time, given the results of the initial line of inquiry?
2. But perhaps you are inquiring, at least at some level, what my personal proposals are for this matter. My proposals, I say, can be gleamed from other threads that I've started, although by no means have I spoken the final word on any of them. I could, in principle, go through an enumeration, explanation and defense of various proposals that I think would solve the issue in question, i.e., of how to prevent much crime, but ultimately, I find myself asking: "But why bother? He's dismissed you and ridiculed you already."
But I most certainly could undergo such an exercise, and I most certainly will do so, if that is your request. Is that would you would like me to do?
glorydaz
Well-known member
:idea: I'll tell you what you do. You go out in the street and try it. Every black man you come across....just lay it on them. Straight up. Especially the smell weird part. :thumb:
Well, never mind...you'll just lie and say you did, and claim they laughed themselves sick over the funny white dude. (Yeah, that one....laying there in the street blubbering like a baby.)
Alate_One
Well-known member
It bothers you, I understand that. It bothers most white people. We want to pretend we are "post racial" that the problem is solved and none of us have culpability, but unfortunately we all do.
No, I'm not hiding behind a label. I am saying individual actions are insufficient to address the problem. I recognize that I have biases, everyone has biases.
I've already given you and others quite a few examples - see my previous post to you as an example.
If you look at the numbers there's a massive racial disparity in a variety of outcomes and areas of society.
No. It isn't actually. I use the term racialized as the book I listed in my OP does (A book written by sociologists in a sociological perspective not "social liberals") - the definition is simply that there are different outcomes in society which correlate strongly with race. If the society were post racial as many people claim, there should be little to no disparity.
Sorry if you find a me a "prerecorded message". I'm a human being with a variety of experiences with people from a variety of races.
The problem really needs changes to policy enforcement, punishment etc.
But there's also excessive focus on them.
Not from the viewpoint of a just society. If anyone should know that, it is you.
I wouldn't necessarily say on the streets, but in rehab rather than prison.
If that man later becomes a murderer when before he was only dealing drugs, is society not inherently better off?
You have a far too simplistic mindset. You said to me that I was like a talking point, that's what you are doing here. You don't see a human being you see a risk to society. Every human being is an inherent risk whether they are "criminals" or not. Will the punishment actually harm society more than the crime?
If you throw a man in jail for drug use what happens to his children? His wife, the rest of his family?
You have a society with millions of missing people and one thing that happens is there are fewer men in the society left for women to pick from. So they may feel they have to do things that they might not otherwise do just to get and keep a man. Again, there's a major source of family dysfunction right there.
I understand this, but putting them in jail doesn't fix the problem. It doesn't treat their addiction, it doesn't get them an education or a job so they can be a productive member of society.
The majority of people in prison are there because of drug crimes.
There's already plenty of evidence for this. Black men are far more likely to be killed by police than any other group.
Not if you only add a handful of people to said neighborhoods. There won't be enough to fundamentally alter the neighborhoods. I'd suggest the mini-series - Show Me a Hero.
Just what was done in the study I linked several posts ago. Give people with young children a certain number of vouchers for a high income neighborhood.
It becomes too big of a problem to fix concentrated poverty and crime. It needs to be broken up.
I am not entirely sure what this means. Explain more?[/QUOTe]Making school systems have similar outcomes rather than having awesome suburban schools and terrible inner city and rural schools - revenue sharing maybe even teacher sharing across a state.
Policy makers have changed their expectation of school outcomes that everyone should be prepared for college. I think this is unfair to a lot of people and saddles them with debt by starting them on degrees they can't finish.
You need to stop thinking rigidly and simplistically about people who are fellow human beings, bearers of the image of God. Some may be criminals yes, but who did Christ go to and spend time with? Criminals. Your legalism sounds like the pharisees.
glorydaz
Well-known member
Because the libs have fallen for the liberal lie. They are programmed robots. It's hard to have victims if you don't have villains. Everyone wants the money and those who have the money have got to be guilty of something.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Again you seem unwilling to accept the idea that bias can be unintentional and still be unfair.
It is clearly unfair. Even if you decided that the rate of incarceration is fair (which I don't believe it is), Black criminals receive harsher sentences, treated as adults more often when they are still children and sentenced to death more often even when the facts of the crimes are the same.
Think of it this way. As an instructor if I were grading papers and I unintentionally graded all male students harsher than female students, that would be an unfair system whether I meant it to be or not. (To avoid this kind of bias I grade page by page with names invisible.)
I simply missed that part - just replied.
It is? When two groups of people do the exact same thing and one generates TEN 911 calls and the other only generates one?
Clear evidence of disparity in being caught doing the exact same thing which leads to differences in enforcement. All because people are more suspicious of black males vs. white males.
Yep.
I could say the same thing about you. You've so far been simply dismissing my points as irrelevant because you don't like them. Explain why there must be intention for a society to be unjust.
You know, name calling is pretty solid evidence you have no answer to my points, Dave.
Alate_One
Well-known member
They don't wanna check that out....it's too much like real life.
You assume that's like real life. That one is a movie. I showed you the reactions of real people.
glorydaz
Well-known member
I know that was a movie, and I don't have to assume anything since I live in real life, and I know what real people are like. I didn't see what you showed, but I'm assuming it's different.... but no more or less real than what the movie depicted. There are lots of people and lots of different reactions.
Alate_One:
If you don't mind (or, in fact, even if you do), I am going to answer this line of inquiry first:
For the sake of argument, let it be defined that "fairness" is functionally equivalent to "justice." By "justice," I understand "rendering to each according to his due."
I will grant you that there can be unintentional acts of injustice or unfairness. If, in my haste and absent-mindedness, I hand the McDonalds clerk a dollar less than what I owe, and the McDonalds clerk, in his negligence, fails to notice, then I have unintentionally committed an injustice. I have failed to render to McDonalds the dollar that I owe.
If you wish to argue that there is unintentional unfairness or injustice, then you must explain to me and defend the existence of that injustice. And for those purposes, I simply will refuse to hear of your racial disparity. The only criterion that I will accept for a case of "unfairness" is that what was rendered to A was x, y and z, whereas he deserved a, b and c.
In other words, I will only accept that there has been an injustice if you show me that accused person A was judged guilty of c and received punishments x, y and z, whereas he obviously deserved something else.
So, I repeat my challenge: can you show this or not?
It's certainly not clear to me. :idunno:
1. Do they deserve said harsh sentences? Do they deserve to be treated as adults? Do they deserve death? You insist on this silly and futile notion of comparing different criminals. I don't care about the comparison. I'm interested in what the individuals in question deserve based on their own merits.
2. You are claiming that the facts of the crime are the same. First, I ask, is that even true? What's the evidence? Second, granted that the facts of the crime are the same, are all facts relevent to the case the same? Are the judges the same? Are the juries the same? Is the evidence presented the same? Is the competence of the lawyers the same? Was the quality and success of the police investigation the same?
This is a gross oversimplification that you are making. I'll speak more on this in addressing your paper-grading analogy.
No, it wouldn't. Anyone who has ever graded papers knows that what you are saying isn't true. Here, I'll quote from a quasi-lecture of mine on writing papers:
"Here, I wish briefly to undergo a discussion of grading. For all cases of 'non-objective' assessments/grading, the grading is, at least to some degree, pretty much arbitrary. There are no objective grading standards/criteria written in the heavens. I have no book of rules which tells me that I have to give +2 points for this, or administer a penalty of -5 points for that. With only a few exceptions, what happens is that I read a paper and apply a number which I feel 'fits' my general impression of the work in question...In brief: if a student scores less than a 70 percent, it is his or her own fault, and he should take careful note of whatever it was that he or she did to merit his or her below average grade...Conversely, if the student has scored at least a 70 percent (pre-curve), and I didn’t specifically indicate that I did take off points, then he or she must not ask me why I took points off. I didn’t take points off. I simply didn’t feel as though the student merited anything more than a perfectly average grade. 'Why did you take off points' simply is the wrong question. The question that such a student should be asking is: 'How can I do better?'"
You and I both know, Alate_One, that a student's grade can depend on any number of factors, and any number of final grades could be a just/fair assessment of the student's work. How I grade sober will be different from how I grade while intoxicated. How I grade in the morning will be different from how I grade in the evening. How I grade the worse student's paper will vary depending on whether I graded it before or after the better student's paper. How I grade an early paper will differ from how I grade a later student's paper. I may even go back and change a grade when I figure out what the general curve is going to be (if I am applying a +10 curve, e.g., I don't want my worst student to have anything higher than a 70 pre-curve).
And no matter what I put down, it's going to be fair. It's going to be just. Why? Because it's an on the spot judgment call. Does the undergrad paper deserve a 70 or a 75? Practically speaking, it could go either way.
In order for you to claim that the former is unfair, you'd have to argue that he should not have generated ten 911 calls. On the first video you showed earlier, the very premise was that the black person in question was guilty of criminal conduct (i.e., of stealing a bike).
Again, the only reason I'd care about this is if you showed me that the black males in question weren't guilty. So long as cops consistently are successful at catching criminals who later get convicted and sentenced, I see no cause to be dismayed by any of this.
Extremely vague. Again, see how I defined justice earlier. The only argument that I'll accept for there being a case of injustice is if you argue that A didn't deserve x, y and z.
I await such arguments.
If you don't mind (or, in fact, even if you do), I am going to answer this line of inquiry first:
For the sake of argument, let it be defined that "fairness" is functionally equivalent to "justice." By "justice," I understand "rendering to each according to his due."
I will grant you that there can be unintentional acts of injustice or unfairness. If, in my haste and absent-mindedness, I hand the McDonalds clerk a dollar less than what I owe, and the McDonalds clerk, in his negligence, fails to notice, then I have unintentionally committed an injustice. I have failed to render to McDonalds the dollar that I owe.
If you wish to argue that there is unintentional unfairness or injustice, then you must explain to me and defend the existence of that injustice. And for those purposes, I simply will refuse to hear of your racial disparity. The only criterion that I will accept for a case of "unfairness" is that what was rendered to A was x, y and z, whereas he deserved a, b and c.
In other words, I will only accept that there has been an injustice if you show me that accused person A was judged guilty of c and received punishments x, y and z, whereas he obviously deserved something else.
So, I repeat my challenge: can you show this or not?
It's certainly not clear to me. :idunno:
1. Do they deserve said harsh sentences? Do they deserve to be treated as adults? Do they deserve death? You insist on this silly and futile notion of comparing different criminals. I don't care about the comparison. I'm interested in what the individuals in question deserve based on their own merits.
2. You are claiming that the facts of the crime are the same. First, I ask, is that even true? What's the evidence? Second, granted that the facts of the crime are the same, are all facts relevent to the case the same? Are the judges the same? Are the juries the same? Is the evidence presented the same? Is the competence of the lawyers the same? Was the quality and success of the police investigation the same?
This is a gross oversimplification that you are making. I'll speak more on this in addressing your paper-grading analogy.
No, it wouldn't. Anyone who has ever graded papers knows that what you are saying isn't true. Here, I'll quote from a quasi-lecture of mine on writing papers:
"Here, I wish briefly to undergo a discussion of grading. For all cases of 'non-objective' assessments/grading, the grading is, at least to some degree, pretty much arbitrary. There are no objective grading standards/criteria written in the heavens. I have no book of rules which tells me that I have to give +2 points for this, or administer a penalty of -5 points for that. With only a few exceptions, what happens is that I read a paper and apply a number which I feel 'fits' my general impression of the work in question...In brief: if a student scores less than a 70 percent, it is his or her own fault, and he should take careful note of whatever it was that he or she did to merit his or her below average grade...Conversely, if the student has scored at least a 70 percent (pre-curve), and I didn’t specifically indicate that I did take off points, then he or she must not ask me why I took points off. I didn’t take points off. I simply didn’t feel as though the student merited anything more than a perfectly average grade. 'Why did you take off points' simply is the wrong question. The question that such a student should be asking is: 'How can I do better?'"
You and I both know, Alate_One, that a student's grade can depend on any number of factors, and any number of final grades could be a just/fair assessment of the student's work. How I grade sober will be different from how I grade while intoxicated. How I grade in the morning will be different from how I grade in the evening. How I grade the worse student's paper will vary depending on whether I graded it before or after the better student's paper. How I grade an early paper will differ from how I grade a later student's paper. I may even go back and change a grade when I figure out what the general curve is going to be (if I am applying a +10 curve, e.g., I don't want my worst student to have anything higher than a 70 pre-curve).
And no matter what I put down, it's going to be fair. It's going to be just. Why? Because it's an on the spot judgment call. Does the undergrad paper deserve a 70 or a 75? Practically speaking, it could go either way.
In order for you to claim that the former is unfair, you'd have to argue that he should not have generated ten 911 calls. On the first video you showed earlier, the very premise was that the black person in question was guilty of criminal conduct (i.e., of stealing a bike).
Again, the only reason I'd care about this is if you showed me that the black males in question weren't guilty. So long as cops consistently are successful at catching criminals who later get convicted and sentenced, I see no cause to be dismayed by any of this.
Extremely vague. Again, see how I defined justice earlier. The only argument that I'll accept for there being a case of injustice is if you argue that A didn't deserve x, y and z.
I await such arguments.
Alate_One
Well-known member
Wow. just wow. Ever heard of a scoring Rubric?
How does a student know what is "better" if you don't tell them?
And you should be trying to eliminate as much of such biases as you can.
That's different. The question is, do you try to make your criteria for grading similar? Or do you just "feel" something is one grade or another? It will be somewhat imperfect because we are human beings but it sounds like you're moving beyond that.
The point is the white guys are given a pass and black persons are not. If you'd actually watched a video, two black persons SLEEPING in a car received 911 calls. What precisely were they guilty of?
Fairness means being treated equally. Society is not doing that.
Alate_One
Well-known member
That's why we make step stools. We need to be better at making other types of "stepstools" for people who are disadvantaged because of race or income.