|
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 August 17 2017 12:24 xDaunt wrote:So let me start by addressing why Vox Day's 14th Point ("The Alt Right believes we must secure the existence of white people and a future for white children.") is not about white supremacy. And let me preface this by saying now that some of you are going to feel really retarded by the time that I'm done, because everything that I'm about to say is right in the 16 Points. Point 15 is the first big hint: Show nested quote +The Alt Right does not believe in the general supremacy of any race, nation, people, or sub-species. Every race, nation, people, and human sub-species has its own unique strengths and weaknesses, and possesses the sovereign right to dwell unmolested in the native culture it prefers. Just in case there's any ambiguity here, let's look at Points 10 and 16, respectively: Show nested quote +The Alt Right is opposed to the rule or domination of any native ethnic group by another, particularly in the sovereign homelands of the dominated peoples. The Alt Right is opposed to any non-native ethnic group obtaining excessive influence in any society through nepotism, tribalism, or any other means.
The Alt Right is a philosophy that values peace among the various nations of the world and opposes wars to impose the values of one nation upon another as well as efforts to exterminate individual nations through war, genocide, immigration, or genetic assimilation. Here, Vox Day is clearly advocating for peaceful coexistence among peoples and advocating directly against the supremacy/imperialism of one people over another. Not exactly the typical skinhead dribble, right? So now let's talk about his reasoning for ethnostates. We see it stated right in Point 11: Now, unlike the previous points, I am willing to cut people a little bit of slack for not fully understanding the significance of what Vox Day is communicating here given the terseness of the statement and the fact that most probably have not had the opportunity to read or hear Vox Day elaborate on this point. But his argument is basically as follows: history shows that conflict -- often violent conflict -- occurs when different cultures either a) exist in close proximity to each other, or b) find themselves in a situation whether they otherwise have to compete with each other over the same resources. Stated another way, multiculturalism breeds strife that is not easily repressed and eliminated until there is some degree of convergence between the cultures because people tend to be assholes to "the other." It's just who we are and what we do. Vox Day's solution to this human condition is to keep everyone separated and allow each people the right to national self-determination. This is stated in Point 5: Show nested quote +The Alt Right is openly and avowedly nationalist. It supports all nationalisms and the right of all nations to exist, homogeneous and unadulterated by foreign invasion and immigration. Accordingly, securing the future of white people is merely the logical extension of this principle. The goal, is the preservation of Western Culture, of which Vox Day writes in Point 4: Show nested quote +The Alt Right believes Western civilization is the pinnacle of human achievement and supports its three foundational pillars: Christianity, the European nations, and the Graeco-Roman legacy. For the numerous posters who struggle with reading, let me make the following abundantly clear: All of what I have said so far is what Vox Day thinks. Not necessarily what I think.
Ok. I'm cool with arguing with Vox Day through you. He's still advocating South African apartheid. He literally echoes every single one of their ideas. It also hearkens back to the Jim Crow "separate but equal" bullshit. But yeah, not racist at all.
Like I have said many times before, my primary disagreement with the Alt Right lies in its preoccupation with race. And this is where I deviate from Vox Day as well. Here is what he writes in the summary section of his 16 Points: Show nested quote +TL;DR: The Alt Right is a Western ideology that believes in science, history, reality, and the right of a genetic nation to exist and govern itself in its own interests.
The patron saint of conservatives, Russell Kirk, wrote: "The great line of demarcation in modern politics, Eric Voegelin used to point out, is not a division between liberals on one side and totalitarians on the other. No, on one side of that line are all those men and women who fancy that the temporal order is the only order, and that material needs are their only needs, and that they may do as they like with the human patrimony. On the other side of that line are all those people who recognize an enduring moral order in the universe, a constant human nature, and high duties toward the order spiritual and the order temporal."
This is no longer true, assuming it ever was. The great line of demarcation in modern politics is now a division between men and women who believe that they are ultimately defined by their momentary opinions and those who believe they are ultimately defined by their genetic heritage. The Alt Right understands that the former will always lose to the latter in the end, because the former is subject to change. While I am willing to entertain the idea that there is some genetic variation between races, I do not accept the idea that this variation is significant enough to affect the ability of members of a given race to be able to embrace, or assimilate into, a certain culture, particularly if we are to assume tabula rasa immersion into that culture (ie taking a baby from one race/culture and raising it in another race/culture). Stated another way, Vox Day thinks that race and culture are largely inseparable. I don't. Now, for practical purposes, I can see why race might be a useful proxy for culture given that every culture is the product of predominantly one race, but it doesn't change the basic point that a member of any race can, in theory, adopt any culture.
I'm glad you disagree with this. I'm a bit horrified that you don't disavow it more thoroughly. If I follow your thought process to the end, it's not the "black race" you have a problem with, but the "black culture". Or, if black people could just behave a bit more like white people, all would be well with the world?
So let's turn to IgnE's post: Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 08:52 IgnE wrote:
you mentioned "pluralism" as one of the pillars of western civilization so im just hoping that one of your major disagreements with the alt right is this fixation on "homeland" and "ethnic" homogeneity. unless you meant pluralism in the strictly narrow sense of division of governmental powers.
cultural homogeneity seems more like the xdaunt brand of fascism. properly oedipal but enlightened enough to not worry about the fiction of race First, I mentioned that "political pluralism" is a pillar of western civilization, referring mostly to the idea that we value truly democratic and representative rule, as opposed to some form of autocratic or even single party rule. As for cultural pluralism, it really boils down to a matter of degree. While I reject outright multiculturalism, I do think that there is some room for variation within a culture. Or using IgnE's terminology, the xDaunt brand of fascism does require a certain level of cultural homogeneity within the nation. I'll just say right now that I don't know exactly where the line is as it pertains to the US. However, and per my previous posts addressing this matter, I do think it critical that everyone within the US, at a minimum, accept and embrace the most important traditions of Western culture: individual liberty, inalienable rights, political plurality, rationalism, and the rule of law. And I will be first to say that we have not done a good job of imprinting these values upon our own people (as is amply evidenced by some of the posters around here), thus this isn't even strictly an issue of insider vs outsider. We can see a nice little microcosm as to why cultural homogeneity matters just by looking at what has been going on over at Google. How was the internal reaction to Damore's memo any different than a cultural conflict? As with cultural conflicts between nations or peoples, conflicting values were the issue. And as we with so many cultural conflicts, one side is clearly working to eliminate the other. As Vox Day says, diversity + proximity = war.
So... you are back to "separate but equal"? Three huzzahs for Hendrik Verwoerd!
|
A lot of people are counting on special counsel Robert Mueller.
Ana Navarro, a Republican and frequent critic of Trump on cable news outlets, beseeched him on Twitter to "hurry the hell up!" and get to the bottom of any connections between the Trump campaign and Russians. The satirical website the Onion said he's gorging on chicken nuggets to "get into the mind" of President Donald Trump. And T-shirts bearing the logo "It's Mueller Time" are on sale at Amazon and Etsy.
But the online community that's fervently depending on the 73-year-old former FBI director to shake up the Trump presidency may be in for its share of disappointment.
The special counsel and his team of 16 lawyers are working under a fairly broad mandate from the Justice Department. Their task: to uncover any links and/or coordination between the Trump campaign and Russia, and to examine any other matters that may arise because of that investigation.
"Bob Mueller understands and I understand the specific scope of the investigation and so, it's not a fishing expedition," Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein told Fox News Sunday earlier this month.
Three months into the job, however, it's not clear what if anything investigators may uncover about the president, who has repeatedly denied any improper contacts with people in Russia and has called the special counsel probe "a witch hunt."
"They're investigating something that never happened," Trump told reporters last week. "There was no collusion between us and Russia. In fact, the opposite. Russia spent a lot of money on fighting me."
Moreover, even if authorities uncover damaging information about Trump or anyone else in the White House, there are serious questions about whether that material will ever be made public, short of an indictment or impeachment.
Regulations governing the special counsel say that at the conclusion of his work, he "shall provide the Attorney General with a confidential report explaining the prosecution or declination decisions." Then, it's up to the attorney general to determine whether releasing some information would be in the public interest. (Attorney General Jeff Sessions has recused himself from the Russia investigation because of his association with the Trump campaign; Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein is overseeing the investigation.)
Another complicating factor: Mueller is using grand juries in Alexandria, Va., and Washington, D.C., and grand jury information is rarely made public.
"It is going to be hard and frustrating to get this information out," said Peter Zeidenberg, a lawyer at the Arent Fox firm who worked on the special counsel team investigating the leak of a CIA operative's identity in the George W. Bush administration.
In the months ahead, Zeidenberg said, "there is going to be a lot of noise, but not much clarity as to what's going on."
In his leak investigation, a lot of information eventually became public through the prosecution of former vice presidential aide Lewis "Scooter" Libby. Absent a decision to charge someone with a crime, investigations in Congress may be the best way for people to understand what happened and why in last year's election interference.
True to form, a spokesman for special counsel Mueller declined comment for this story.
Source
|
|
|
Yeah, that will help with tax reform. People gunna be really pumped to work with him as he attacks republican senators for criticizing him.
|
On August 17 2017 19:05 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 18:16 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 18:02 Acrofales wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones. Do you have some sources or do we just have to take your word for it? It's called statistics. Even if black people are twice as likely to be criminals as white people (which they're not), demographics still make it far far far more likely that there's more white criminals on that train than black criminals. The thing I was interested in getting a source for was this: We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. Thanks for the clarification on how basic sampling works though - but to spare you the trouble in the future: I have a PhD in pharmacoepidemiology and I teach statistical methods at the university. Drug use is the most frequently sampled, but loitering, trespassing, disorderly conduct, and similar offenses show the same patterns. Show nested quote +NEWARK – Black people were 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than White people in Jersey City in 2013 for low-level offenses such as loitering, possession of small amounts of marijuana, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, according to a study (PDF) released today by the ACLU of New Jersey.
This extreme racial disparity was not unique to the state’s second largest city. Data for the most recent years available revealed disparities in low-level arrests in the three other municipalities studied – Millville, where Blacks were 6.3 times more likely to be arrested; Elizabeth, 3.4 times; and New Brunswick, 2.6 times. Disparities in the number of arrests between Hispanics/Latinos and Whites also were significant, where data were available. Not all of the departments tracked ethnicity in their arrest data. Source
This does not support your initial statement that:
We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate.
Or at least I'm missing it in the linked - could you indicate which part specifically you think supports your statement?
I'm not really sure how far into the can of worms I want to go with regards to this new claim before we have finished with the initial, but you might find this article interesting:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111266/
The problem of racial and ethnic disproportionality in imprisonment appears to be less about criminal justice practitioner racism but rather societal inequities that foster higher rates of serious, especially violent, crime among blacks and to a lesser extent, Hispanics. These inequities include racial segregation and isolation and the resulting concentration of disadvantage in black and Hispanic communities. Such structural disadvantage, in turn, has long been linked to higher rates of violent crime (Peterson and Krivo 2005). Thus, it is arguable that valuable research and policy resources would be better allocated toward addressing the complex of criminogenic social and environmental factors that push minorities toward violent or criminal conduct (see Tracy 2005). In short, the sources of black and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic disproportionality in imprisonment appear to reside mostly outside the purview of the criminal justice system, and have more to do with societal disadvantages that place minority peoples, especially African Americans, at much greater risk of being both offenders and victims of violent crime. So, while there is a need for continued concern with possible racial discrimination in justice system processing, this concern should not distract scholarly or policy attention from what arguably is the more important matter—explaining and ameliorating disproportionate minority (especially black) involvement in violent crime.
The quoted is the last paragraph of the paper - they also compare arrest rates with conviction rates in the study (arguably a proxy measure for rightful arrests, although likely a rather weak one at that).
|
That last paragraph from that cherry picked study doesn't make any sense after reading the following:
Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "War on Drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. [31][32] In 2011, 55.6% of the 1,131,210 sentenced prisoners in state prisons were being held for violent crimes (this number excludes the 200,966 prisoners being held due parole violations, of which 39.6% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent violent crime).[33] Also in 2011, 3.7% of the state prison population consisted of prisoners whose highest conviction was for drug possession (again excluding those incarcerated for parole violations of which 6.0% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent act of drug possession).[33]
Wiki
Here are some facts from Human Rights Watch that at least tacitly indict the poor reasoning displayed in that study's conclusions.
Between 1979 and 2009, the number of prisoners in state and federal facilities increased almost 430 percent;
• Since 1980,the federal prison population has grown 721 percent;
• In the last 29 years,the state prison population has grown over 240 percent;
• One of every nine people in prison—159,000 people—is serving a life sentence;
• As of 2009,some 2,500 people were serving life without parole sentences for crimes committed before age 18;
• In 2011, more than 95,000 youth under the age of 18 were held in adults prisons and jails across the United States;
• Over half (53.4 percent) of prisoners in state prisons with a sentence of a year or longer are serving time for a non-violent offense;
• For every100,000 Americans in each race or gender group,there are 478 white males, 3,023 black males, 51 white females, and 129 black females incarcerated in state or federal prison;
• Almostone-third of those serving life sentences—49,081asof2012—have been sentenced to life without the possibility of parole (LWOP);
• In 2010, 26,200 state and federal prisoners were 65 or older, up 63 percent from 16,100 in 2007;
• Today, immigration offenses account for over 40 percent of all federal criminal prosecutions and almost 30 percent of new admissions to the federal prison system.
Human Rights Watch
|
There's a reason everyone is coming out against Trump's statements. The nazis were worse than the counter protestors, and trump did not make that clear.
|
An image that appeared to capture a member of an anti-fascist group beating a U.S. police officer with a club during a “Unite the Right” rally in Charlottesville, Virginia, is fake.
The doctored photograph, the Associated Press and Snopes.com found, turned out to be a Getty Image shot in 2009 during clashes between police officers and protesters in Athens, Greece. An “Antifa,” or “antifacist,” logo was digitally superimposed onto the jacket of a protester, who is seen attacking an officer with a blunt object.
The image was widely shared shortly after Saturday’s car attack in Charlottesville, Virginia, which followed a rally organized by neo-Nazis and white nationalists to protest the relocation of a Confederate statute. Some users flagged the photo on Twitter.
The fake image circulated among social media accounts that opposed anti-fascist activists and was often used to support President Donald Trump’s statement that “both sides” were to blame for the Charlottesville violence.
Anti-fascists comprised a small portion of the counter-protesters who opposed the white nationalist rally over the weekend. NewsHour reporters in Charlottesville said they did not see a large Antifa presence in the crowd of counter-protesters, who were largely peaceful.
Charlottesville native Heather Heyer, 32, was killed in the car attack. Authorities charged suspect James Alex Fields Jr., 20, with second-degree murder in Heyer’s death.
Source
|
It is also paramount that anyone interested in understanding US crime and punishment acknowledge the fact that police departments and prosecutor's offices do not operate any mandated information sharing program (aside from court orders/DoJ investigations). This is due in large part to the fact that police unions and prosecutor's associations have fought tooth and nail against any mandated sharing of arrest rates, wrongful arrests, etc. Thus, the only data available to study comes from police departments and prosecutor's offices that voluntarily share information, creating an obvious problem of selection bias and poor sampling.
So, for someone legitimately looking, the first step is working towards mandated statistics sharing while discounting what is available given the fact that the problematic police departments and DA's offices are the least likely to volunteer data.
|
On August 17 2017 20:50 farvacola wrote:That last paragraph from your cherry picked study doesn't make any sense after reading the following: Show nested quote +Violent crime was not responsible for the quadrupling of the incarcerated population in the United States from 1980 to 2003. Violent crime rates had been relatively constant or declining over those decades. The prison population was increased primarily by public policy changes causing more prison sentences and lengthening time served, e.g. through mandatory minimum sentencing, "three strikes" laws, and reductions in the availability of parole or early release. 49 percent of sentenced state inmates were held for violent offenses. Perhaps the single greatest force behind the growth of the prison population has been the national "War on Drugs." The number of incarcerated drug offenders has increased twelvefold since 1980. In 2000, 22 percent of those in federal and state prisons were convicted on drug charges. [31][32] In 2011, 55.6% of the 1,131,210 sentenced prisoners in state prisons were being held for violent crimes (this number excludes the 200,966 prisoners being held due parole violations, of which 39.6% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent violent crime).[33] Also in 2011, 3.7% of the state prison population consisted of prisoners whose highest conviction was for drug possession (again excluding those incarcerated for parole violations of which 6.0% were re-incarcerated for a subsequent act of drug possession).[33] Wiki
Have you actually read the study? The paragraph you linked is at best tangentially related to the conclusions of the study - you've linked a wiki article stating that the imprisonment has risen over the years as a response to a study examining whether there is a disparity between black, hispanic, and white incarceration rates relative to their arrests.
EDIT: As I said in my response to GH, I would prefer to finish one topic before starting the next. We can take this discussion after. For that discussion you obviously have to account for the data available for analysis (along with a couple of other limitations).
EDIT2: You are welcome to attack the methodology of the study, but before doing so, I recommend you:
1) read it
2) read other studies of racial disproportionality
3) realize that it's conclusions aren't all that controversial within the field
EDIT3: You should know that I'm all for mandating accurate data collection. Please stop trying to imply that I'm being insincere in my interest here. GH made a claim which I found interesting and I would like a source on the claim. The very OP you yourself have written states something to the effect of "show don't tell" and here I am asking him to show his sources so we can all become a little more informed. Frankly, this thread would be a lot better off if more people adhered to the notions in the OP, so if you would please allow GH to give his sources we can all happily move on.
|
I'm all for these feuds between trump and Rs. It doesn't just offend Flake - it offends his friends in the senate too. Trump doesn't have the first clue about passing legislation. He takes them all backwards.
|
The data in the study is fine, its conclusions are the problem given the study's reliance on a very small snapshot of one state's prison numbers and the unexplained contemporaneous rise in non-violent incarceration going on throughout the country. Further, the study plays games with what counts as "serious" and couches its findings in accord with a mix of current and clearly out of date studies. No where does it discount its "looks like it can't be racism" against the utter lack of available data, differentiation across states, nor its reliance on violent index crimes in lieu of a wider snapshot of what is putting minorities in jail.
Edited out unnecessary hostility.
|
On August 17 2017 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The data in the study is fine, its conclusions are the problem given the study's reliance on a very small snapshot of one state's prison numbers and the unexplained contemporaneous rise in non-violent incarceration going on throughout the country. Further, the study plays games with what counts as "serious" and couches its findings in accord with a mix of current and clearly out of date studies. No where does it discount its "looks like it can't be racism" against the utter lack of available data, differentiation across states, nor its reliance on violent index crimes in lieu of a wider snapshot of what is putting minorities in jail.
You are welcome to do so if you actually back up your claims with some solid arguments and not just a "hurrr read this wiki which doesn't actually relate to the study at hand". This is the closest you have come so far to formulating an argument and it took you 3 posts prior to succeeding. At least here you are almost specific enough in your critique for me to actually know what your gripe with the study is and how respond to it. But as I said, I would rather we got the GH statement verified first before diving into the next discussion.
edited out unnecessary cheap shot in response to the hostility.
EDIT: I am honestly really just curious where GH got the notion that whites commit crime at a higher rate than blacks from. I would appreciate if we could start this discussion again in a better tone from both of us (and thank you for your edit - I have deleted it from the quote as you can see). I would like to be informed, but I'm not going to accept something on the premise of a random guy on the internet saying so. Give me a credible source and I'll believe more or less anything.
|
|
|
He is coming to Phoenix next week for another ego-boosting rally. Expect him to attack both Flake and McCain.
|
Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them?
On August 17 2017 21:45 On_Slaught wrote:He is coming to Phoenix next week for another ego-boosting rally. Expect him to attack both Flake and McCain.
Are these on the same page as the ones Obama did while in office? Or is this considered something entirely different? What I recall Obama mostly doing, were town hall meetings and policy tours, trying to get the people involved in the process and to understand what he was hoping would pass through congress. Am I off?
On August 17 2017 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The data in the study is fine, its conclusions are the problem given the study's reliance on a very small snapshot of one state's prison numbers and the unexplained contemporaneous rise in non-violent incarceration going on throughout the country. Further, the study plays games with what counts as "serious" and couches its findings in accord with a mix of current and clearly out of date studies. No where does it discount its "looks like it can't be racism" against the utter lack of available data, differentiation across states, nor its reliance on violent index crimes in lieu of a wider snapshot of what is putting minorities in jail.
You are welcome to do so if you actually back up your claims with some solid arguments and not just a "hurrr read this wiki which doesn't actually relate to the study at hand". This is the closest you have come so far to formulating an argument and it took you 3 posts prior to succeeding. At least here you are almost specific enough in your critique for me to actually know what your gripe with the study is and how respond to it. But as I said, I would rather we got the GH statement verified first before diving into the next discussion. edited out unnecessary cheap shot in response to the hostility. EDIT: I am honestly really just curious where GH got the notion that whites commit crime at a higher rate than blacks from. I would appreciate if we could start this discussion again in a better tone from both of us (and thank you for your edit - I have deleted it from the quote as you can see). I would like to be informed, but I'm not going to accept something on the premise of a random guy on the internet saying so. Give me a credible source and I'll believe more or less anything.
Hasn't it been determined that due to the higher percentage of the population, that blacks are seen to commit more crimes than what is factually evident? I think the argument went something like compared to blacks, white people are more likely to commit crimes, whereas blacks are more likely to be convicted of a crime. If we take into account non-violent and violent crimes in cities smaller than 100k, white people would be the overwhelming culprit, as black people, to my knowledge, are mostly in larger metropolitan areas (NYC, Miami, Chicago, STL, etc), whereas the rural areas (less than 100k) have a larger number of white people. If the study only takes statistical data from large city populations where the concentration of blacks are, then the studies would be skewed not in their favor.
Again, this is going from memory, so I could be off.
|
On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them?
I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America.
|
On August 17 2017 21:33 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:24 farvacola wrote:
The data in the study is fine, its conclusions are the problem given the study's reliance on a very small snapshot of one state's prison numbers and the unexplained contemporaneous rise in non-violent incarceration going on throughout the country. Further, the study plays games with what counts as "serious" and couches its findings in accord with a mix of current and clearly out of date studies. No where does it discount its "looks like it can't be racism" against the utter lack of available data, differentiation across states, nor its reliance on violent index crimes in lieu of a wider snapshot of what is putting minorities in jail.
You are welcome to do so if you actually back up your claims with some solid arguments and not just a "hurrr read this wiki which doesn't actually relate to the study at hand". This is the closest you have come so far to formulating an argument and it took you 3 posts prior to succeeding. At least here you are almost specific enough in your critique for me to actually know what your gripe with the study is and how respond to it. But as I said, I would rather we got the GH statement verified first before diving into the next discussion. edited out unnecessary cheap shot in response to the hostility. EDIT: I am honestly really just curious where GH got the notion that whites commit crime at a higher rate than blacks from. I would appreciate if we could start this discussion again in a better tone from both of us (and thank you for your edit - I have deleted it from the quote as you can see). I would like to be informed, but I'm not going to accept something on the premise of a random guy on the internet saying so. Give me a credible source and I'll believe more or less anything.
My hostility came from knowing that police unions and DAs still fight tooth and nail against the release of arrest/charging data that we desperately need in order to show people what's going on. So while I appreciate your pull towards sound proof of claims, there's a lot of extra baggage here and folks likely culpable in all this are still getting in the way.
|
On August 17 2017 21:51 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 21:46 ZerOCoolSC2 wrote:Huh. So is there going to be some massive confederate states of america museum built for all of these statues at some point? Or are they planning to mothball all of them? I would like them to put the statues someplace else and provide context for the history of the statue and why it was removed. I would rather have an honest discussion about the reconstruction and Jim Crow era than simply moth balling it. For all the talk about heritage, we should put our full history on display and explain why people built statues of Americans who fought against America.
So a massive confederate museum. Cool. I hope they build it right next to the newly opened black american museum. Can't get any more contextual than that.
|
On August 17 2017 20:38 Ghostcom wrote:Show nested quote +On August 17 2017 19:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 18:16 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 18:02 Acrofales wrote:On August 17 2017 07:31 Ghostcom wrote:On August 17 2017 07:04 GreenHorizons wrote:On August 17 2017 06:59 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:38 KwarK wrote:On August 17 2017 06:33 mozoku wrote:On August 17 2017 06:20 Plansix wrote:
mozoku: You might want to consider the idea that sexism and racism are ever present in our lives and combating them requires talking about them. Even progressives to racist things. The difference is that when we are called out on them, I don't see it as someone calling me a racists. Just that I did something that was racist, likely without meaning to. I think it's more a fundamental difference of how socially progressive 'conservatives' and socially progressive progressives see the world. I asked this question earlier: Is it racist to see a random Chinese person and a random white person and speculate that the Chinese person is probably better at Mahjong? Statistically, it's effectively demonstrable that the Chinese person is likely to be better at Mahjong. This creates a "stereotype" or a "prejudice" and would be considered racist by a lot of progressives I think. I don't see that as racist though. How society handles this a tradeoff: stereotypes are efficient/provide utility in a lot of ways (i.e. if you're making a bet), but they're also "unfair" in the sense that a white person has to provide extra evidence to prove he might be better at Mahjong that his Chinese opponent. Efficiency vs fairness is a value proposition that depends on individual judgment, or the collective judgment of many individuals when it comes to governance. It isn't as simple as "stereotypes" = immoral and bad. This doesn't at all excuse actual racists, and I denounce them whenever I'm confident I've found one. But when the Left starts calling everyone who has stereotypes as "racist" it dilutes the term because of what I said above. You're conflating a culturally specific skillset with character. I don't think it's racist to think that an Asian person is more likely to be familiar with a game that is historically Asian. I don't know anyone that would think that. But the concept of statistical populations and the differences between them aren't at all limited to Mahjong and cultural skillsets. For reasons that are likely at least partially due to historical injustices, crime rates among African Americans from the South Side of Chicago are x times higher than they are among the general US population. If I'm sitting on a train car with 5 African Americans from the South Side of Chicago, I can observe that I'm x times more likely to be the victim of a crime than if I were sitting among five random members of the general US population. Therefore, I feel more threatened on this train car. It's literally the same example as Mahjong, but now it's politically sensitive. No, it's not fair to the African Americans on the train. And I would be irrational to assume I'll likely be the victim of a crime on that train, since base crime rates are very low. But I'm still logically and mathematically justified in feeling more threatened on that train car than I would with 5 other random US citizens. Now does that mean we should treat African Americans differently? Again, that's a judgment between utility and fairness. Mathematically, I would be maximizing utility for myself in terms of safety by choosing the random train car passengers. It's irrational in terms of utility to choose the African American train car. On the other hand, I'm aware that the base probability of being a victim of a crime is still low, even on that train car, so I as a human being I don't mind being on the train car because I'm willing to sacrifice infinitesimal utility in the interest of avoiding a lot of unfairness. Where people fall on the scale of utility vs fairness is an individual issue that doesn't really jive with black and white morality. ----------- I'd like to highlight that I'm making a very technical argument out here. A lot of people who are accused of racism are just racists and are "deplorable." I don't think this argument applies to a lot of people that are accused of being racists. But, when you call someone racist for e.g. making the analysis that I just did, you begin to dilute the term racist imo. The analysis is racist though. It completely neglects that arrest and conviction rates are NOT crime commission rates. We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. If you're on a train with 100 random Americans, there will be more white criminals on the train than black ones. Do you have some sources or do we just have to take your word for it? It's called statistics. Even if black people are twice as likely to be criminals as white people (which they're not), demographics still make it far far far more likely that there's more white criminals on that train than black criminals. The thing I was interested in getting a source for was this: We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. Thanks for the clarification on how basic sampling works though - but to spare you the trouble in the future: I have a PhD in pharmacoepidemiology and I teach statistical methods at the university. Drug use is the most frequently sampled, but loitering, trespassing, disorderly conduct, and similar offenses show the same patterns. NEWARK – Black people were 9.6 times more likely to be arrested than White people in Jersey City in 2013 for low-level offenses such as loitering, possession of small amounts of marijuana, trespassing, and disorderly conduct, according to a study (PDF) released today by the ACLU of New Jersey.
This extreme racial disparity was not unique to the state’s second largest city. Data for the most recent years available revealed disparities in low-level arrests in the three other municipalities studied – Millville, where Blacks were 6.3 times more likely to be arrested; Elizabeth, 3.4 times; and New Brunswick, 2.6 times. Disparities in the number of arrests between Hispanics/Latinos and Whites also were significant, where data were available. Not all of the departments tracked ethnicity in their arrest data. Source This does not support your initial statement that: Show nested quote +We know for any crime people admit to that white people commit it at the same or higher rates than black people and yet are arrested and convicted at a far lower rate. Or at least I'm missing it in the linked - could you indicate which part specifically you think supports your statement? I'm not really sure how far into the can of worms I want to go with regards to this new claim before we have finished with the initial, but you might find this article interesting: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4111266/Show nested quote +The problem of racial and ethnic disproportionality in imprisonment appears to be less about criminal justice practitioner racism but rather societal inequities that foster higher rates of serious, especially violent, crime among blacks and to a lesser extent, Hispanics. These inequities include racial segregation and isolation and the resulting concentration of disadvantage in black and Hispanic communities. Such structural disadvantage, in turn, has long been linked to higher rates of violent crime (Peterson and Krivo 2005). Thus, it is arguable that valuable research and policy resources would be better allocated toward addressing the complex of criminogenic social and environmental factors that push minorities toward violent or criminal conduct (see Tracy 2005). In short, the sources of black and (to a lesser extent) Hispanic disproportionality in imprisonment appear to reside mostly outside the purview of the criminal justice system, and have more to do with societal disadvantages that place minority peoples, especially African Americans, at much greater risk of being both offenders and victims of violent crime. So, while there is a need for continued concern with possible racial discrimination in justice system processing, this concern should not distract scholarly or policy attention from what arguably is the more important matter—explaining and ameliorating disproportionate minority (especially black) involvement in violent crime. The quoted is the last paragraph of the paper - they also compare arrest rates with conviction rates in the study (arguably a proxy measure for rightful arrests, although likely a rather weak one at that).
I'm not sure what you're not familiar with/expecting to see?
The report also finds that, on average, a Black person is 3.73 times more likely to be
arrested for marijuana possession than a white person, even though Blacks and whites
use marijuana at similar rates. Such racial disparities in marijuana possession arrests
exist in all regions of the country, in counties large and small, urban and rural, wealthy
and poor, and with large and small Black populations. Indeed, in over 96% of counties
with more than 30,000 people in which at least 2% of the residents are Black, Blacks are
arrested at higher rates than whites for marijuana possession.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
