What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?

[PureX]

What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?

There is no immediate solution. I think we need to keep writing and enforcing laws that protect individual equality in our social and economic interactions with each other, while we keep trying to teach our children to appreciate and respect equality so that they don't to inherit our bigotry. In time (likely several generations) our bigotry will not have much of an effect on anyone, but ourselves, and that's about the best we'll be able to do.

I think that's about the best we can hope for, because some percentage of human beings will never be willing to let go of bigotry as a means of increasing their own esteem by viewing others as inferior.

 

[rexlunae]

At any rate, I'm not interested in arguing over the 14th amendment. It's very vague and social liberals use it for literally everything. Why don't we argue on the basis of fairness/justice? Show to me that it's unfair that there is a racial disparity.

Defendants are charged under the law, not principles of basic fairness. We can talk about fairness, and I'll win that discussion too, but I want to note the moving of the goalposts.

Fundamental trait? I don't even know what that means. You mean something like genetics?

That would be one example of a fundamental trait, but not the only one. And since race is basically inherited, probably the most relevant one here.

If so, you're making a false dichotomy:

"Either the system is unfair, or else, black people are genetically predisposed to commit crimes."

How else do you explain the disparity? I asked for an example of something that falls outside the dichotomy in my last post.

You know what? I'll just wager a guess as to how it works.

Sounds like a winning plan.

Police are charged with enforcing the law. This includes things like gun laws, drug laws, etc. In order to enforce the law, they have to catch criminals breaking the law. So, how do you go about doing that? You go to the places where crimes are most likely to be occurring out in the open. Where is that? In predominately black and hispanic neighborhoods, but also in predominately white trash neighborhoods.

So policemen go there and they drive around and look for suspicious activity. They drive around in those neighborhoods and look for vehicles that have "the look," i.e., the "a drug dealer drives me" look. They wait for those vehicles to commit moving traffic violations. They stop those vehicles, usually driven by black people, hispanics and white trash, and start looking around in the car.

Yes, that's definitely one case of systemic racism, though not the one I was talking about before. I'll circle back to that later.

It's a self-reinforcing system. Where do you look for crime? Where we've found it before. Where have we found it before? Where we've looked. And each crime we find justifies continuing the enhanced scrutiny of the same area and the same people. That doesn't mean those people should be subjected to routine heightened scrutiny for all eternity.

Guess what? This method works. They wanted to find drugs and other violations of the law? They find them. This car has drugs. This car has a loaded gun. This car has a scale. The guy's a drug dealer.

Of course it works. And it's biased. But since it mostly impacts people who are a minority of the population, and since they're proportionately politically dis-empowered and geographically isolated, the majority of the population doesn't even have to be aware that it's happening. This is called: privilege.

Why don't policemen patrol other neighborhoods as much? Because crimes aren't being committed out in the open.

I don't know that there's any evidence that people of a given race are more open about crimes they commit.

They're not receiving complaints. White people might be smoking pot there or selling drugs in their homes. But good luck catching them.

Why do we look for oil in Saudi Arabia? Because we've found oil in Saudi Arabia before. Why look for oil in North Dakota? We've never found it there.

Don't get me wrong. A policeman very well might catch a random white guy on a random traffic stop with a bag of weed. But I imagine that's the exception, not the rule.

Well, what I was talking about before was not in apprehending criminals. It was in sentencing. You argued previously that it was legitimate for judicial discretion to give racial minorities harsher sentences for the same crime based on presumed circumstances of the crimes. Have you come up with any ideas how you could justify that?

From the police point of view, if the goal is to catch criminals, what is the best use of police department time, effort, manpower and money? You go where the action is.

Whereas, I would say that it is unfair and likely misleading to do that. It feeds directly into confirmation bias and perpetuates an already grave moral debt that this country owes to black people.

So, let's review those two cases:

1. White college guy has a bag of weed on a random traffic stop. No criminal history. Chances are, he surrendered peacefully, did not resist arrest and otherwise did not cause the police problems.

2. Black guy has a bag of weed in a neighborhood in which those crimes are very common. Chances are, he already had a criminal history and he gave the police a lot of trouble when they tried to arrest him.

Just on the face of it, if you were a judge, who would you be more likely to throw the book at? Who's more likely to reoffend, to be a danger to the community, etc?

You're just trying to bake your racial assumptions into the question, thus begging it. Lets see some evidence for those circumstances that you presume will exist. You're actually exemplifying the problem with your own words.

Will this lead to racial inequality? Sure. Is it problematic? No.

Maybe not problematic to you at this moment. I think you're being myopic and selfish and privileged.

Again, as my stepfather says, policemen aren't driving up to black churches on Sunday morning and arresting random people.

No, they save that for the Klan. Better to hide the faces.

It doesn't. You are the one making a positive claim: "The racial disparity is due to racism and unjust practices."

I previously explained why I presume the non-racial explanation of the disparity. Read back if you missed it.

I'm not making a claim at all. I'm just saying that disparity doesn't necessitate injustice.

Nonsense. You've been throwing out race-based theories all over the place. Lets see you actually justify one of them rather than speculating and hoping it'll pass muster.

 

[chair]

"They deserve it because they are criminals". "It's just justice". "Their society is messed up"

As long as you view it as "their" problem, it will stay the same, or get worse. If you would think of it as "our problem", and put some solid effort into education- that is, educating kids so they can have a better future, then, over one or two generations, you could improve things.

 

[chair]

No, it isnt, this is uniquely an american problem.

And do you ask yourself why that is the case?

 

[Traditio]

Defendants are charged under the law, not principles of basic fairness. We can talk about fairness, and I'll win that discussion too, but I want to note the moving of the goalposts.

Again, I have no interest in discussing the 14th amendment. That's my final word on the subject.

That would be one example of a fundamental trait, but not the only one. And since race is basically inherited, probably the most relevant one here.

Again, this is so vague as to be practically meaningless. Not worth discussing.

Yes, that's definitely one case of systemic racism, though not the one I was talking about before. I'll circle back to that later.

I don't think it's systemic racism. I think it's just good police work.

It's a self-reinforcing system. Where do you look for crime? Where we've found it before. Where have we found it before? Where we've looked. And each crime we find justifies continuing the enhanced scrutiny of the same area and the same people. That doesn't mean those people should be subjected to routine heightened scrutiny for all eternity.

I really don't see the problem here. Again, this just strikes me as good police work.

Of course it works. And it's biased. But since it mostly impacts people who are a minority of the population, and since they're proportionately politically dis-empowered and geographically isolated, the majority of the population doesn't even have to be aware that it's happening. This is called: privilege.

And this is what it comes down to. The only reason you have a problem with it is because you're a racist. :idunno:

Whereas, I would say that it is unfair and likely misleading to do that. It feeds directly into confirmation bias and perpetuates an already grave moral debt that this country owes to black people.

They want the police to stop patrolling their neighborhoods and arresting them? They can stop committing crimes. Until then? The police are just doing their jobs. :idunno:

You're just trying to bake your racial assumptions into the question, thus begging it. Lets see some evidence for those circumstances that you presume will exist. You're actually exemplifying the problem with your own words.

Evidence? You have yet to provide any evidence of your own.

Maybe not problematic to you at this moment. I think you're being myopic and selfish and privileged.

No, they save that for the Klan. Better to hide the faces.

And more examples of social liberal race-baiting. Congrats.

I previously explained why I presume the non-racial explanation of the disparity. Read back if you missed it.

That's not what I asked for. What I said was: show me direct evidence of racism. I.e., show me that black people have long
sentences simply because they are black.

But you want to talk about shifting goal-posts.

Nonsense.

It's not nonsense. It's obvious. Disparity of any kind does not in and of itself evidence injustice. If an athlete is given more food than a skinny old man, there's an inequality, but no injustice.

 

[Angel4Truth]

And do you ask yourself why that is the case?

yes, and the conclusion ive come to, is entitlement mentality created by liberals, and teaching them that everything is the fault of the white man, instead of teaching responsibility.

 

[rexlunae]

Again, I have no interest in discussing the 14th amendment. That's my final word on the subject.

As I said, that's fine. I just felt the need to note you changing the subject slightly. You were happy enough to hide behind the law when it comes to sentencing.

Again, this is so vague as to be practically meaningless. Not worth discussing.

What I mean by a fundamental trait is a trait that isn't chosen. Race counts, as does anything genetic, gender, sexual orientation, but there are other things that could as well. But in any case, if it helps you to think of it as genetics, that's probably close enough for this discussion. Just recall that what I'm talking about is broader than that.

I don't think it's systemic racism. I think it's just good police work.

It's a race-based bias that adversely impacts certain people. And it's a result of the system of justice rather than any particular individual action or circumstance. Hence systemic racism. Not so hard, right?

I really don't see the problem here. Again, this just strikes me as good police work.

That's just non sequitur. You just don't want to look at the aggregate impact and how it hurts individuals of a particular group. If you blind yourself, you'll never see the problem.

And this is what it comes down to. The only reason you have a problem with it is because you're a racist. :idunno:

Um, no. Not even quite sure where you get that, other than the rubber-glue argument.

They want the police to stop patrolling their neighborhoods and arresting them? They can stop committing crimes. Until then? The police are just doing their jobs. :idunno:

They don't want that. They want to be treated fairly. They don't want to be subject to unusual scrutiny. Most people have a few things to hide if you look close enough.

Evidence? You have yet to provide any evidence of your own.

That's non-responsive to the point that you quoted. I accused you of begging the question by encoding your racial assumptions into the question that you posed to me. Nice try though.

And more examples of social liberal race-baiting. Congrats.

It's a little strange seeing someone who prides themselves in their ability to reason stooping to run-of-the-mill Rush-Limbaugh style liberal-bashing. Are you really that desperate for a point?

That's not what I asked for. What I said was: show me direct evidence of racism. I.e., show me that black people have long
sentences simply because they are black.

But you want to talk about shifting goal-posts.

I was very clear at the outset what reasoning I rely upon, and it hasn't changed an iota. It's based on the observation of disparity of sentences under seemingly like conditions, and the dichotomy that you attempted unsuccessfully to assail earlier. As far as I'm concerned, that's enough to establish at least a reasonable presumption of unfair treatment. Racism isn't limited to the simple, direct, intentional prejudice, and as you've demonstrated in crafting that scenario above, from a certain perspective, it can look like just a cop doing their job.

Still waiting on that one example of a hypothetical case that falls outside the dichotomy, or for you to concede the point.

It's not nonsense. It's obvious. Disparity of any kind does not in and of itself evidence injustice.

No, but it is suspect, and it deserves an explanation, which has been sadly lacking in your attempts thus far. And, as you should know, my point isn't limited just to the disparity. Supra.

If an athlete is given more food than a skinny old man, there's an inequality, but no injustice.

From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. Yes, that's fair. So, you think black people just plain need more jail?

 

[Traditio]

What I mean by a fundamental trait is a trait that isn't chosen. Race counts, as does anything genetic, gender, sexual orientation, but there are other things that could as well. But in any case, if it helps you to think of it as genetics, that's probably close enough for this discussion. Just recall that what I'm talking about is broader than that.

So this is your dichotomy:

Either:

1. There's a legal unfairness

or

2. There's something racially wrong with black people over which they have no control.

Um...no. I reject that dichotomy.

It's a race-based bias that adversely impacts certain people. And it's a result of the system of justice rather than any particular individual action or circumstance. Hence systemic racism. Not so hard, right?

I completely disagree with this. It's not just race based. Saying that it's race based is entirely your own social liberal interpretation. That's not how policemen would describe it. They would probably describe it in these terms:

That's where known crimes are being committed. That's where we generally catch a lot of criminals. That's just the place to be.

You just don't want to look at the aggregate impact and how it hurts individuals of a particular group. If you blind yourself, you'll never see the problem.

I think that all of this is utterly irrelevent. The job of a policemen is to enforce the law. His job is to catch criminals. Period. End of story.

They don't want that. They want to be treated fairly. They don't want to be subject to unusual scrutiny. Most people have a few things to hide if you look close enough.

"They don't want that"? Of course they don't. Because they're criminals. That's precisely why policemen should be patrolling those places, making stops, arresting people and putting them in prison.

It's pretty cut and dried.

That's non-responsive to the point that you quoted. I accused you of begging the question by encoding your racial assumptions into the question that you posed to me. Nice try though.

Your point, Rexlunae, is that the only viable explanation for the disparity is legal bias and systematic racism. What I've done is provided a set of viable explanations other than systematic racism. For the purposes of this argument, I feel no need to prove any of this. It's simply enough for me to say: "Y'know, it could happen that way. If it did happen that way, there would be a disparity, but no injustice."

You're the one who's claiming that the disparity is due to racism. I'm waiting for you to prove that.

It's a little strange seeing someone who prides themselves in their ability to reason stooping to run-of-the-mill Rush-Limbaugh style liberal-bashing. Are you really that desperate for a point?

You're the one claiming that the only reason that my stepfather doesn't arrest random people coming out of black churches on Sunday morning is because he's waiting for the KKK to do it. Just saying.

I was very clear at the outset what reasoning I rely upon, and it hasn't changed an iota. It's based on the observation of disparity of sentences under seemingly like conditions, and the dichotomy that you attempted unsuccessfully to assail earlier.

Emphasis mine. It's not enough to say that the cases are seemingly like. You have to show that they are actually like in all relevent ways. You haven't done that.

As far as I'm concerned, that's enough to establish at least a reasonable presumption of unfair treatment. Racism isn't limited to the simple, direct, intentional prejudice, and as you've demonstrated in crafting that scenario above, from a certain perspective, it can look like just a cop doing their job.

Ok. So we have a set of data and it's equally open to two different sets of interpretation:

1. It's just normal police work.
2. It's racism.

You say racism. I say normal police work.

Why should I think that your interpretation is any better than mine?

In fact, mine is much more compelling. It makes perfect sense for police to patrol known high crime areas. That's what I think that they should be doing.

Still waiting on that one example of a hypothetical case that falls outside the dichotomy, or for you to concede the point.

I'm not even clear on what your dichotomy is.

Either legal bias, or else, it's the fault of black people, i.e., because they simply commit more crimes?

No, but it is suspect, and it deserves an explanation, which has been sadly lacking in your attempts thus far. And, as you should know, my point isn't limited just to the disparity. Supra.

Again, you have to show me direct evidence for racism. I've already shown you what that evidence would look like. Either provide it or admit that you can't.

From each according to their abilities to each according to their needs. Yes, that's fair. So, you think black people just plain need more jail?

Black people in general? No. Black criminals and, in particular, repeat offenders and career criminals? You betcha. Jail or death. I'd be satisfied with either.

 

[annabenedetti]

What is the "race problem"? The disproportionate outcomes in the United States of people from different racial groups. Higher incarceration rates, higher rates of poverty, lower rates of educational attainment. Etc.

So what is the cause of this?
Racism?
Culture?
Motivation?
Societal Structure?
Genetics?
Something else?
Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.

I've been thinking about this today. Coming back to your OP: maybe I'm way off base here, but there's something that bothers me.

As a white person, how much right, or standing, do I have to go down a list and check off the reasons for disproportionate outcomes? I could never explain from the perspective of a person of color, so anything I'd say would seem so inadequate, somehow. Like a man trying to explain to me that he knows all there is to know about giving birth, and me thinking, "you have no idea and you're never going to have any idea..."

 

[Traditio]

I've been thinking about this today. Coming back to your OP: maybe I'm way off base here, but there's something that bothers me.

As a white person, how much right, or standing, do I have to go down a list and check off the reasons for disproportionate outcomes? I could never explain from the perspective of a person of color, so anything I'd say would seem so inadequate, somehow. Like a man trying to explain to me that he knows all there is to know about giving birth, and me thinking, "you have no idea and you're never going to have any idea..."

AnnaBenedetti, with all due respect:

What you are saying reduces reality simply to a set of perspectives. It's positively Nietzschean and ultimately an outcome of modern philosophy started by Descartes.

A man can't have any idea of what child birth is like. A white person can't have any idea of what black life is like, and so forth and so on.

That would be true, if reality were reducible simply to our own subjective thoughts, feelings, etc.

Ultimately, I think that's wrong. There is such a thing as objective reality. It is intelligible. We can know it. It is independent of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc.

If that's true, then yes, a man can have some idea of what child birth is like, even if he cannot personally "understand" what it subjectively feels like for a woman.

Yes, a white person can have some idea of what black life is like, even though he can't experience it himself and so look at it "from the inside out," so to speak.

Note, being on the outside looking in still is a real vision. You actually are seeing something, and something is there for you to see. Someone on the inside looking at the same things won't have something else to see. He'll simply be seeing it from another point of view.

 

[annabenedetti]

A man can't have any idea of what child birth is like. A white person can't have any idea of what black life is like, and so forth and so on.
That would be true, if reality were reducible simply to our own subjective thoughts, feelings, etc.

They are true statements, and they are reality. There's no getting around that.

Ultimately, I think that's wrong. There is such a thing as objective reality. It is intelligible. We can know it. It is independent of our thoughts, feelings, emotions, etc.

If that's true, then yes, a man can have some idea of what child birth is like, even if he cannot personally "understand" what it subjectively feels like for a woman.

Yes, a white person can have some idea of what black life is like, even though he can't experience it himself and so look at it "from the inside out," so to speak.

No. Having "some idea" of reality isn't the same as reality. You will never really know what it's like to give birth, I will never really know what it's like to grow up Black in America.

Note, being on the outside looking in still is a real vision. You actually are seeing something, and something is there for you to see. Someone on the inside looking at the same things won't have something else to see. He'll simply be seeing it from another point of view.

Joan of Arc might disagree with you.

 

[Traditio]

They are true statements, and they are reality. There's no getting around that.

Ok. Let's take the example of childbirth. You're implying that a man can have absolutely no idea of what childbirth is like.

Tell me this:

The woman in childbirth asks her male doctor to give her a painkiller, a sedative or whatever it is that women use during childbirth.

Upon what basis could the male doctor possibly make his decision as to whether or not to administer the drug?

The "it's all about perspectives" view ultimately destroys the possibility of science, language, human interaction, etc.

 

[annabenedetti]

Ok. Let's take the example of childbirth. You're implying that a man can have absolutely no idea of what childbirth is like.

I'm not implying, I'm stating it outright. :chuckle:

Tell me this:

The woman in childbirth asks her male doctor to give her a painkiller, a sedative or whatever it is that women use during childbirth.

Upon what basis could the male doctor possibly make his decision as to whether or not to administer the drug?

The "it's all about perspectives" view ultimately destroys the possibility of science, language, human interaction, etc.

Trad. You can tell when someone's in pain. That doesn't mean you necessarily know what that pain feels like.

In the case of childbirth, it's impossible. You can imagine, you can empathize. You can't know.

 

[rexlunae]

I'm not even clear on what your dichotomy is.

I'm going to zero in on this in the hopes that you will understand it. The dichotomy is this:

Any disparity in sentencing within the criminal justice system must result from either:

1. The system.
or
2. The people in the system.

So the actions of the police are part of the system. If a crime is especially depraved, it's the person in the system. The judge's sentencing discretion? System. Every outcome from the criminal justice system proceeds either from the system itself, or from the people inside the system.

Therefore, if there is a disparity in how people of a certain description are sentenced, it must either be a result of a bias within the system, and thus be a systemic bias, or a result of some characteristic of the people in the system. But that latter possibility is problematic, because when it regards a race, in order to justify the disparity, you have to establish a racial difference that makes people of a given race somehow different. Since I think that the bar for reaching a racist conclusion of that sort should be very high, I tend to prefer the former explanation unless there's a really good reason think otherwise.

 

[Traditio]

Trad. You can tell when someone's in pain. That doesn't mean you necessarily know what that pain feels like.

In the case of childbirth, it's impossible. You can imagine, you can empathize. You can't know.

No, no. I completely agree that I can have no idea what it feels like to be a woman in labor. I completely grant that. That's not the same thing as denying that I can have any idea what childbirth is like. Childbirth and a woman's personal experience of childbirth are two completely different things.

Ultimately, a doctor may well deny to a woman the sedative that she requests because, though he can't experience childbirth through her eyes, nonetheless, he knows enough about childbirth to know that a sedative would be bad either for the woman or her child in these particular circumstances.

Likewise, I can't know what it feels like to be a black man in America. Nonetheless, I don't have to know what it feels like to be a black man to know that certain classes of actions are criminal, that certain police methods work, and that such and such classes of people deserve to be in prison.

Again: I don't have to experience what it's like to be a serial killer to know that serial killers deserve to die.

Again, consider the following: I don't know what it's like to be a woman with a baby who won't stop crying. Nonetheless, I can tell such a woman that she should leave the child in the crib, lest she crush the child in her sleep.

At any rate: granted that I don't know what it's like to walk in a black man's shoes, I do know what it's like to walk a mile in my own shoes. A white person can know what it feels like to walk alone at night with a vague uneasiness that perhaps, tonight, he'll be victimized.

I can know what that feels like.

 

[Yorzhik]

What is the "race problem"? The disproportionate outcomes in the United States of people from different racial groups. Higher incarceration rates, higher rates of poverty, lower rates of educational attainment. Etc.

More breakdown on incarceration rates

Spoiler

Poverty Rates

Higher Unemployment rate for the same Educational attainment.

So what is the cause of this?
Racism?
Culture?
Motivation?
Societal Structure?
Genetics?
Something else?

(this would be a bit better as a poll )

For those interested in exploring the question I highly recommend the book: Divided by Faith: Evangelical Religion and the Problem of Race in America.

The answer to the race problem is to get rid of prisons as we know them, and replace it with restitution, corporal punishment, and capital punishment. There will also be debtors house arrest. Remove public funding of schools. Get rid of the war on drugs by changing all law from situational law to principled law. It would also probably be a good idea to get rid of juries so if there is an injustice done, there is a person we can point to who did it. To solve the unemployment problem we could simply get rid of minimum wage laws.

The problem with your idea that the law is unjustly singling out blacks for incarceration is that there simply isn't enough evidence that the perps didn't commit the crimes they are incarcerated for.

 

[annabenedetti]

No, no. I completely agree that I can have no idea what it feels like to be a woman in labor. I completely grant that.

Excellent. We're making progress.

Childbirth and a woman's personal experience of childbirth are two completely different things.

:freak:

Ultimately, a doctor may well deny to a woman the sedative that she requests because, though he can't experience childbirth through her eyes, nonetheless, he knows enough about childbirth to know that a sedative would be bad either for the woman or her child in these particular circumstances.

Likewise, I can't know what it feels like to be a black man in America. Nonetheless, I don't have to know what it feels like to be a black man to know that certain classes of actions are criminal, that certain police methods work, and that such and such classes of people deserve to be in prison.

But - you can't know what it's like to grow up Black in America. That's the point I'm trying to make. And I don't know if I'm right about it, but it's given me a lot to think about.

Again: I don't have to experience what it's like to be a serial killer to know that serial killers deserve to die.

Not the same thing.

Again, consider the following: I don't know what it's like to be a woman with a baby who won't stop crying. Nonetheless, I can tell such a woman that she should leave the child in the crib, lest she crush the child in her sleep.

And millions upon millions of women would tell you something different. (And remember how many babies are born in countries who don't have a westernized view of cribs.)

At any rate: granted that I don't know what it's like to walk in a black man's shoes, I do know what it's like to walk a mile in my own shoes. A white person can know what it feels like to walk alone at night with a vague uneasiness that perhaps, tonight, he'll be victimized.

I can know what that feels like.

Yes, you're the only one who knows what it's like to walk in your shoes, I'll grant you that.

Any person can walk alone at night and feel a vague uneasiness, that's not limited by color - or sex.

So I'm putting the thought out there, for what it's worth. I wonder what people of color might think about white people sitting around talking about what's wrong with their culture and how to fix it as if we had any idea what they face every day. Well-meaning people can still cause a lot of unintentional damage. Maybe I'd be causing unintentional damage myself by saying so. I hope not.

 

[Traditio]

I'm going to zero in on this in the hopes that you will understand it. The dichotomy is this:

Any disparity in sentencing within the criminal justice system must result from either:

1. The system.
or
2. The people in the system.

So the actions of the police are part of the system. If a crime is especially depraved, it's the person in the system. The judge's sentencing discretion? System. Every outcome from the criminal justice system proceeds either from the system itself, or from the people inside the system.

Therefore, if there is a disparity in how people of a certain description are sentenced, it must either be a result of a bias within the system, and thus be a systemic bias, or a result of some characteristic of the people in the system. But that latter possibility is problematic, because when it regards a race, in order to justify the disparity, you have to establish a racial difference that makes people of a given race somehow different. Since I think that the bar for reaching a racist conclusion of that sort should be very high, I tend to prefer the former explanation unless there's a really good reason think otherwise.

Ok. Here's how I'm understanding your argument.

1. There is a racial disparity.

2. Either the racial disparity is due to: A. systematic bias alone or B. personal fault alone.

3. If personal fault, then since it regards an entire race of people, then there must be something wrong with all of them.

4. The above is racist; therefore, we must assume it is false.

5. Therefore, there is systematic racial bias, and, it can only be assumed, unjust and unfair systematic practice against that race, i.e., racism.

I have the following problems with this:

1. It's not direct evidence. You're indirectly reasoning to the conclusion that you want without bothering actually to look at reality. "Either black people are really messed up, or else, our system is screwed up. Well, black people aren't messed up (I ain't no racist); therefore, the system is screwed up." You're attempting to explain an empirical problem a priori. Whereas I have no reason, in principle, to reject this, it does seem suspect, given the subject matter.

You want to show me that there's systematic racism? Ok. Then show me empirical evidence for systematic racism. Show me judges who came out and said: "I put him away for 5 years because he's a [racial epithet inserted here]."

2. But fine. Let's look at the argument as stated. I'd simply deny premise 2. I don't think that either systematic bias or personal fault alone is what produces the disparity.

There's an interplay of both system and individual which ultimately produces the disparity. There are black criminals and there are policemen who have placed themselves in a really good position to catch them. That produces black convicts.

That's neither systematic racism nor solely a matter of racial fault.

Again: I see no problem with this.

Again, I'd also deny premise 3. Not all black people are in prison. Not all black people get arrested.

I'd also reject premise 4 as unsupported.

You don't want black people to be in jail? Then convince black people to stop selling drugs and committing various other crimes.

 

[Nick M]

Higher incarceration rates

Why are they being incarcerated so much?

Unfortunately, the FBI continues its usual practice of combining whites and Hispanics into the single category “white,” thus overstating white crime and victimization rates. Even so, the data are telling. A “white” homicide victim is over twice as likely to be killed by a black than a black homicide victim is to be killed by a “white.” Sixteen percent of “white” victims in homicide incidents involving a single victim and single offender were killed by blacks, compared with only 7 percent of black victims who are killed by “whites.” Given the fact that blacks are less than 13 percent of the national population, their homicide rate against whites and Hispanics combined is vastly disproportionate to their share of the population. There were 431 black killers of “whites,” compared to 193 “white” killers of blacks. Undoubtedly a large percentage of interracial killings involve gang killings among black and Hispanic gangs; the number of non-Hispanic whites who kill blacks is undoubtedly far lower than 193. (The number of non-Hispanic whites killed by blacks is also presumably lower than 431.)

 

[rougueone]

What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?

AND YOU SHALL LOVE THE LORD YOUR GOD WITH ALL YOUR HEART, AND WITH ALL YOUR SOUL, AND WITH ALL YOUR MIND, AND WITH ALL YOUR STRENGTH.'

"The second is this, 'YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF.' There is no other commandment greater than these."

If these were not achievable, our Lord would not of asked us to submit to them. "LOVE" .