|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 28 2015 12:08 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:04 YoureFired wrote:
"And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Violence and riots are negative and destructive, yes, but do not EVER equate the days of rioting with the CENTURIES of discrimination, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that Black Americans (and other marginalized groups) have experienced.
If you focus on the riots and not on the injustice, you are being racist. The attitude expressed here is precisely why so many Americans are not interested in engaging all of the condescending masturacebators out there.
So what should we do, just ignore the problem? I call shit shit when I see it, I don't try to gloss it over.
I also love how conservatives conflate desire for social justice with self-gratification. Is it not enough to be motivated by desires for equality and not being an asshole to people?
|
On April 28 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do the people talking about the situation in Baltimore even know what the case is that set off the protests originally? Obviously not danglers but anyone else?
A Black man was taken into police custody (for no reason) and then sustained severe injuries and he died a week later. Of course, just like with Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, and Tamir Rice, he probably did something to deserve that treatment, right? Oh right, he's Black in America.
|
On April 28 2015 12:09 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:04 YoureFired wrote:
"And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Violence and riots are negative and destructive, yes, but do not EVER equate the days of rioting with the CENTURIES of discrimination, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that Black Americans (and other marginalized groups) have experienced.
If you focus on the riots and not on the injustice, you are being racist. The attitude expressed here is precisely why so many Americans are not interested in engaging all of the condescending masturacebators out there. So what should we do, just ignore the problem? I call shit shit when I see it, I don't try to gloss it over.
Many people here are perfectly content to do just that. Some feel the need to outright undermine that the problem even exists.
It's transparent as hell.
On April 28 2015 12:12 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:08 GreenHorizons wrote:
Do the people talking about the situation in Baltimore even know what the case is that set off the protests originally? Obviously not danglers but anyone else?
A Black man was taken into police custody (for no reason) and then sustained severe injuries and he died a week later. Of course, just like with Michael Brown, Eric Garner, Trayvon Martin, and Tamir Rice, he probably did something to deserve that treatment, right? Oh right, he's Black in America.
I knew you knew, it's just clueless posting like Danglers and the lack of attention payed to what happened weeks ago by all the people commenting now about how inappropriate some people in Baltimore are acting recently.
|
On April 28 2015 12:09 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:04 YoureFired wrote:
"And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Violence and riots are negative and destructive, yes, but do not EVER equate the days of rioting with the CENTURIES of discrimination, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that Black Americans (and other marginalized groups) have experienced.
If you focus on the riots and not on the injustice, you are being racist. The attitude expressed here is precisely why so many Americans are not interested in engaging all of the condescending masturacebators out there. So what should we do, just ignore the problem? I call shit shit when I see it, I don't try to gloss it over. I also love how conservatives conflate desire for social justice with self-gratification. Is it not enough to be motivated by desires for equality and not being an asshole to people?
It's not hard to do with the rampant hypocrisy from the left on so many social justice issues.
|
On April 28 2015 12:17 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:09 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:04 YoureFired wrote:
"And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Violence and riots are negative and destructive, yes, but do not EVER equate the days of rioting with the CENTURIES of discrimination, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that Black Americans (and other marginalized groups) have experienced.
If you focus on the riots and not on the injustice, you are being racist. The attitude expressed here is precisely why so many Americans are not interested in engaging all of the condescending masturacebators out there. So what should we do, just ignore the problem? I call shit shit when I see it, I don't try to gloss it over. I also love how conservatives conflate desire for social justice with self-gratification. Is it not enough to be motivated by desires for equality and not being an asshole to people? It's not hard to do with the rampant hypocrisy from the left on so many social justice issues.
Yes, let's make general statements to discredit pointed questions about race to divert the topic. Sounds like Color-Blind America has trained you well. If you want to actually engage in real talking points let's do it but I'm not down for this non-conversation.
|
On April 28 2015 12:20 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:09 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:04 YoureFired wrote:
"And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Violence and riots are negative and destructive, yes, but do not EVER equate the days of rioting with the CENTURIES of discrimination, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that Black Americans (and other marginalized groups) have experienced.
If you focus on the riots and not on the injustice, you are being racist. The attitude expressed here is precisely why so many Americans are not interested in engaging all of the condescending masturacebators out there. So what should we do, just ignore the problem? I call shit shit when I see it, I don't try to gloss it over. I also love how conservatives conflate desire for social justice with self-gratification. Is it not enough to be motivated by desires for equality and not being an asshole to people? It's not hard to do with the rampant hypocrisy from the left on so many social justice issues. Yes, let's make general statements to discredit pointed questions about race to divert the topic. Sounds like Color-Blind America has trained you well. If you want to actually engage in real talking points let's do it but I'm not down for this non-conversation.
....yet you are more than happy to break out the big "everyone who does X is a racist" paint brush. You're right. This isn't the making of a good conversation. Thanks for proving my point about hypocrisy, though.
|
On April 28 2015 12:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:20 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:09 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:04 YoureFired wrote:
"And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Violence and riots are negative and destructive, yes, but do not EVER equate the days of rioting with the CENTURIES of discrimination, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that Black Americans (and other marginalized groups) have experienced.
If you focus on the riots and not on the injustice, you are being racist. The attitude expressed here is precisely why so many Americans are not interested in engaging all of the condescending masturacebators out there. So what should we do, just ignore the problem? I call shit shit when I see it, I don't try to gloss it over. I also love how conservatives conflate desire for social justice with self-gratification. Is it not enough to be motivated by desires for equality and not being an asshole to people? It's not hard to do with the rampant hypocrisy from the left on so many social justice issues. Yes, let's make general statements to discredit pointed questions about race to divert the topic. Sounds like Color-Blind America has trained you well. If you want to actually engage in real talking points let's do it but I'm not down for this non-conversation. ....yet you are more than happy to break out the big "everyone who does X is a racist" paint brush. You're right. This isn't the making of a good conversation. Thanks for proving my point about hypocrisy, though.
Except that's not what was said. What was said is that you are being racist, it's not a comment on who one is but on their actions. It's true.
If one is focusing on the riots and not the injustice preceding them one is being racist and it's a pretty cut and dry issue.
|
People can focus on the riots today because it's big news today, just because they're focusing on one thing right now does not mean they are ignoring the other forever.
You are being very rude GH.
YoureFired -> that you mention a case as poor as Trayvon Martin amongst some of the other cases shows a lack of distinction.
|
On April 28 2015 12:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:20 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:17 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:09 YoureFired wrote:On April 28 2015 12:08 xDaunt wrote:On April 28 2015 12:04 YoureFired wrote:
"And I contend that the cry of "black power" is, at bottom, a reaction to the reluctance of white power to make the kind of changes necessary to make justice a reality for the Negro. I think that we've got to see that a riot is the language of the unheard. And, what is it that America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the economic plight of the Negro poor has worsened over the last few years." -Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr.
Violence and riots are negative and destructive, yes, but do not EVER equate the days of rioting with the CENTURIES of discrimination, oppression, dehumanization and exploitation that Black Americans (and other marginalized groups) have experienced.
If you focus on the riots and not on the injustice, you are being racist. The attitude expressed here is precisely why so many Americans are not interested in engaging all of the condescending masturacebators out there. So what should we do, just ignore the problem? I call shit shit when I see it, I don't try to gloss it over. I also love how conservatives conflate desire for social justice with self-gratification. Is it not enough to be motivated by desires for equality and not being an asshole to people? It's not hard to do with the rampant hypocrisy from the left on so many social justice issues. Yes, let's make general statements to discredit pointed questions about race to divert the topic. Sounds like Color-Blind America has trained you well. If you want to actually engage in real talking points let's do it but I'm not down for this non-conversation. ....yet you are more than happy to break out the big "everyone who does X is a racist" paint brush. You're right. This isn't the making of a good conversation. Thanks for proving my point about hypocrisy, though.
Yes, people who focus on individualized acts of violence rather than the system of oppression that has pushed the people committing that violence to the boiling point are racist. They basically assert that Black people are oppressed because of their own actions, when numerous studies have demonstrated that Black disprivilege is a product of what white America has done. You seem to be more afraid of being CALLED a racist than actually BEING racist.
Also, what about what I said was hypocritical?
|
On April 28 2015 08:29 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 07:30 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2015 05:57 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> I'm having trouble following what you're saying; but I can say that there is a racial issue in the results, that's found all over, and is not just a result of localized bad actors; and there's enough stats to back that up (several have been cited in the reports I listed). It also doesn't appear to be a result of direct racism, but of more complicated and subtle effects as a result of race; there's a lot of discretion in law enforcement, so the cumulative effect of many levels of mild implicit bias can really add up.
There is a racial issue in blacks killing other blacks at high numbers, well in excess of other publicized white-cops-on-blacks violence, and much ignored by media and racial activists. That's indeed a racial issue, and one that extends to cultural issues, societal issues, and political issues. We're in agreement in part! Will you enunciate your proposition for the actors and effects of some kind of stacking of levels of implicit racial bias? When you talk of subtle effects and mild implicit bias, I know looking at bulk statistics like arrest rates involve many complex phenomena like those I previously mentioned, which I hope you read. If this doesn't involve actual malice but some kind of suffused racial prejudice, how are we to know that its bases aren't simply in distinct propensity to crime in inner cities that happen to demographically contain one or more groups that constitute minorities in the state or locales? Was that arrest racially motivated or simply a police officer responding to a call and following the evidence? I hate to drag the dead horse of correlation and causation here, but have you actually considered it? I see all kinds of conclusions offered with results highlighted, but the causes are glazed over like racists are assumed and other explanations denied. Did you see the statistics about how the growth in black incarceration per capita 1926->1986 was substantial compared to the growth in white incarceration over the same period? Of course I've considered correlation vs causation issues, I'm very thorough about my reasoning. As to the stacking effects, it's a reason I'm postulating, but am not sure about, and I'd like some experiments to be run to try to assess it. There's definitely a lot of research on implicit bias, so we just need to assess possible stacking effects. To clarify what I mean by stacking effects, consider this scenario for the sake of argument: suppose a mild bias exists which causes a person deciding how to respond to a black offender to give that offender 10% more punishment. That is, when that one person makes their decision, their decisions are a little bit harsher on the black than on others. This could extend to not just what punishment they deem appropriate, but how they respond to and write down the situation. So the officer on scene makes a judgment call about how to write up the incident, and what charges to recommend. So the writeup for the black person would be a little harsher than for the white. When that info reaches the prosecutor, he makes his decision about what charges to file in the scenario and how hard to press the case how much of a plea he'd be willing to accept, and he again adds 10%. He's working with the info he's given, and he's not being strongly biased, it's only 10%. Then that info reaches the judge, who makes a sentencing decision based on the case he's presented with, and again he's only adding 10%. That is, given identical cases, the black would get 10% more punishment. Each person's individual bias was only 10%, but the overall increase in punishment that was received was 30% (or slightly higher if you go multiplicative instead of additive). Because there were several people in the chain of decision-making, each one relying in part on the reports of the previous one, the net effect of the bias was considerably stronger than the amount of bias in any individual person. And of course, looking through the future, there can be further after effects; the parole board might add a bit by being less willing to grant parole; the probation officer might be a little harsher, more likely to write up a violation rather than warning. The employer might be a little less willing to hire, which increases the odds the offender commits another crime. And if the offender gets in trouble again, their prior history carries a lot of weight, which could amplify the effect even further. It's not uncommon for people to get multiple arrests, so this chain and its amplifying effects could get quite big after going through a few times. So no individual is exhibiting much bias, but the cumulative effects of a small bias can add up over time. Again, this is just a hypothesis and a case presented for the purpose of argument to demonstrate. Is this sufficiently clear? Yeah, I understand what you're saying here as pretty center-road for the implicit bias. I'd particularly look to find it in sentencing. I'm still doing research into same-crime growth from civil rights era to today, sentencing outcomes. And thanks for posting, it's a good read.
And for YoureFired, keep up the good work race-baiting. I'm sure a lot of storeowners in Baltimore right now have very little problem looking past the rioting to find the injustice--the intervening glass windows are gone. Just one thing about *youre* eagerness to soak the racist stamp before flailing about: the more conscientious, well-meaning people you lump in to the bigot basket, the less they'll be willing to believe your claims have any merit.
|
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH.
|
On April 28 2015 12:49 zlefin wrote:
People can focus on the riots today because it's big news today, just because they're focusing on one thing right now does not mean they are ignoring the other forever.
You are being very rude GH.
YoureFired -> that you mention a case as poor as Trayvon Martin amongst some of the other cases shows a lack of distinction.
Again, focuses on individual actions rather than systemic/wider issues is problematic. Maybe Trayvon's case wasn't "perfect" in displaying police brutality, just as Michael Brown's wasn't. Why did Eric Garner's killer not get indicted, though? At what point do we say "alright, this is a good case, obv the system's fucked let's fix it".
I'm worried we will never reach that point, because people will keep asking "well, that case wasn't good enough."
|
On April 28 2015 12:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 08:29 zlefin wrote:On April 28 2015 07:30 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2015 05:57 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> I'm having trouble following what you're saying; but I can say that there is a racial issue in the results, that's found all over, and is not just a result of localized bad actors; and there's enough stats to back that up (several have been cited in the reports I listed). It also doesn't appear to be a result of direct racism, but of more complicated and subtle effects as a result of race; there's a lot of discretion in law enforcement, so the cumulative effect of many levels of mild implicit bias can really add up.
There is a racial issue in blacks killing other blacks at high numbers, well in excess of other publicized white-cops-on-blacks violence, and much ignored by media and racial activists. That's indeed a racial issue, and one that extends to cultural issues, societal issues, and political issues. We're in agreement in part! Will you enunciate your proposition for the actors and effects of some kind of stacking of levels of implicit racial bias? When you talk of subtle effects and mild implicit bias, I know looking at bulk statistics like arrest rates involve many complex phenomena like those I previously mentioned, which I hope you read. If this doesn't involve actual malice but some kind of suffused racial prejudice, how are we to know that its bases aren't simply in distinct propensity to crime in inner cities that happen to demographically contain one or more groups that constitute minorities in the state or locales? Was that arrest racially motivated or simply a police officer responding to a call and following the evidence? I hate to drag the dead horse of correlation and causation here, but have you actually considered it? I see all kinds of conclusions offered with results highlighted, but the causes are glazed over like racists are assumed and other explanations denied. Did you see the statistics about how the growth in black incarceration per capita 1926->1986 was substantial compared to the growth in white incarceration over the same period? Of course I've considered correlation vs causation issues, I'm very thorough about my reasoning. As to the stacking effects, it's a reason I'm postulating, but am not sure about, and I'd like some experiments to be run to try to assess it. There's definitely a lot of research on implicit bias, so we just need to assess possible stacking effects. To clarify what I mean by stacking effects, consider this scenario for the sake of argument: suppose a mild bias exists which causes a person deciding how to respond to a black offender to give that offender 10% more punishment. That is, when that one person makes their decision, their decisions are a little bit harsher on the black than on others. This could extend to not just what punishment they deem appropriate, but how they respond to and write down the situation. So the officer on scene makes a judgment call about how to write up the incident, and what charges to recommend. So the writeup for the black person would be a little harsher than for the white. When that info reaches the prosecutor, he makes his decision about what charges to file in the scenario and how hard to press the case how much of a plea he'd be willing to accept, and he again adds 10%. He's working with the info he's given, and he's not being strongly biased, it's only 10%. Then that info reaches the judge, who makes a sentencing decision based on the case he's presented with, and again he's only adding 10%. That is, given identical cases, the black would get 10% more punishment. Each person's individual bias was only 10%, but the overall increase in punishment that was received was 30% (or slightly higher if you go multiplicative instead of additive). Because there were several people in the chain of decision-making, each one relying in part on the reports of the previous one, the net effect of the bias was considerably stronger than the amount of bias in any individual person. And of course, looking through the future, there can be further after effects; the parole board might add a bit by being less willing to grant parole; the probation officer might be a little harsher, more likely to write up a violation rather than warning. The employer might be a little less willing to hire, which increases the odds the offender commits another crime. And if the offender gets in trouble again, their prior history carries a lot of weight, which could amplify the effect even further. It's not uncommon for people to get multiple arrests, so this chain and its amplifying effects could get quite big after going through a few times. So no individual is exhibiting much bias, but the cumulative effects of a small bias can add up over time. Again, this is just a hypothesis and a case presented for the purpose of argument to demonstrate. Is this sufficiently clear? Yeah, I understand what you're saying here as pretty center-road for the implicit bias. I'd particularly look to find it in sentencing. I'm still doing research into same-crime growth from civil rights era to today, sentencing outcomes. And thanks for posting, it's a good read. And for YoureFired, keep up the good work race-baiting. I'm sure a lot of storeowners in Baltimore right now have very little problem looking past the rioting to find the injustice--the intervening glass windows are gone. Just one thing about *youre* eagerness to soak the racist stamp before flailing about: the more conscientious, well-meaning people you lump in to the bigot basket, the less they'll be willing to believe your claims have any merit.
I get that storeowners in Boston are dealing with hell right now, and a very angry Black populace, and probably many violent Black people. That's shitty! It really is. However, can you honestly say that is worse than slavery? or racism? or mass incarceration? It's not that I disregard the shittiness felt by one side, but equating the two is frankly irresponsible.
|
On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH.
I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation.
|
On April 28 2015 12:51 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 08:29 zlefin wrote:On April 28 2015 07:30 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2015 05:57 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> I'm having trouble following what you're saying; but I can say that there is a racial issue in the results, that's found all over, and is not just a result of localized bad actors; and there's enough stats to back that up (several have been cited in the reports I listed). It also doesn't appear to be a result of direct racism, but of more complicated and subtle effects as a result of race; there's a lot of discretion in law enforcement, so the cumulative effect of many levels of mild implicit bias can really add up.
There is a racial issue in blacks killing other blacks at high numbers, well in excess of other publicized white-cops-on-blacks violence, and much ignored by media and racial activists. That's indeed a racial issue, and one that extends to cultural issues, societal issues, and political issues. We're in agreement in part! Will you enunciate your proposition for the actors and effects of some kind of stacking of levels of implicit racial bias? When you talk of subtle effects and mild implicit bias, I know looking at bulk statistics like arrest rates involve many complex phenomena like those I previously mentioned, which I hope you read. If this doesn't involve actual malice but some kind of suffused racial prejudice, how are we to know that its bases aren't simply in distinct propensity to crime in inner cities that happen to demographically contain one or more groups that constitute minorities in the state or locales? Was that arrest racially motivated or simply a police officer responding to a call and following the evidence? I hate to drag the dead horse of correlation and causation here, but have you actually considered it? I see all kinds of conclusions offered with results highlighted, but the causes are glazed over like racists are assumed and other explanations denied. Did you see the statistics about how the growth in black incarceration per capita 1926->1986 was substantial compared to the growth in white incarceration over the same period? Of course I've considered correlation vs causation issues, I'm very thorough about my reasoning. As to the stacking effects, it's a reason I'm postulating, but am not sure about, and I'd like some experiments to be run to try to assess it. There's definitely a lot of research on implicit bias, so we just need to assess possible stacking effects. To clarify what I mean by stacking effects, consider this scenario for the sake of argument: suppose a mild bias exists which causes a person deciding how to respond to a black offender to give that offender 10% more punishment. That is, when that one person makes their decision, their decisions are a little bit harsher on the black than on others. This could extend to not just what punishment they deem appropriate, but how they respond to and write down the situation. So the officer on scene makes a judgment call about how to write up the incident, and what charges to recommend. So the writeup for the black person would be a little harsher than for the white. When that info reaches the prosecutor, he makes his decision about what charges to file in the scenario and how hard to press the case how much of a plea he'd be willing to accept, and he again adds 10%. He's working with the info he's given, and he's not being strongly biased, it's only 10%. Then that info reaches the judge, who makes a sentencing decision based on the case he's presented with, and again he's only adding 10%. That is, given identical cases, the black would get 10% more punishment. Each person's individual bias was only 10%, but the overall increase in punishment that was received was 30% (or slightly higher if you go multiplicative instead of additive). Because there were several people in the chain of decision-making, each one relying in part on the reports of the previous one, the net effect of the bias was considerably stronger than the amount of bias in any individual person. And of course, looking through the future, there can be further after effects; the parole board might add a bit by being less willing to grant parole; the probation officer might be a little harsher, more likely to write up a violation rather than warning. The employer might be a little less willing to hire, which increases the odds the offender commits another crime. And if the offender gets in trouble again, their prior history carries a lot of weight, which could amplify the effect even further. It's not uncommon for people to get multiple arrests, so this chain and its amplifying effects could get quite big after going through a few times. So no individual is exhibiting much bias, but the cumulative effects of a small bias can add up over time. Again, this is just a hypothesis and a case presented for the purpose of argument to demonstrate. Is this sufficiently clear? Yeah, I understand what you're saying here as pretty center-road for the implicit bias. I'd particularly look to find it in sentencing. I'm still doing research into same-crime growth from civil rights era to today, sentencing outcomes. And thanks for posting, it's a good read. And for YoureFired, keep up the good work race-baiting. I'm sure a lot of storeowners in Baltimore right now have very little problem looking past the rioting to find the injustice--the intervening glass windows are gone. Just one thing about *youre* eagerness to soak the racist stamp before flailing about: the more conscientious, well-meaning people you lump in to the bigot basket, the less they'll be willing to believe your claims have any merit.
The great tragedy here is that people like GH and YoureFired are completely clueless as to how they are so badly undermining their cause with their careless rhetoric.
|
On April 28 2015 12:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:51 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2015 08:29 zlefin wrote:On April 28 2015 07:30 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2015 05:57 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> I'm having trouble following what you're saying; but I can say that there is a racial issue in the results, that's found all over, and is not just a result of localized bad actors; and there's enough stats to back that up (several have been cited in the reports I listed). It also doesn't appear to be a result of direct racism, but of more complicated and subtle effects as a result of race; there's a lot of discretion in law enforcement, so the cumulative effect of many levels of mild implicit bias can really add up.
There is a racial issue in blacks killing other blacks at high numbers, well in excess of other publicized white-cops-on-blacks violence, and much ignored by media and racial activists. That's indeed a racial issue, and one that extends to cultural issues, societal issues, and political issues. We're in agreement in part! Will you enunciate your proposition for the actors and effects of some kind of stacking of levels of implicit racial bias? When you talk of subtle effects and mild implicit bias, I know looking at bulk statistics like arrest rates involve many complex phenomena like those I previously mentioned, which I hope you read. If this doesn't involve actual malice but some kind of suffused racial prejudice, how are we to know that its bases aren't simply in distinct propensity to crime in inner cities that happen to demographically contain one or more groups that constitute minorities in the state or locales? Was that arrest racially motivated or simply a police officer responding to a call and following the evidence? I hate to drag the dead horse of correlation and causation here, but have you actually considered it? I see all kinds of conclusions offered with results highlighted, but the causes are glazed over like racists are assumed and other explanations denied. Did you see the statistics about how the growth in black incarceration per capita 1926->1986 was substantial compared to the growth in white incarceration over the same period? Of course I've considered correlation vs causation issues, I'm very thorough about my reasoning. As to the stacking effects, it's a reason I'm postulating, but am not sure about, and I'd like some experiments to be run to try to assess it. There's definitely a lot of research on implicit bias, so we just need to assess possible stacking effects. To clarify what I mean by stacking effects, consider this scenario for the sake of argument: suppose a mild bias exists which causes a person deciding how to respond to a black offender to give that offender 10% more punishment. That is, when that one person makes their decision, their decisions are a little bit harsher on the black than on others. This could extend to not just what punishment they deem appropriate, but how they respond to and write down the situation. So the officer on scene makes a judgment call about how to write up the incident, and what charges to recommend. So the writeup for the black person would be a little harsher than for the white. When that info reaches the prosecutor, he makes his decision about what charges to file in the scenario and how hard to press the case how much of a plea he'd be willing to accept, and he again adds 10%. He's working with the info he's given, and he's not being strongly biased, it's only 10%. Then that info reaches the judge, who makes a sentencing decision based on the case he's presented with, and again he's only adding 10%. That is, given identical cases, the black would get 10% more punishment. Each person's individual bias was only 10%, but the overall increase in punishment that was received was 30% (or slightly higher if you go multiplicative instead of additive). Because there were several people in the chain of decision-making, each one relying in part on the reports of the previous one, the net effect of the bias was considerably stronger than the amount of bias in any individual person. And of course, looking through the future, there can be further after effects; the parole board might add a bit by being less willing to grant parole; the probation officer might be a little harsher, more likely to write up a violation rather than warning. The employer might be a little less willing to hire, which increases the odds the offender commits another crime. And if the offender gets in trouble again, their prior history carries a lot of weight, which could amplify the effect even further. It's not uncommon for people to get multiple arrests, so this chain and its amplifying effects could get quite big after going through a few times. So no individual is exhibiting much bias, but the cumulative effects of a small bias can add up over time. Again, this is just a hypothesis and a case presented for the purpose of argument to demonstrate. Is this sufficiently clear? Yeah, I understand what you're saying here as pretty center-road for the implicit bias. I'd particularly look to find it in sentencing. I'm still doing research into same-crime growth from civil rights era to today, sentencing outcomes. And thanks for posting, it's a good read. And for YoureFired, keep up the good work race-baiting. I'm sure a lot of storeowners in Baltimore right now have very little problem looking past the rioting to find the injustice--the intervening glass windows are gone. Just one thing about *youre* eagerness to soak the racist stamp before flailing about: the more conscientious, well-meaning people you lump in to the bigot basket, the less they'll be willing to believe your claims have any merit. The great tragedy here is that people like GH and YoureFired are completely clueless as to how they are so badly undermining their cause with their careless rhetoric.
Are you ever going to confront a point that I have? Here's an easy one:
Slavery was bad, and its effects are persistent.
How do you feel about that?
|
On April 28 2015 12:53 YoureFired wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:49 zlefin wrote:
People can focus on the riots today because it's big news today, just because they're focusing on one thing right now does not mean they are ignoring the other forever.
You are being very rude GH.
YoureFired -> that you mention a case as poor as Trayvon Martin amongst some of the other cases shows a lack of distinction. Again, focuses on individual actions rather than systemic/wider issues is problematic. Maybe Trayvon's case wasn't "perfect" in displaying police brutality, just as Michael Brown's wasn't. Why did Eric Garner's killer not get indicted, though? At what point do we say "alright, this is a good case, obv the system's fucked let's fix it". I'm worried we will never reach that point, because people will keep asking "well, that case wasn't good enough."
many people agreed long ago that the system has numerous issues that need fixing.
Also, trayvon's case has NOTHING to do with police brutality, because it didnt' involve police at all.
Plenty of people here have looked at the systemic issues.
When you mention all those individual cases, you're talking about individual actions rather than systemic issues.
|
On April 28 2015 12:58 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:51 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2015 08:29 zlefin wrote:On April 28 2015 07:30 Danglars wrote:On April 28 2015 05:57 zlefin wrote:
danglars -> I'm having trouble following what you're saying; but I can say that there is a racial issue in the results, that's found all over, and is not just a result of localized bad actors; and there's enough stats to back that up (several have been cited in the reports I listed). It also doesn't appear to be a result of direct racism, but of more complicated and subtle effects as a result of race; there's a lot of discretion in law enforcement, so the cumulative effect of many levels of mild implicit bias can really add up.
There is a racial issue in blacks killing other blacks at high numbers, well in excess of other publicized white-cops-on-blacks violence, and much ignored by media and racial activists. That's indeed a racial issue, and one that extends to cultural issues, societal issues, and political issues. We're in agreement in part! Will you enunciate your proposition for the actors and effects of some kind of stacking of levels of implicit racial bias? When you talk of subtle effects and mild implicit bias, I know looking at bulk statistics like arrest rates involve many complex phenomena like those I previously mentioned, which I hope you read. If this doesn't involve actual malice but some kind of suffused racial prejudice, how are we to know that its bases aren't simply in distinct propensity to crime in inner cities that happen to demographically contain one or more groups that constitute minorities in the state or locales? Was that arrest racially motivated or simply a police officer responding to a call and following the evidence? I hate to drag the dead horse of correlation and causation here, but have you actually considered it? I see all kinds of conclusions offered with results highlighted, but the causes are glazed over like racists are assumed and other explanations denied. Did you see the statistics about how the growth in black incarceration per capita 1926->1986 was substantial compared to the growth in white incarceration over the same period? Of course I've considered correlation vs causation issues, I'm very thorough about my reasoning. As to the stacking effects, it's a reason I'm postulating, but am not sure about, and I'd like some experiments to be run to try to assess it. There's definitely a lot of research on implicit bias, so we just need to assess possible stacking effects. To clarify what I mean by stacking effects, consider this scenario for the sake of argument: suppose a mild bias exists which causes a person deciding how to respond to a black offender to give that offender 10% more punishment. That is, when that one person makes their decision, their decisions are a little bit harsher on the black than on others. This could extend to not just what punishment they deem appropriate, but how they respond to and write down the situation. So the officer on scene makes a judgment call about how to write up the incident, and what charges to recommend. So the writeup for the black person would be a little harsher than for the white. When that info reaches the prosecutor, he makes his decision about what charges to file in the scenario and how hard to press the case how much of a plea he'd be willing to accept, and he again adds 10%. He's working with the info he's given, and he's not being strongly biased, it's only 10%. Then that info reaches the judge, who makes a sentencing decision based on the case he's presented with, and again he's only adding 10%. That is, given identical cases, the black would get 10% more punishment. Each person's individual bias was only 10%, but the overall increase in punishment that was received was 30% (or slightly higher if you go multiplicative instead of additive). Because there were several people in the chain of decision-making, each one relying in part on the reports of the previous one, the net effect of the bias was considerably stronger than the amount of bias in any individual person. And of course, looking through the future, there can be further after effects; the parole board might add a bit by being less willing to grant parole; the probation officer might be a little harsher, more likely to write up a violation rather than warning. The employer might be a little less willing to hire, which increases the odds the offender commits another crime. And if the offender gets in trouble again, their prior history carries a lot of weight, which could amplify the effect even further. It's not uncommon for people to get multiple arrests, so this chain and its amplifying effects could get quite big after going through a few times. So no individual is exhibiting much bias, but the cumulative effects of a small bias can add up over time. Again, this is just a hypothesis and a case presented for the purpose of argument to demonstrate. Is this sufficiently clear? Yeah, I understand what you're saying here as pretty center-road for the implicit bias. I'd particularly look to find it in sentencing. I'm still doing research into same-crime growth from civil rights era to today, sentencing outcomes. And thanks for posting, it's a good read. And for YoureFired, keep up the good work race-baiting. I'm sure a lot of storeowners in Baltimore right now have very little problem looking past the rioting to find the injustice--the intervening glass windows are gone. Just one thing about *youre* eagerness to soak the racist stamp before flailing about: the more conscientious, well-meaning people you lump in to the bigot basket, the less they'll be willing to believe your claims have any merit. The great tragedy here is that people like GH and YoureFired are completely clueless as to how they are so badly undermining their cause with their careless rhetoric.
A man's neck was broken by police for no reason and they let him languish instead of calling for EMS like they are supposed to...
People have nothing to say about that. Some high school kids organize a violent demonstration and suddenly everyone is worried about people in Baltimore and how people like me are undermining the message of "Cops are abusing the fuck out of the constitution, minorities, and poor people and you don't seem to give a shit"
Then others don't get what's racist about the whole thing.
It would be hilarious if it wasn't so tragic.
|
On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation.
Yeah, I figured as much. Honestly I don't think you can.
|
On April 28 2015 13:04 heliusx wrote:Show nested quote +On April 28 2015 12:57 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 28 2015 12:51 heliusx wrote:
Why is it racist? Eli5. Go ahead GH. I don't really see a reason, the people who agree don't need one, and those that disagree won't be convinced otherwise with some eli5 explanation. Yeah, I figured as much. Honestly I don't think you can.
I can't explain it in a way that someone like you would accept no. I don't think anyone could. It's certainly not because you are right though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
