Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#202 Jul 25 2016 at 6:54 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
How dare that white officer not recognize his Highness's bobby pin and do his job instead?

Actually the guard said he recognized the pin, he just didn't believe that Senator Scott should be wearing it. After five years at the Capitol.


And? If you are a guard, and you see someone you don't recognize wearing a pin that indicates he's a member of congress, shouldn't you ask for ID to verify the person?

Quote:
I won't pretend to know all the ins and outs of Capitol security and protocol, but this old Slate article suggests that Congressmen typically wear their pins to get past security without issue and that wearing your pin is less common in the Senate because, with their longer terms, guards recognize the senators. Which would make it curious that Scott was stopped because he was wearing his pin.


I saw nothing in the earlier article to suggest he was stopped because he was wearing the pin. Unless you're arguing that if he had not been wearing the pin, the guard would have just waved him through (neither article supports that)? I also don't know the details of Capitol security, but I'd assume that relying on people wearing pins is probably not a great security model, regardless of what someone at Slate thinks. I guess what would really clarify things is if some budding investigative reporter were to do some actual investigating and determine how often members of congress are stopped and asked for ID if they forget their pins, or how often they may be asked for ID even when wearing one. That might shed some light on the subject.

But then, it might just reveal that it happens to white members of congress too, and that would step on the narrative. And we can't have that, can we?

Edited, Jul 25th 2016 7:36pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#203 Jul 26 2016 at 7:44 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
gbaji wrote:
But it's not the broad systemic problem that some are trying to make it out to be.
Thank you, middle aged suburban white guy. Your purposefully unverifiable and implausible anecdote and years of similar behavior certainly convinced me that racism is over.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#204 Jul 26 2016 at 9:54 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,188 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But it's not the broad systemic problem that some are trying to make it out to be.
Thank you, middle aged suburban white guy. Your purposefully unverifiable and implausible anecdote and years of similar behavior certainly convinced me that racism is over.
The trick is to hate people because they're poor, that way you can't be called a racist.
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#205 Jul 26 2016 at 2:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
But it's not the broad systemic problem that some are trying to make it out to be.
Thank you, middle aged suburban white guy. Your purposefully unverifiable and implausible anecdote and years of similar behavior certainly convinced me that racism is over.


As opposed to the use of broad statistics coupled with similar anecdotes to prove that racism is behind every social outcome in the country? That's perfectly ok? And it's even better when used to create riots and encourage people to ambush and assassinate police? That's what's ok? But the guy saying "Hey. Maybe we should calm down and take a look at the root causes rather than leap to emotional and harmful reactions" is to be vilified?

Seems kinda backwards to me. And also seems designed to create conflict rather than resolve it.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#206 Jul 26 2016 at 3:13 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,258 posts
gbaji wrote:
But the guy saying "Hey. Maybe we should calm down and take a look at the root causes rather than leap to emotional and harmful reactions" is to be vilified?


That's not the reason you are vilified.
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#207 Jul 26 2016 at 3:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
But the guy saying "Hey. Maybe we should calm down and take a look at the root causes rather than leap to emotional and harmful reactions" is to be vilified?
When none of your results include race, then you're leaping to emotional and harmful reactions.
#208 Jul 26 2016 at 3:37 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But the guy saying "Hey. Maybe we should calm down and take a look at the root causes rather than leap to emotional and harmful reactions" is to be vilified?
When none of your results include race, then you're leaping to emotional and harmful reactions.


Ok. I give up. I've read and re-read what you just wrote and I have no clue what you are saying. Maybe try again? What are you defining as "results"? What do you mean by "include race"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#209 Jul 26 2016 at 3:58 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,157 posts
I think what he's saying is that if you (gbaji) insist that race is only sometimes kinda occasionaly rarely the reason that bad things happen to people of color then you must be a complete idiot or you are lying.

So, pick one so we all know, k?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#210 Jul 26 2016 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
gbaji wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
But the guy saying "Hey. Maybe we should calm down and take a look at the root causes rather than leap to emotional and harmful reactions" is to be vilified?
When none of your results include race, then you're leaping to emotional and harmful reactions.


Ok. I give up. I've read and re-read what you just wrote and I have no clue what you are saying. Maybe try again? What are you defining as "results"? What do you mean by "include race"?
See post 115 (second paragraph)
#211 Jul 26 2016 at 5:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
See post 115 (second paragraph)


Would it have killed you to just quote it yourself? You know, since you already had to go back and find the stupid post number in the first place? Let me do the work for you and quote the relevant portion:

Almalieque wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The problem with BLM is that instead of starting with a problem and seeking solutions, it instead starts with an assumption of the cause, and protests that assumed cause. Worse, it attacks anyone who challenges their assumption by claiming that they are rejecting the problem itself. They will claim that if I disagree with a BLM protest, it means that I don't care about black lives being lost disproportionately. But what it really means is that I disagree that the disproportionate loss of black lives is the result of police valuing a black life less than other lives.


You act as if there is only one problem with a magical solution. You ignore the problems where black people aren't the root cause and only focus on the problems where black people are the root cause.


The irony with this response is that you're accusing me of doing what BLM is doing: Assuming there's just one and only one solution (racist cops). I'm the one saying "let's look for other causes".

I also disagree that pointing out that disproportionate black poverty is the cause of disproportionate police stats is the same as saying that "black people" are the cause. Your response (and several other posters for that matter) assumes that I somehow place blame on black people for being poor. That's not remotely the case though. There are a number of causes of that disproportionate poverty. But if you're unwilling to even acknowledge that this is the source of the disproportionate police stats, and prefer instead to just blame the police, then you're the one focusing on one "magical solution", right?

I've already examined the "solution" that BLM is pursuing and have concluded that it's not only the wrong one, but that no amount of "fixing" the police will ever fix the problem. I've posted this several times. You can make all the changes you want to police stop procedures, and put every single cop through racial sensitivity training, change the racial makeup of the police forces, change the hiring parameters, requires body cameras, etc, etc, etc, and you will not change the relative rate in which negative encounters between civilians and police occur as it relates to race. Whatever the resulting rate of police shootings are after all of that, you will still have a higher rate among blacks than among whites. Because even if every other factor is exactly the same, a patrol areas with a higher crime rate will have a higher rate of stops to citizens. So if the odds of something "bad" happening are constant, then the number of times something "bad" happens in a year out of every 1000 people will be higher in the poor neighborhood than in the middle class neighborhood.

Thus, since a higher percentage of blacks live in poor neighborhoods, they will *always* have a higher rate of "bad things" happening to them. Not just police encounters either. Higher rates of being mugged. Higher rates of being randomly shot. Higher rates of dropping out of school. Higher rates of drug abuse. Higher rates of domestic violence. Higher rates of incarceration. Higher rates of every single negative factor. Sound familiar? These are the stats we all see all the time. They're all coming from the same place. Why focus on one symptom of one problem stemming from that cause? It's lunacy. Well, if you actually want to make things better for blacks in the US. If you don't care about them, and want them to be eternal second class citizens, then by all means, go chase your tail and march and protest the police. Because all you're doing is perpetuating the problem.


I've asked this question a couple times already, and no one has answered it. Imagine that you had the power to make any changes to the police that you want. Tell me what changes you would make, and then explain to me how these changes would fix the problem at hand. And I don't want to hear end goals (like: "make them not stop blacks at a higher rate than whites" or "make them not shoot black people"). I mean what changes you would make that would achieve those goals. Assume they still have to do their jobs and enforce the law, arrest people who are committing crimes, etc. Can you actually think of any way to make changes that would fix the relative rates of negative interactions with cops? Cause I don't think there is any way to do this. But you're welcome to try.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#212 Jul 26 2016 at 5:19 PM Rating: Decent
Scholar
***
1,221 posts
gbaji wrote:


I've already examined the "solution" that BLM is pursuing and have concluded that it's not only the wrong one, but that no amount of "fixing" the police will ever fix the problem. I've posted this several times. You can make all the changes you want to police stop procedures, and put every single cop through racial sensitivity training, change the racial makeup of the police forces, change the hiring parameters,...


This is probably the only real thing I do not agree with. At this point, changing hiring parameters a little could help.
____________________________
Your soul was made of fists.

Jar the Sam
#213 Jul 26 2016 at 5:34 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
I've asked this question a couple times already, and no one has answered it.

I previously linked to the reforms suggested by BLM. I don't need to play some "Let's watch Gbaji judge our ideas" because the people actively advocating for this stuff already have their own goals.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#214 Jul 26 2016 at 6:59 PM Rating: Good
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Would it have killed you to just quote it yourself? You know, since you already had to go back and find the stupid post number in the first place?
Would it have killed you to just answer it the first time. I didn't have to go back, because I already referenced it before.

Gbaji wrote:
The irony with this response is that you're accusing me of doing what BLM is doing: Assuming there's just one and only one solution (racist cops).
I literally said the opposite, so please reread and respond accordingly. You act as if there is only one problem with a magical solution. You ignore the problems where black people aren't the root cause and only focus on the problems where black people are the root cause.

You are literally disregarding what I'm saying and then complain when I reference posts refuting your claims.
#215 Jul 27 2016 at 7:46 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
gbaji wrote:
As opposed to the use of broad statistics coupled with similar anecdotes to prove that racism is behind every social outcome in the country?
As unreliable as broad statistics and hundreds of thousands of similar anecdotes can be, your use of broad statistics and fiction is less reliable.
gbaji wrote:
Seems kinda backwards to me.
I'm sorry you're so shocked that your word just doesn't mean anything, middle aged suburban white guy.
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've asked this question a couple times already, and no one has answered it.
I previously linked to the reforms suggested by BLM.
Yeah, but that wasn't the answer he wanted so it doesn't count.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#216 Jul 27 2016 at 7:52 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm sure everyone's gold standard for the effectiveness of goals is whether or not Gbaji says that it'll work.

"Hey, wait, the random white Republican guy on the internet says that instead of making police more accountable and ending arrest quotas, we really just need to learn how to be arrested better. Welp, let's pack it in then..."
lolgaxe wrote:
gbaji wrote:
As opposed to the use of broad statistics coupled with similar anecdotes to prove that racism is behind every social outcome in the country?
As unreliable as broad statistics and hundreds of thousands of similar anecdotes can be, your use of broad statistics and fiction is less reliable.

"Here's some stories about people getting hassled."
"Anecdotes are meaningless!"
"Here's some data on how blacks are disproportionately targeted"
"I was once stopped fifty-eleven times so that data doesn't count!"

Edited, Jul 27th 2016 8:54am by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#217 Jul 27 2016 at 5:50 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I've asked this question a couple times already, and no one has answered it.

I previously linked to the reforms suggested by BLM. I don't need to play some "Let's watch Gbaji judge our ideas" because the people actively advocating for this stuff already have their own goals.


Yes. I've read those suggestions. And I'll repeat the assertion I just made: Those are broad changes that would affect the rates at which "bad things" would happen across all police patrols, not just the ones involving black people. We can reasonably assume therefore, that any effect would be universal. Thus, the existing disparate ratio of deaths/injury/etc by cops of black people versus white people will still be about the same. Even if you could somehow magically change the average rate at which a death occurs during a stop across the board by 50%, the average for the set involving blacks will be higher than the average for the set involving whites.

This is true because you're still not changing the underlying fact that disparate poverty rates causes disparate presence in high crime areas, which will affect every other statistic that flows from that fact. The only proposal that comes close to addressing this is the bit about broken window policing. But again, the poverty stats are the key component here. You have more public drinking, loitering, disorderly conduct, etc in poor neighborhoods than in middle class neighborhoods. The "solution" of simply not policing those things will almost certainly result in even higher crime rates in those neighborhoods (seriously? They're proposing that the police not do anything if someone is trespassing?). So the complaints will shift to the police not protecting black citizens as well as white citizens, and they'll just trot out the stats showing that just like they're using the same stats to complain about over policing in those neighborhoods.

Again though, this ultimately isn't about police bias towards blacks. It's about blacks being disproportionately more likely to live in neighborhoods where greater policing efforts are required due to the higher crime rates in those neighborhoods. Short of just putting their hands up and saying "just fend for yourselves", you're never going to fix this by changing the actions of the police.

And just to circle back to what I was talking about in the first paragraph. While one might think that reducing the total deaths by 50% is a great thing (assuming you could get his number, of course), the current protests aren't about the total numbers. If it were about numbers of lives, they'd be talking about other things that kill black people at a far far higher rate than the police. It's about the disparate ratio of such deaths, and the highlighting of a very small number of such cases in our national media. If that number were only 5 a year, that's still enough to put them on our TVs and generate the same amount of outrage, protests, and riots. How many such deaths are we talking about right now? Just a handful, right? I'm not trying to dismiss the loss of a life, but merely pointing out that *any* death can be used to generate outrage.

Wouldn't a far better approach be to try to fix the underlying problem of disparate black poverty? That fixes the police issue and it fixes a whole slew of other problems as well. Chasing after one symptom of a problem just seems like a poor use of our collective effort, and frankly serves to distract us from the much bigger problem. It's like a doctor spending all his time trying to adjust the pain medication he's giving a patient with a broken leg to alleviate his pain, but not actually setting the bone or putting it in a cast, or otherwise attempting to heal the cause of the pain in the first place. Sure, you could go that route, but that seems like a dumb way to go.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#218 Jul 27 2016 at 5:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Yes. I've read those suggestions. And I'll repeat the assertion I just made: Those are broad changes that would affect the rates at which "bad things" would happen across all police patrols, not just the ones involving black people. We can reasonably assume therefore, that any effect would be universal.

Yeah, you're wrong. More to the point, no one actually cares that you're wrong and if you think we're all going to try and find ideas that appease Gbaji, you're insane Smiley: laugh
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#219 Jul 27 2016 at 6:22 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Would it have killed you to just quote it yourself? You know, since you already had to go back and find the stupid post number in the first place?
Would it have killed you to just answer it the first time. I didn't have to go back, because I already referenced it before.


I did answer you. I have made the same argument that changes to police methodology will not erase the disparate rate at which blacks have negative interactions with police several times now. What you have not done is answer my question about what you think the cops can do to change their behavior that will fix this. Failing to do that and just repeating the same assertions that police bias/actions are to blame over and over isn't terribly helpful.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The irony with this response is that you're accusing me of doing what BLM is doing: Assuming there's just one and only one solution (racist cops).
I literally said the opposite, so please reread and respond accordingly.


I'm reasonably certain that you have repeatedly claimed that the one problem to be solved is racist/biased cops. Are you saying that there's some other direction we should be looking in for a solution to the problem of black deaths at the hand of police? Because I'm pretty sure that that's been *my* position all along. So you are taking my side now? Yay! Progress at last.

Quote:
You act as if there is only one problem with a magical solution. You ignore the problems where black people aren't the root cause and only focus on the problems where black people are the root cause.


Again though, this is what BLM is doing (in reverse). They ignore the problems where police are not the root cause and only focus on the problems where the police *are* the root cause. As I said earlier, they start with the assumption of a cause (police bias), and proceed from there. I disagree with their starting assumption.

Quote:
You are literally disregarding what I'm saying and then complain when I reference posts refuting your claims.


I'm not disregarding anything you say. I'm reading it, responding to it, and rejecting it. And guess what? I have provided multiple arguments *why* I disagree with you on this. All you do is keep repeating the same assertion over and over.

I'll ask again: What changes do you think the police could make to their methodology which would change the relative rates of deaths by cops among blacks as compared to whites? Heck. Let me be even more specific. Let's look at the Michael Brown case. Please tell me what that officer could or should have done differently in that situation while still allowing him to actually enforce the law. Recall that Brown had, in fact, just committed a robbery. He did, in fact, have the stolen property in his freaking hands. Should the cop just have ignored him? Driven on by? And when assaulted by Brown, he should have just ignored the felony assault that occurred and let him go? And when Brown turned and charged him, he should have... what? Just let the 300 lb man beat the stuffing out of him?

Maybe only allow cops to have tasers? Sure. Except that people die from tasers as well. And when that happens, it's "they should have reasoned with him", or "they should have used some other means to restrain him". And when they use some other means (like say, attempting to pull him to the ground and handcuff him), and that results in a constricted airway and he dies, then what? "They should have tasered him instead" (Remember Eric Gardner?). How many times do we have to go around this maypole before we recognize that there is no perfect and safe way for the police to apprehend someone, and that some small percentage of apprehensions will result in serious injury and even death.

You want to reduce the rate at which black people suffer this result, the only and best way to do that is to reduce the rate at which black people are living in conditions that increase their odds of being apprehended. And that can only result from a broad improvement of the social condition of blacks in this country. I would assume you aren't opposed to this, right? So why the backlash against it? Deaths by police is the merest tip of the iceberg of the problem of black poverty. Why not focus on the actual problem instead of one of many symptoms of that problem?

If I were wearing my Smiley: tinfoilhat I would suspect that there's some political faction that actually wants to keep black people poor and angry for some reason. And thus, they prefer to use that anger for political ends rather than make any effort to fix the underlying problem. And sadly, far far too many blacks have bought into this narrative and actively join in the circus act (and national conventions) instead of waking the heck up and realizing that they're just being used. Change all the police procedures in the world, and blacks will still be getting the shortest end of the social stick and will still have a long long list of disadvantages that can be highlighted, complained about, and raised as yet another means of motivating them to continue voting for the very party that has created their impoverished conditions.

Of course, that would be crazy conspiracy talk. I'm sure there's nothing to it and you can just disregard the whole thing.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#220 Jul 27 2016 at 6:37 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I did answer you.
Gbaji wrote:
Again though, this is what BLM is doing (in reverse). They ignore the problems where police are not the root cause and only focus on the problems where the police *are* the root cause. As I said earlier, they start with the assumption of a cause (police bias), and proceed from there. I disagree with their starting assumption.
You responding with words isn't the same as you responding to my post. You haven't addressed my post.

Gbaji wrote:
I'm not disregarding anything you say. I'm reading it, responding to it, and rejecting it. And guess what? I have provided multiple arguments *why* I disagree with you on this. All you do is keep repeating the same assertion over and over.
Gbaji wrote:
I'm reasonably certain that you have repeatedly claimed that the one problem to be solved is racist/biased cops. Are you saying that there's some other direction we should be looking in for a solution to the problem of black deaths at the hand of police? Because I'm pretty sure that that's been *my* position all along. So you are taking my side now? Yay! Progress at last.

Read above. You saying "that's what BLM does in reverse" does not affirm or deny the fact that you are doing what I said.


#221 Jul 27 2016 at 6:38 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Yes. I've read those suggestions. And I'll repeat the assertion I just made: Those are broad changes that would affect the rates at which "bad things" would happen across all police patrols, not just the ones involving black people. We can reasonably assume therefore, that any effect would be universal.

Yeah, you're wrong.


You're free to claim that, but I'll note that you have no rationale or argument to back it up. Which just makes it an empty opinion.

You can't possibly think that police will only wear body cameras when stopping black people, or only switch to less lethal weapons when patrolling black neighborhoods, or that policy changes regarding when/why they can stop someone will only affect stops where the person is black. Those changes will affect the same stats to the same degree across the board. So the rate at which belligerent white guys get killed will drop to the same relative degree as the rate at which belligerent black guys get killed by cops. Which will still leave us with statistics about relative rates of stops, searches, arrests, and deaths that you've parroted yourself:

Jophiel wrote:
You're 33% more likely to be pulled over if you're black than if you're white. You are 300% more likely to be searched/frisked during a traffic stop if you are black than if you are white.


These relative stats will not change. They wont change because these stats are not driven by police bias, but by a difference in the socio-econonmic conditions between blacks and whites in this country. If you change the rules such that half as many people get pulled over, you wont change the stats. Heck, you might actually make them worse. In a high crime area, even with more restrictions in terms of probable cause for stops and searches, you'll likely still have enough activity going on that meets that higher bar to keep the officers in those neighborhoods busy their entire shift, while the cops in the low crime areas will now be sitting around all shift waiting for someone who meets the criteria rather than perhaps randomly stopping people just because they're bored and there's no one else around.

Again, you're not solving the problem with this. You can't. I get that it's a feel good thing to adopt so you can claim to be "on your side" and stand in solidarity with your black brothers and sisters, or whatever other nonsense they'll likely be parading around on the convention floor, but it's not actually a solution to the problem. It's just something to make you look good while not actually doing anything at all. It's something to make you feel better and to assuage your white guilt, I guess. But don't kid yourself that it's anything more than an empty gesture.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#222 Jul 27 2016 at 6:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
You're right, I didn't argue with you. I can't see where is worth it to wait for you to admit that other people are experiencing things that you're not.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#223 Jul 27 2016 at 6:56 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You responding with words isn't the same as you responding to my post. You haven't addressed my post.


You mean this post:

Quote:
You act as if there is only one problem with a magical solution. You ignore the problems where black people aren't the root cause and only focus on the problems where black people are the root cause.


Could have sworn I've replied to this directly at least twice, but here you go (again):

1. I don't act as though there is only one problem with one magical solution. Quite the opposite. The issue of disparate poverty is a whole set of different problems, each of which contributes to the resulting effect. I'm talking about black education rates, black dependence on welfare, black housing issues, availability of jobs for blacks, availability of advancement within those jobs for blacks, problems with gangs, drugs, etc, etc, etc. All of those problems contribute to a higher rate of black poverty (and also, perversely, are themselves symptoms of that poverty).

There's no "magical solution" to this. It's a long and difficult process. But one that isn't currently being addressed (or, worse, is being addressed wrong).

The people acting as though there is just one problem and one solution are the BLM folks who point the finger at the police. Which, in case you're wondering, is yet another in a long list of examples of "addressing it wrong". We're not addressing the problem here, but merely treating the symptom. Which, while it might make some people feel slightly better for a while, will never actually fix things.

2. I've already stated that the issue of black poverty is not the "fault" of black people. They are not the "cause" of their own poverty. That's a bizarre way to think about it. It's not about placing blame on a whole group of people here. Well, maybe it is for you, but it isn't for me. Black people are the victims of poverty. And the increased rate at which they are killed by cops is one of many many symptoms of that poverty. I'm not pointing the finger of blame here. I'm saying we need to correctly assess the root cause and start working on that rather than looking for convenient scapegoats whenever another symptom of that problem reaches public awareness (in this case, another black man is shot by police).

BLM are the ones who want to view the "cause" of the problem as a group of people rather than a socio-economic condition. And IMO, that's just contributing to the problem rather than doing anything at all to solve it. We can't fix this if all people want to do is stand around pointing fingers at each other.

Quote:
Read above. You saying "that's what BLM does in reverse" does not affirm or deny the fact that you are doing what I said.


Huh? BLM is the group that's focused on one thing: Police.

Are you denying this?

Edited, Jul 27th 2016 6:02pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#224 Jul 27 2016 at 7:14 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Could have sworn I've replied to this directly at least twice, but here you go (again):

1. I don't act as though there is only one problem with one magical solution. Quite the opposite. The issue of disparate poverty is a whole set of different problems, each of which contributes to the resulting effect. I'm talking about black education rates, black dependence on welfare, black housing issues, availability of jobs for blacks, availability of advancement within those jobs for blacks, problems with gangs, drugs, etc, etc, etc. All of those problems contribute to a higher rate of black poverty (and also, perversely, are themselves symptoms of that poverty).

There's no "magical solution" to this. It's a long and difficult process. But one that isn't currently being addressed (or, worse, is being addressed wrong).

The people acting as though there is just one problem and one solution are the BLM folks who point the finger at the police. Which, in case you're wondering, is yet another in a long list of examples of "addressing it wrong". We're not addressing the problem here, but merely treating the symptom. Which, while it might make some people feel slightly better for a while, will never actually fix things.

2. I've already stated that the issue of black poverty is not the "fault" of black people. They are not the "cause" of their own poverty. That's a bizarre way to think about it. It's not about placing blame on a whole group of people here. Well, maybe it is for you, but it isn't for me. Black people are the victims of poverty. And the increased rate at which they are killed by cops is one of many many symptoms of that poverty. I'm not pointing the finger of blame here. I'm saying we need to correctly assess the root cause and start working on that rather than looking for convenient scapegoats whenever another symptom of that problem reaches public awareness (in this case, another black man is shot by police).

BLM are the ones who want to view the "cause" of the problem as a group of people rather than a socio-economic condition. And IMO, that's just contributing to the problem rather than doing anything at all to solve it. We can't fix this if all people want to do is stand around pointing fingers at each other.
So, you agree that the state of black America is a combination of personal actions AND constitutional favoritism?


Gbaji wrote:
Huh? BLM is the group that's focused on one thing: Police.

Are you denying this?
I don't think Treyvon's death had anything to do with the police.
#225 Jul 27 2016 at 9:43 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
So, you agree that the state of black America is a combination of personal actions AND constitutional favoritism?


I think it's a combination of a number of factors. I don't agree with the two you listed though. "personal actions" is so broad as to be meaningless in this context, and "constitutional favoritism" isn't a factor at all (there's nothing in our constitution anymore that favors any race over another). Big factors are things like already existing poverty levels combined with economic policies that make poverty more generational than it should be. Another factor is the difficulty of moving from a highly focused poverty model to a more distributed poverty model. I believe I linked to some site that discussed the fact that white poverty and black poverty is very different in this country. A white person may be just as poor as a black person, but is much less likely to live in a neighborhood where everyone (or at least a very high percentage) is poor. This has a massive effect, not just on the perceptions of those who grow up in those neighborhood (which leads to that issue of generational poverty I mentioned earlier), but also on the very ability to obtain the employment necessary to lift oneself out of poverty. If there are literally not enough jobs for even a small percentage of the people living in an area, and few of them pay more than a pittance, how do you ever leave? You're trapped. IMO, that's a huge problem that has to be addressed.

It's usually not addressed though because of political reasons. There's a perception that the "black vote" only counts if it's concentrated in tight geographical regions. As a result, there are a number of social and economic pressures in place that cause blacks to tend to congregate in nearly entirely black neighborhoods (and increasingly very poor neighborhoods). This does allow those voters to get black representatives on city councils and state legislatures and in the US congress, but IMO the cost of doing this is far greater than the benefits. I think that blacks would be far better as a small percentage of a large number of regions than a large percentage of a small number. it would give them a broader voice in many more jurisdictions *and* would reduce the concentrated poverty effect. Right now, all that's happening is that they are electing black representatives who can do nothing for them except try to get some social welfare programs put in place to make their lives a tiny bit better. Which, again, is just treating the symptom, and not the problem.

And yes, some of that was the result of redlining practices back in the day. Um... But that's been gone what? for 35 years now? Things haven't gotten better. I could probably speculate about a whole bunch of different forces that may be in play here, but the point isn't to solve that problem on day one. The point is to get more people to even recognize that this is a problem which needs to be solved. And as long as there's are political forces that benefit from concentrated poor black voters, we're probably not going to see much action on this.

BTW, this is thy the Dems are so happy to jump in bed with the BLM movement. Anything that focuses angry black voices in a direction other than their own failed social policies is a great thing for them. At the end of the day though, I firmly believe that the current state of things for blacks in the US is overwhelming the result of Democratic party policies over the last 50 years. They replaced segregation with the welfare state. Different tactic, same result. Well, except instead of suppressing black voters, they trap them economically so they have little choice but to vote for them. Remove the poverty condition for blacks, and this power over them fades away. Which is why the Democrats have no interest at all in fixing the problem of black poverty. Put another way, blacks should not be this poor. Their condition is artificially maintained, and not in the way you may think.


Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
Huh? BLM is the group that's focused on one thing: Police.

Are you denying this?
I don't think Treyvon's death had anything to do with the police.


It didn't. That also has nothing to do with the agenda and actions of the organization. There's a difference between the events they use to gain support and the actions they take once they have that support. Overwhelmingly, their public demands have been about changes to police procedures. Their protests have been about the police. If they cared so much about civilians killing blacks, wouldn't they focus more of their condemnation at the vast number of blacks killed by gangs in inner cities around the country every year?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#226 Jul 28 2016 at 7:13 AM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
I think it's a combination of a number of factors. I don't agree with the two you listed though. "personal actions" is so broad as to be meaningless in this context, and "constitutional favoritism" isn't a factor at all (there's nothing in our constitution anymore that favors any race over another).
MY MISTAKE.. I apologize, let me rephrase.

So, you agree that the state of black America is a combination of personal actions AND institutional favoritism?

Gbaji wrote:

It didn't. That also has nothing to do with the agenda and actions of the organization. There's a difference between the events they use to gain support and the actions they take once they have that support. Overwhelmingly, their public demands have been about changes to police procedures. Their protests have been about the police. If they cared so much about civilians killing blacks, wouldn't they focus more of their condemnation at the vast number of blacks killed by gangs in inner cities around the country every year?
See post 92, second paragraph.
#227 Jul 28 2016 at 7:34 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
Jophiel wrote:
I can't see where is worth it to wait for you to admit that other people are experiencing things that you're not.
What are you talking about? As a middle aged suburban white guy he shares the same life experiences as black people ALL the time.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#228 Jul 28 2016 at 4:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
MY MISTAKE.. I apologize, let me rephrase.

So, you agree that the state of black America is a combination of personal actions AND institutional favoritism?


"personal actions" is so broad as to be meaningless in this context. Everything can be said to be the result of "personal actions". What actions specifically are you speaking of? What actions are taken consistently in a given manner that it rises to become a substantial and measurable impact on the entire state of black America? And if this is consistent and broad, then isn't your term "personal actions" really just another means of referring to "institutional favoritism"? I suppose we could make a distinction between an individual engaging in racially biased actions and businesses, schools, organizations, etc doing so.

I'll also point out that you are, once again, doing exactly what you accused me of doing: Singling out a single "cause" for the problem. In this case, I kinda can't help but notice that the two things you talk about are both (presumably) some form of racism. I disagree that racism, in any form, is more than a small contributor to the current state of black America. I pointed out a number of other factors, none of which have anything to do with racism, but that all help contribute to the disparate condition blacks find themselves in. And instead of responding to my list, you just ignored it and repeated your own claim (with a wording change included).

As long as you insist on assuming that the disparate conditions of blacks in the US is the result of racist behavior, you're going to miss all of the other factors. And IMO, that's going to prevent the very solutions that need to be implemented from ever being adopted. And will thus perpetuate black poverty in the US. Broaden your mind on this topic. Chanting "racism" over and over might make you feel better. It might get others to rally to your cause. But it will never actually solve the current problem. Because blacks aren't poor in the US because of evil white folks deliberately keeping them down (well, except maybe some of the good ol boys in the Democratic party). It's almost entirely because of well meaning folks thinking they are "helping" blacks, while actually hurting them. The people supporting more welfare, more food stamps, and more political empowerment for blacks certainly aren't doing so because they hold a racist view of blacks. They think they're doing the right thing.

But they are not.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

It didn't. That also has nothing to do with the agenda and actions of the organization. There's a difference between the events they use to gain support and the actions they take once they have that support. Overwhelmingly, their public demands have been about changes to police procedures. Their protests have been about the police. If they cared so much about civilians killing blacks, wouldn't they focus more of their condemnation at the vast number of blacks killed by gangs in inner cities around the country every year?
See post 92, second paragraph.


And? I didn't mention the skin color of the person who killed the black person. I spoke of civilians versus police. Because their actions seem most geared towards the police. Zimmerman was latino. It is interesting that you couldn't help but make this into a white vs black issue. But the cops are black as well, right? Especially, the police forces in the locations being protested the most, there's a lot of black cops. So this isn't about white killing blacks, it's about cops killing blacks. But then that begs the question? If it's not about the race of the person pulling the trigger, then why not spend more time focusing on gang killings? Is it that they don't want to oppose the gangs, but are ok with opposing the police? That seems... backwards. Given that crime is one of the feedback effects in poor neighborhoods that keep them poor. You'd think the number one concern for blacks in the US would be the ridiculously high rate of death from this cause.

Yet instead, it's focused at the rare isolated events where a cop or watchman kills a black man. Of course, in nation of 300+ million people, these rare events will occur often enough to continue to make news and keep the cause active, but they aren't really the problem here. Worse is that they seem to almost deliberately pick the most controversial cases to highlight. Almost like it's not about trying to prevent black deaths, but to pick cases where they know a lot of people will look at the same facts and say "Um... maybe the guy wasn't wrong to pull that trigger when he did".

It's a pattern of action you take if you want to create conflict, not if you want to solve a problem.

Edited, Jul 28th 2016 3:26pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#229 Jul 28 2016 at 5:00 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:

"personal actions" is so broad as to be meaningless in this context. Everything can be said to be the result of "personal actions". What actions specifically are you speaking of? What actions are taken consistently in a given manner that it rises to become a substantial and measurable impact on the entire state of black America? And if this is consistent and broad, then isn't your term "personal actions" really just another means of referring to "institutional favoritism"? I suppose we could make a distinction between an individual engaging in racially biased actions and businesses, schools, organizations, etc doing so.

I'll also point out that you are, once again, doing exactly what you accused me of doing: Singling out a single "cause" for the problem. In this case, I kinda can't help but notice that the two things you talk about are both (presumably) some form of racism. I disagree that racism, in any form, is more than a small contributor to the current state of black America. I pointed out a number of other factors, none of which have anything to do with racism, but that all help contribute to the disparate condition blacks find themselves in. And instead of responding to my list, you just ignored it and repeated your own claim (with a wording change included).

As long as you insist on assuming that the disparate conditions of blacks in the US is the result of racist behavior, you're going to miss all of the other factors. And IMO, that's going to prevent the very solutions that need to be implemented from ever being adopted. And will thus perpetuate black poverty in the US. Broaden your mind on this topic. Chanting "racism" over and over might make you feel better. It might get others to rally to your cause. But it will never actually solve the current problem. Because blacks aren't poor in the US because of evil white folks deliberately keeping them down (well, except maybe some of the good ol boys in the Democratic party). It's almost entirely because of well meaning folks thinking they are "helping" blacks, while actually hurting them. The people supporting more welfare, more food stamps, and more political empowerment for blacks certainly aren't doing so because they hold a racist view of blacks. They think they're doing the right thing.

But they are not.
You're over analyzing. The state of black America is not to be blamed on any one thing. It is a combination of things where some are controllable (personal actions of black people) and some are not controllable (institutional favoritism). It's broad for a reason. If you can't even acknowledge this, then you're doing exactly what I just said, which is only acknowledging one of the two (personal actions). Once you acknowledge this, then you can get more detailed on specific solutions. Else, you're leaving out an entire section of problems.
#230 Jul 28 2016 at 5:06 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,157 posts
gbaji wrote:
I disagree that racism, in any form, is more than a small contributor to the current state of black America.
That would be, as they say, the crux of the problem.

Here; I'll give you an example you can understand:

"I disagree that socialism, in any form, is more than a small contributor to the current ideology of the Democratic party"


You would rightly argue that in that statement I'm either woefully uninformed about the issue or deliberately lying to obfuscate the truth. As you do in yours...get it yet?
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#231 Jul 28 2016 at 5:09 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
And? I didn't mention the skin color of the person who killed the black person. I spoke of civilians versus police. Because their actions seem most geared towards the police. Zimmerman was latino. It is interesting that you couldn't help but make this into a white vs black issue. But the cops are black as well, right? Especially, the police forces in the locations being protested the most, there's a lot of black cops. So this isn't about white killing blacks, it's about cops killing blacks. But then that begs the question? If it's not about the race of the person pulling the trigger, then why not spend more time focusing on gang killings? Is it that they don't want to oppose the gangs, but are ok with opposing the police? That seems... backwards. Given that crime is one of the feedback effects in poor neighborhoods that keep them poor. You'd think the number one concern for blacks in the US would be the ridiculously high rate of death from this cause.

Yet instead, it's focused at the rare isolated events where a cop or watchman kills a black man. Of course, in nation of 300+ million people, these rare events will occur often enough to continue to make news and keep the cause active, but they aren't really the problem here. Worse is that they seem to almost deliberately pick the most controversial cases to highlight. Almost like it's not about trying to prevent black deaths, but to pick cases where they know a lot of people will look at the same facts and say "Um... maybe the guy wasn't wrong to pull that trigger when he did".

It's a pattern of action you take if you want to create conflict, not if you want to solve a problem.
My bad, I got "trigger happy" and posted too soon. You didn't address post 92 at all, you just repeated your narrative. If you did, you will see why they don't "oppose" gang killings.
#232 Jul 28 2016 at 6:52 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
You're over analyzing. The state of black America is not to be blamed on any one thing.


Which is what I said. To which you responded to ask if I agreed that it was a combination of just two things. I've said twice now that it's more than that.

Quote:
It is a combination of things where some are controllable (personal actions of black people) and some are not controllable (institutional favoritism). It's broad for a reason. If you can't even acknowledge this, then you're doing exactly what I just said, which is only acknowledging one of the two (personal actions). Once you acknowledge this, then you can get more detailed on specific solutions. Else, you're leaving out an entire section of problems.


Ok. But it's not useful to be that broad IMO. What specific actions are contributing to the problem? What specific examples of institutionalized favoritism are contributing to the problem? You can't fix something that vague. You cant even discuss it.

And I'll point out (again) that despite your own language being incredibly broad, by limiting your list to just those two things, you're still leaving out a whole set of other things. They very ones that I have mentioned repeatedly. The impact of the welfare state, for example, does not fall either into "personal actions", or "institutional favoritism". So you're demanding that I agree to restrict our discussion to a range of things that I don't agree constitute even the most major factors involved. I'm not going to do that, because I don't agree with it.

I've been very specific with my list of contributing factors (although I'll totally admit that's not likely to be close to a full list of factors). You're free to respond to my points, or to add your own (but please add something specific that we can actually talk about). I'm not going to agree to arbitrarily limit the discussion just to the things you seem to want to talk about.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#233 Jul 28 2016 at 7:19 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Which is what I said. To which you responded to ask if I agreed that it was a combination of just two things. I've said twice now that it's more than that.
Logically, it can only be those two things. Either it's something in your control or something out of your control. You may counter to say that a particular action is not institutionalized, but a coincidence, but it's still out of one's control.

Gbaji wrote:
The impact of the welfare state, for example, does not fall either into "personal actions", or "institutional favoritism".
See above

Gbaji wrote:

Ok. But it's not useful to be that broad IMO
If you can't acknowledge institutionalized favoritism, then you will never provide solutions to address problems by institutionalized favoritism.

Gbaji wrote:
I've been very specific with my list of contributing factors (although I'll totally admit that's not likely to be close to a full list of factors). You're free to respond to my points, or to add your own (but please add something specific that we can actually talk about). I'm not going to agree to arbitrarily limit the discussion just to the things you seem to want to talk about.
I realize that you know more about black life than I do, but my point is that you refuse to acknowledge institutional favoritism as a key factor to the state of black America. I'm not trying to provide reasons or solutions.


#234 Jul 28 2016 at 7:20 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
I disagree that racism, in any form, is more than a small contributor to the current state of black America.
That would be, as they say, the crux of the problem.


You think that it's primarily racism that is causing the current state of black America? Specifically as it relates to disparate poverty rates? I get that this is a narrative the left loves to trot out, but where's the evidence? If racism itself were the primary cause, wouldn't we be uncovering vast racist plots all the time? It would require large percentages of the population constantly and consciously making decisions to prevent blacks from succeeding out of a belief that their own race is superior (that's what racism means, right?).

The problem is that this is exactly the circular reasoning I'm talking about. You start with the assumption that disparate racial outcomes are the result of institutionalized racism in a society. You then see that the racial outcomes are disparate and accept this as proof that institutionalized racism is alive and well. The problem is that this all derives from your own starting assumption.

I challenge that assumption. 50 years ago? Sure. Today? I'm just not seeing it. Sure, you can find some guy over there, or over there, using the occasional racist slur, and maybe, just maybe that guy might just be in a position once in a great while to hamper some black person's success. But on the kind of scale we're talking about? The numbers involved? The size of the poverty gap? I don't see how that's possible.

But if we abandon the starting assumption, broaden our thinking on the issue, and accept that there could be forces in our society that can adversely impact a group of people who share a common attribute (skin color in this case), where the cause of that impact has nothing at all to do with racism, then we can start looking around for examples of this. And when we do, we start seeing a whole host of factors out there that affect blacks to a different degree than whites. And most of them exist because of well meaning people, with no racist intent at all, who think they are helping people. I've listed several. There are many more. But you can't get past the assumption that if something bad happens to someone, someone else must have intended that bad thing to happen.

In the real world, bad things happen to people, even to groups of people, without needing harmful intent all the time. You didn't intent to lose control of your vehicle and hit that other car, but it happened. To assume that accidents only happen by malicious intent is absurd, right? Yet, that's essentially what you're arguing here. Until people drop this ridiculous assumption that racial disparities can only be the result of racism itself, we can't ever even start discussing this issue. Which is sad, because the people most harmed by that are (once again) the very people you presumably think you are siding with.

Quote:
Here; I'll give you an example you can understand:

"I disagree that socialism, in any form, is more than a small contributor to the current ideology of the Democratic party"


You would rightly argue that in that statement I'm either woefully uninformed about the issue or deliberately lying to obfuscate the truth. As you do in yours...get it yet?


Oh, I get it. But my response to that statement wouldn't be to mock your statement, or dismiss it out of hand. I'd ask you for evidence to support your position. I'd also provide support in opposition that presumably supports my position (like, I don't know, providing example of behavior by the Democrats which matches with socialist behavior). Neither you nor Alma have done that. You've just restated the assumption that racial disparity can only result from racism and moved from there. Restating the same starting assumption isn't an argument, when the starting assumption is the very thing in dispute.

I can show you, step by step, how any of a number of welfare programs contribute to keeping black people poor in this country. It's not even that hard to do. I seem to recall we got into this very discussion some months back, and I showed the stats for black in the US relative to whites, and you could see both groups steadily improving right up until the late 1960s (when most of the Great Society legislation actually started to have an impact), and then suddenly it was like some magical wall divided the two groups. Whites continued on a steadily improving condition, with poverty rates decreasing to a current relatively steady point, while blacks stopped improving and have stayed at a much higher rate (about double the rate of whites) of poverty ever since.

Is that not evidence that something happened right then that inhibited blacks reaching parity with whites in this regard? What happened? The welfare state happened. Prior to that happening, blacks were improving economically at a steady pace. There's no reason to assume that they would not have erased the existing poverty gap between them and whites within a couple decades. But then... it just stopped. And they've been stuck in the same spot ever since.

You can't explain that with racism. Racism has quite clearly decreased dramatically over the last 50 years. Yet the relative condition of blacks has not. That should be your first hint that there's something else going on.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#235 Jul 28 2016 at 7:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Logically, it can only be those two things. Either it's something in your control or something out of your control. You may counter to say that a particular action is not institutionalized, but a coincidence, but it's still out of one's control.


I'm not sure how your list of things aligns with actions in our out of your control. You're talking about actions taken by individuals, and institutionalized effects that result in favoritism towards one group over another (presumably favoring whites while disadvantaging blacks). I suppose we could wedge the welfare programs I'm talking about into that latter group, but I can't help but get the sneaking suspicion that when you use the phrase "institutionalized favoritism" you really mean "institutionalized racism". Which has a much more narrow definition which would specifically exclude the factors I'm talking about.

Again, "favoritism" strongly suggests that the institution knowingly favors one group over another. I'm talking about an institution that is created to do one thing, but actually has the opposite effect from that which was intended. Your "list" doesn't account for that possibility at all.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:
The impact of the welfare state, for example, does not fall either into "personal actions", or "institutional favoritism".
See above


I see above. Now tell me which of those two categories the impact of the welfare state on blacks in the US falls under? If you're willing to say that the phrase "institutionalized favoritism" applies to welfare, then we can talk. But I happen to think that's a terrible label to try to use (for the reasons I mentioned above). I just know (cause it's happened enough times in the past on this forum) that if I accept that phrase and then start using it in my own posts, at some point down the thread, someone will insist that I'm wrong because institutionalize favoritism means institutions that favor someone or some group, and that doesn't apply to welfare programs. And then I'll point back to my earlier arguments and definitions, and I'll be accused of backpedaling on the term.

So no. I'd rather we use a term that does not include the word "favoritism" in it. Because that assumes intent. Ok?

Quote:
If you can't acknowledge institutionalized favoritism, then you will never provide solutions to address problems by institutionalized favoritism.


The problem is that I'm not sure what you mean when you use the phrase. Again, my concern is that if I just accept it, you'll change the definition later in the discussion and insist that since I already "agreed" that it was one of two factors, that I can't now argue some other factor that falls outside of it.

I suppose we could use terms like "individual actions" and "institutionalized actions", but I still think that's kinda meaningless. It's like saying that something will "either happen during the night, or during the day". I don't see the value in that.

Quote:
I realize that you know more about black life than I do, but my point is that you refuse to acknowledge institutional favoritism as a key factor to the state of black America. I'm not trying to provide reasons or solutions.


No. I don't know what you mean when you use the phrase is all. I'm not going to agree to use a label, when I don't know what that label means. Get it? Be more specific and I'll be glad to engage. But I'm not going to blindly accept a term for something, when I don't know what definition you're using for the term.

Heck. I'll ask: What do you mean when you say "institutionalized favoritism"?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#236 Jul 28 2016 at 8:17 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Now tell me which of those two categories the impact of the welfare state on blacks in the US falls under? If you're willing to say that the phrase "institutionalized favoritism" applies to welfare, then we can talk.
That depends on the particular scenario. If you want to solve the problem with welfare, you have to first acknowledge that the individual on welfare could be from personal choices or it could be systemic (or something out of their control).

Gbaji wrote:

Heck. I'll ask: What do you mean when you say "institutionalized favoritism"?
Favoritism towards and/or against a particular demographic due to historical social practices, laws and/or norms. These practices may or may not be intentional. For example, hiring the pretty girl over the less attractive girl or providing better/good deals to your close friends or family.

#237 Jul 28 2016 at 8:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Now tell me which of those two categories the impact of the welfare state on blacks in the US falls under? If you're willing to say that the phrase "institutionalized favoritism" applies to welfare, then we can talk.
That depends on the particular scenario. If you want to solve the problem with welfare, you have to first acknowledge that the individual on welfare could be from personal choices or it could be systemic (or something out of their control).


Or it could be both. The existence of an institution, which any single individual may have little or no control over, may very well impact the decisions made by individuals within society. If I set up a taco stand somewhere that previously didn't have one, the odds of people in that area eating tacos for lunch will increase. You can't just put the resulting effect into one or another category, and I'm not sure what the value of doing so is anyway. Why not just look at the effect opening up a taco stand has on the resulting lunch eating behavior and go from there?

In the same vein, why not skip the silly and pointless labeling and just look at the welfare system and the effect is has on society? Seems like a much more straightforward way to go.

Quote:
Gbaji wrote:

Heck. I'll ask: What do you mean when you say "institutionalized favoritism"?
Favoritism towards and/or against a particular demographic due to historical social practices, laws and/or norms. These practices may or may not be intentional. For example, hiring the pretty girl over the less attractive girl or providing better/good deals to your close friends or family.


Ok. But we're specifically speaking about effects of racial disparity, right? So what form of favoritism would cause that resulting disparate result?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#238 Jul 28 2016 at 8:54 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Or it could be both.
So we agree?
#239 Jul 28 2016 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,157 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You would rightly argue that in that statement I'm either woefully uninformed about the issue or deliberately lying to obfuscate the truth. As you do in yours...get it yet?
Oh, I get it. But my response to that statement wouldn't be to mock your statement, or dismiss it out of hand.
Right. You would never, ever use a phrase like "Is that what the liberal media told you?" or "You wouldn't think so, if you liberals would learn to think for yourselves". Not never. Not you. You are always reasonable, logical and respectful.Smiley: rolleyes


gbaji wrote:
I'd ask you for evidence to support your position.
Right. As we've discussed before, if one of us asks you to prove this lack of racism scenario you insist exists we get the "can't prove a negative" line. You never give a straight answer and the wagon wheel just keeps a turnin'.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#240 Jul 29 2016 at 7:36 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
Are you saying his telling everyone that he gets pulled over every twenty feet isn't evidence that racism doesn't exist anymore?

Edited, Jul 29th 2016 9:53am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#241 Jul 29 2016 at 5:34 PM Rating: Good
Worst. Title. Ever!
*****
16,758 posts
I got pulled over for the first time ever yesterday. I was taking an alternate route into work trying to avoid road construction. Sun shining in the windshield (driving east). Was just cruising along, and went through a 4 way stop sign. Zero traffic, except for the Sheriff who was at the stop heading west.

I got half way through the intersection, realized it was a stop, and said "Shit." Then I saw the cop U-turn, come up behind me, and a few moments later his dash board lights turn on (it was unmarked). He asked me a few questions, asked me about my driving record, then took my info back to the patrol car. Came back and said he wasn't going to write me a ticket, and to look out for those Stop signs.

He also said he knew my mom since Elementary school. And I'm pretty sure he was the DARE instructor back when I was in Elementary school.

Edited, Jul 29th 2016 7:38pm by TirithRR
____________________________
Can't sleep, clown will eat me.
#242 Jul 29 2016 at 7:52 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,157 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I got pulled over for the first time ever yesterday. I was taking an alternate route into work trying to avoid road construction. Sun shining in the windshield (driving east). Was just cruising along, and went through a 4 way stop sign. Zero traffic, except for the Sheriff who was at the stop heading west.

I got half way through the intersection, realized it was a stop, and said "Shit." Then I saw the cop U-turn, come up behind me, and a few moments later his dash board lights turn on (it was unmarked). He asked me a few questions, asked me about my driving record, then took my info back to the patrol car. Came back and said he wasn't going to write me a ticket, and to look out for those Stop signs.

He also said he knew my mom since Elementary school. And I'm pretty sure he was the DARE instructor back when I was in Elementary school.
ASYLUM FAVOuRITISM!!!Smiley: mad
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#243 Aug 01 2016 at 7:38 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
TirithRR wrote:
He also said he knew my mom since Elementary school.
Bum-chika-bow-wow.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#244 Aug 01 2016 at 3:30 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Or it could be both.
So we agree?


That you're insisting on a meaningless and overly broad terminology that basically says something is either "high" or "low" (or, I guess, somewhere in-between now)? Sure. Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.

Edited, Aug 1st 2016 3:20pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#245 Aug 01 2016 at 4:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You would rightly argue that in that statement I'm either woefully uninformed about the issue or deliberately lying to obfuscate the truth. As you do in yours...get it yet?
Oh, I get it. But my response to that statement wouldn't be to mock your statement, or dismiss it out of hand.
Right. You would never, ever use a phrase like "Is that what the liberal media told you?" or "You wouldn't think so, if you liberals would learn to think for yourselves". Not never. Not you. You are always reasonable, logical and respectful.Smiley: rolleyes


When has that ever been the entirety of my response though? I might say that in addition to a lengthy argument for my position, perhaps detailing why said liberal medial spread idea is wrong. I don't just say "You're wrong because you're just repeating something you heard". I don't do this because that's a terrible argument. Someone could just as easily be blindly repeating something that is true as they could something that is false. That by itself isn't sufficient information to make a determination.

I'll point out though, that the extent of the response to my point about the optics of Clinton hiring DWS was to dismiss it because the word "brazen" was used by others in the media to describe it. Um... Ok? Kinda suggests you don't have a response, if that's all you respond with.


Quote:
gbaji wrote:
I'd ask you for evidence to support your position.
Right. As we've discussed before, if one of us asks you to prove this lack of racism scenario you insist exists we get the "can't prove a negative" line. You never give a straight answer and the wagon wheel just keeps a turnin'.


You're kidding right? Because I can't prove the absence of racism, then all of the other factors I've talked about, which are reasonable explanations for the statistical disparity we're seeing, are just dismissed? Why not actually tell me why the other factors I've talked about can't be the cause (or even just a major part of the cause) of the statistical racial disparity? You need to actually argue *against* what I'm arguing *for*.

The fact that I can't disprove the possibility of alien abduction being a risk factor doesn't at all mean that other risk factors I have spoken of can just be ignored. But that's essentially what you're doing here. I'm pointing at factor A, B, C, and D, and you're saying "But it's Aliens!", and then when I can't prove that it isn't aliens, you declare victory. Um... Really? Is that actually how you make decisions in your day to day life? Because that seems more than a little bit counter productive.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#246 Aug 01 2016 at 4:36 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,756 posts
TirithRR wrote:
I got pulled over for the first time ever yesterday. I was taking an alternate route into work trying to avoid road construction. Sun shining in the windshield (driving east). Was just cruising along, and went through a 4 way stop sign. Zero traffic, except for the Sheriff who was at the stop heading west.

I got half way through the intersection, realized it was a stop, and said "Shit." Then I saw the cop U-turn, come up behind me, and a few moments later his dash board lights turn on (it was unmarked). He asked me a few questions, asked me about my driving record, then took my info back to the patrol car. Came back and said he wasn't going to write me a ticket, and to look out for those Stop signs.

He also said he knew my mom since Elementary school. And I'm pretty sure he was the DARE instructor back when I was in Elementary school.


Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report himto his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#247 Aug 01 2016 at 5:44 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,157 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
You would rightly argue that in that statement I'm either woefully uninformed about the issue or deliberately lying to obfuscate the truth. As you do in yours...get it yet?
Oh, I get it. But my response to that statement wouldn't be to mock your statement, or dismiss it out of hand.
Right. You would never, ever use a phrase like "Is that what the liberal media told you?" or "You wouldn't think so, if you liberals would learn to think for yourselves". Not never. Not you. You are always reasonable, logical and respectful.Smiley: rolleyes


When has that ever been the entirety of my response though? I might say that in addition to a lengthy argument for my position, perhaps detailing why said liberal medial spread idea is wrong. I don't just say "You're wrong because you're just repeating something you heard". I don't do this because that's a terrible argument.
The fact is, you do say that, regardless of the blather that follows. Just another gbaji lie buried in moar werdz.
____________________________
Anna wrote:
People often say that if someone doesn't agree then, they don't understand their point. That's not true. Sometimes they don't agree with it.
#248 Aug 01 2016 at 5:52 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
***
3,258 posts
gbaji wrote:
TirithRR wrote:
I got pulled over for the first time ever yesterday. I was taking an alternate route into work trying to avoid road construction. Sun shining in the windshield (driving east). Was just cruising along, and went through a 4 way stop sign. Zero traffic, except for the Sheriff who was at the stop heading west.

I got half way through the intersection, realized it was a stop, and said "Shit." Then I saw the cop U-turn, come up behind me, and a few moments later his dash board lights turn on (it was unmarked). He asked me a few questions, asked me about my driving record, then took my info back to the patrol car. Came back and said he wasn't going to write me a ticket, and to look out for those Stop signs.

He also said he knew my mom since Elementary school. And I'm pretty sure he was the DARE instructor back when I was in Elementary school.


Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report himto his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.


Yay! Victim blaming and not caring that the burden of professionalism lies with the person who volunteered to work in the law enforcement field!!

I love it!
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#249 Aug 01 2016 at 5:59 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Did you argue with him when he pulled you over? Did you insist he was profiling you? Did you threaten to report himto his supervisor? Did you call him a "cracker cop" even just once? Cause, I think that might just have changed your experience.

Which one of those justifies the cop shooting you? Asking for a black friend.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#250 Aug 01 2016 at 6:10 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,137 posts
Gbaji wrote:
That you're insisting on a meaningless and overly broad terminology that basically says something is either "high" or "low" (or, I guess, somewhere in-between now)? Sure. Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
If you can't even admit the existence of a very general category of a problem, how are you able to provide a specific solution that addresses a problem under that general category?
#251 Aug 02 2016 at 7:45 AM Rating: Good
******
49,283 posts
gbaji wrote:
Meanwhile, you're steadfastly avoiding discussing any sort of details.
Says the middle aged suburban white guy using broad statistics that are just barely relevant to the topic coupled and with a fake personal story to dismiss any actual discussion and real details.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 52 All times are in CDT
Bijou, Sas148, Timelordwho, Anonymous Guests (49)