Jump to content

Black Lives Matter


Recommended Posts

 

11 hours ago, Saorsa said:

Nope, systems are documented and have a function that exercises control.

Custom and tradition are historical artifacts remaining in a culture.  To change a culture you must change the individuals.

OBTW, you do realize that countries are political and economic divisions and that cultures can exist in more than one country and that countries can contain more than one culture.

There is a whole cross border culture in the south, The north seem more focused on national borders.

Oh, good grief.  Is THAT why we're talking past one another? 

"Systemic"  -  look it up in a dictionary  -  just means that it's a quality of a system, as opposed an individual component of the system.  It has nothing to do with whether it's documented or explicit.  

 

Let me guess: you studied engineering?  Management? 

Me, I studied social psychology and sociology.  25 years ago, but... I'll try to dredge up some bits & pieces to explain what I think we're running into.

 

A culture  -  whether in the sense of "american culture", or in the sense of the work culture in a particular organization  -  is a social system. 

From one perspective, a social system is made up of the people in it; or rather, the relationships between them.  

From another perspective, it's made up of norms, mores, traditions, "how we've always done things"... and those are mostly unstated and undocumented.  A lot of the times the people living by them aren't even aware of them: they're implicit norms.  They're often in complete contradiction to the group's explicit, "documented", norms or regulations.

 

So  -  to clarify: when people say "systemic racism"  -  they're talking about these implicit, unspoken rules that (even if/when they're individually harmless) together, create a social system that's racially biased.

What you're talking about  -  documented parts of the explicit system (like redlining, or segregation laws, or Jim Crow) that's designed to create or uphold racial bias: that's called institutional racism.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 3.8k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

According to the police report the statue slipped and fell into the river.

LOL...really...LOL...one of the lefts favorite rants is against privatized prisons...

Posted Images

3 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Fuck, that was weird. 

I feel all... Wolfsey-like... 

Mate that is only Phase I Wolfsey.

That feeling will get worse when Sorarse replies...a full Wolfsey wave will wash over you. This is where you can inadvertently enter Wolfsey Phase II.

Walk away.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, frenchie said:

 

Oh, good grief.  Is THAT why we're talking past one another? 

"Systemic"  -  look it up in a dictionary  -  just means that it's a quality of a system, as opposed an individual component of the system.  It has nothing to do with whether it's documented or explicit.  

 

Let me guess: you studied engineering?  Management? 

Me, I studied social psychology and sociology.  25 years ago, but... I'll try to dredge up some bits & pieces to explain what I think we're running into.

 

A culture  -  whether in the sense of "american culture", or in the sense of the work culture in a particular organization  -  is a social system. 

From one perspective, a social system is made up of the people in it; or rather, the relationships between them.  

From another perspective, it's made up of norms, mores, traditions, "how we've always done things"... and those are mostly unstated and undocumented.  A lot of the times the people living by them aren't even aware of them: they're implicit norms.  They're often in complete contradiction to the group's explicit, "documented", norms or regulations.

 

So  -  to clarify: when people say "systemic racism"  -  they're talking about these implicit, unspoken rules that (even if/when they're individually harmless) together, create a social system that's racially biased.

What you're talking about  -  documented parts of the explicit system (like redlining, or segregation laws, or Jim Crow) that's designed to create or uphold racial bias: that's called institutional racism.

Frenchie - that was actually helpful, and points out that there's not as much a difference of opinion as there is a difference of understanding in a definition.   I too was considering "systemic" to mean "articulated explicitly within the system", in contradiction to individually expressed behaviors and attitudes. 

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Stewart does an excellent job of explaining the impact of selective rights - While black people were fighting for equality, white people were fighting for equity.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, frenchie said:

 

Oh, good grief.  Is THAT why we're talking past one another? 

"Systemic"  -  look it up in a dictionary  -  just means that it's a quality of a system, as opposed an individual component of the system.  It has nothing to do with whether it's documented or explicit.  

 

Let me guess: you studied engineering?  Management? 

Me, I studied social psychology and sociology.  25 years ago, but... I'll try to dredge up some bits & pieces to explain what I think we're running into.

 

A culture  -  whether in the sense of "american culture", or in the sense of the work culture in a particular organization  -  is a social system. 

From one perspective, a social system is made up of the people in it; or rather, the relationships between them.  

From another perspective, it's made up of norms, mores, traditions, "how we've always done things"... and those are mostly unstated and undocumented.  A lot of the times the people living by them aren't even aware of them: they're implicit norms.  They're often in complete contradiction to the group's explicit, "documented", norms or regulations.

 

So  -  to clarify: when people say "systemic racism"  -  they're talking about these implicit, unspoken rules that (even if/when they're individually harmless) together, create a social system that's racially biased.

What you're talking about  -  documented parts of the explicit system (like redlining, or segregation laws, or Jim Crow) that's designed to create or uphold racial bias: that's called institutional racism.

It's good to have lots of labels.

As I said with racism and COVID, it's a matter of individual action.  In fact, systemized racism could be called "Affirmative Action" and for everyone who says you're not <insert topic of choice, race, sex, gender identity> so you can't understand they will be sure to find a way to subjugate others without basis.

There is NO discrete American culture.  Whatever that is called is an amalgam of hundreds of identifiable cultures.  There is an Amish culture, a biker culture, hundreds of 'cultures' which meet your criteria.  They are not unified and probably never will be.   Immigrants, legal or otherwise, have their own cultures.  Every one of those cultures recognizes differences between themselves and others.  But, that is not racism, it's the actual diversity everybody says they want but redefine to their own self image.  The differences aren't ranked, they are simply different and tolerance of difference is what is needed.

Without tolerance you are left with hate and fear.  Those are as normal as a virus mutation.  It's the actions taken on the basis of that hate and fear that you can legislate, control and punish.

When a wrong is done it should be corrected so that it never happens again.  (Ever heard about TQM?)  It's not resolved by reparations, reimbursement or destroying every vestige of history.  That's a Taliban thing.

Frankly, I see most of the Social 'sciences" as a statistical arm of Social Darwinism and I've made my views on that known often enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

So you believe the WPD is not rascist sitting in the American minority too. 

English please.  WTF does that even mean?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

It’s almost like you change your bullshit every day.

I mean, the dumbfucks like @A guy in the Chesapeake will give you a pass, but the contradiction should be apparent, but probably never will be, because you need your myth.

Apparently you are too stupid to tell the difference between culture and politics.

Cultures define themselves, anyone who says "That's not who we are" is not talking about culture no matter what they claim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Frenchie - that was actually helpful, and points out that there's not as much a difference of opinion as there is a difference of understanding in a definition.   I too was considering "systemic" to mean "articulated explicitly within the system", in contradiction to individually expressed behaviors and attitudes. 

When I'm talking about Systemic racism, I'm actually referring to BOTH implicit and explicit biases.  It was has to be "system wide" for it to be considered systemic.  For instance, if a member or a few members of the Milwaukee PD or the Wilmington PD does something racist - does that make the whole PD racist?  It would have to be a lot more that just the few members doing bad shit to be able to label something as systemic.  That is why I counter that "systemic" racism mostly doesn't exist anymore.  I think we've not only codified laws to make it stop, but we've inculcated that within our culture enough to the point where that behavior is no longer the norm, despite a few who continue to commit bad things.  

The issue is that "systemic racism" must continue to be used by the SJWs and the victim merchants, otherwise the ability to rail against individual racism will be more difficult to get traction.  Yes, we have individual racists throughout 'Murica, unfortunately.  But I think "systemic racism" is mostly gone.  Are there a few examples still, I'm sure there are.  But I don't buy that the structure of the US is still designed to hold the black man down.  Find a better card to play.....

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Sounds like a couple of racist individuals who should not be cops anymore.  Does that make the whole department systemically racist?  Especially since the Dept voluntarily released the tapes themselves?

Perhaps Karen Man could make an effort to understand systemic racism as defined by the majority of thinking peoples?  Google can help you with that

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Burning Man said:

Sounds like a couple of racist individuals who should not be cops anymore.  Does that make the whole department systemically racist?  Especially since the Dept voluntarily released the tapes themselves?

Not systemically racist. Institutionally racist.

And a few overt racists doesn't make the department institutionally racist, it just means that there are a few overt racists in a police department that is apparently filled with people who want to do the right thing and improve. 

 

The police departments are institutionally racist because of the way that Americans like you and I hire and pay the police. You and I pay the police with our property taxes (and some other taxes) to protect our lives, the lives of our families, and our property.

In doing so, we then task the police with a somewhat antiquated notion of good versus evil, where their employers (you and I and every other schmuck who pays their salaries) are "good" and every potential threat to their employers are "evil."

So who is "evil"?

By extension, the evil are the ones who don't pay their salaries. The ones who live in poverty, the ones who live in the streets, the ones whom the police are not tasked to explicitly protect.

The structure of policing itself becomes institutionally racist not because of the police, but because of you and I and our desires to protect our lives and property within the framework of "good versus evil." People in poverty become evil because they are the diametric to our wealth. 

If we want to move past institutional racism, we will need to replace "good versus evil" with a more realistic paradigm. But that's going to hit our wealth and voters are going to hate the idea of catching a burglar and sending him to trade school rather than prison ... us wealthy folks love to think of ourselves as perfectly moral, and the way we reinforce our morality is by punishing those whom we deem less moral than ourselves.

 

If you want to get onboard here, ignore the cries of "systemic racism" because there is no way to overhaul "systems." But we can overhaul the institutions that are built with institutional racism ... the police departments, the schools, the tax assessors, the public works, etc. Institutional racism can be fixed one institution at a time. "Systemic" racism is basically an excuse for abject inaction.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Not systemically racist. Institutionally racist.

And a few overt racists doesn't make the department institutionally racist, it just means that there are a few overt racists in a police department that is apparently filled with people who want to do the right thing and improve. 

 

The police departments are institutionally racist because of the way that Americans like you and I hire and pay the police. You and I pay the police with our property taxes (and some other taxes) to protect our lives, the lives of our families, and our property.

In doing so, we then task the police with a somewhat antiquated notion of good versus evil, where their employers (you and I and every other schmuck who pays their salaries) are "good" and every potential threat to their employers are "evil."

So who is "evil"?

By extension, the evil are the ones who don't pay their salaries. The ones who live in poverty, the ones who live in the streets, the ones whom the police are not tasked to explicitly protect.

The structure of policing itself becomes institutionally racist not because of the police, but because of you and I and our desires to protect our lives and property within the framework of "good versus evil." People in poverty become evil because they are the diametric to our wealth. 

If we want to move past institutional racism, we will need to replace "good versus evil" with a more realistic paradigm.

Sorry Mike - ya went off the rails at that assumption.  Lemme help - the Evil are the ones intentionally engaging in activities that are prohibited by law.  Their status as taxpayers is unknown to enforcement authorities when an interaction occurs. 

There's nothing evil in wanting to prevent someone else from causing you physical harm or loss, and instituting societal expectations that respect personal security for everyone. 

 What "more realistic paradigm" would you suggest?   

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Sorry Mike - ya went off the rails at that assumption.  Lemme help - the Evil are the ones intentionally engaging in activities that are prohibited by law.  Their status as taxpayers is unknown to enforcement authorities when an interaction occurs. 

There's nothing evil in wanting to prevent someone else from causing you physical harm or loss, and instituting societal expectations that respect personal security for everyone. 

 What "more realistic paradigm" would you suggest?   

Okay, so you claim that the "evil" ones are the ones who break the laws, right?

Clearly, we agree that a rapist or a murderer is evil. But what about a drug dealer who broke the law, evil? What about someone who stole a car because they were addicted to heroin and needed a fix, evil? Someone who used a bolt cutter to steal my new bicycle, evil? A politician who broke anti-corruption laws, evil?

If poverty, addiction, or illness cause someone to commit a crime, then the paradigm of "good versus evil" will continue to offer us new "evil." Because you and I will always have a new blue bicycle that someone else wants. And no, they can't legally have my new bicycle, but a healthy person doesn't steal bicycles or hedge funds.

So we restructure good versus evil to something that allows us to react to poverty in a way that doesn't simply reinforce it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Okay, so you claim that the "evil" ones are the ones who break the laws, right?

Clearly, we agree that a rapist or a murderer is evil. But what about a drug dealer who broke the law, evil? What about someone who stole a car because they were addicted to heroin and needed a fix, evil? Someone who used a bolt cutter to steal my new bicycle, evil? A politician who broke anti-corruption laws, evil?

If poverty, addiction, or illness cause someone to commit a crime, then the paradigm of "good versus evil" will continue to offer us new "evil." Because you and I will always have a new blue bicycle that someone else wants. And no, they can't legally have my new bicycle, but a healthy person doesn't steal bicycles or hedge funds.

So we restructure good versus evil to something that allows us to react to poverty in a way that doesn't simply reinforce it.

Yup - the guys who's car got stolen now can't get to work for a month while the insurance claim ( assuming he HAD insurance ) is processed, and is out the $$ to replace that car, denying their family what those $$ would have otherwise provided.  The pol?  Yup.   There are MANY ways to react to poverty - and someone who chooses the wrong way does so with the full awareness of how that decision will be interpreted by society. The drug dealer?   Taken in isolation, perhaps that could be excused, but in reality, a dealer usually commits several other crimes that are directly harmful - theft, violence, extortion, and the situation must be considered in accordance to that context. 

 

Edited to add:  I think we're in agreement w/r/t being able to address poverty in a way that doesn't perpetuate it.  Excess fines, incarceration for minimal non-violent offenses, but, that's not the point in your good /vs/ evil comparison.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Yup - the guys who's car got stolen now can't get to work for a month while the insurance claim ( assuming he HAD insurance ) is processed, and is out the $$ to replace that car, denying their family what those $$ would have otherwise provided.  The pol?  Yup.   There are MANY ways to react to poverty - and someone who chooses the wrong way does so with the full awareness of how that decision will be interpreted by society. The drug dealer?   Taken in isolation, perhaps that could be excused, but in reality, a dealer usually commits several other crimes that are directly harmful - theft, violence, extortion, and the situation must be considered in accordance to that context. 

 

Edited to add:  I think we're in agreement w/r/t being able to address poverty in a way that doesn't perpetuate it.  Excess fines, incarceration for minimal non-violent offenses, but, that's not the point in your good /vs/ evil comparison.  

The worker's car is stolen, he can't go to work. So if we catch the thief, we extract our pound of flesh, our eye for an eye, and then we feel better.

Yet, when a tree limb falls on that worker's car, do we extract our revenge on the tree by chopping the whole thing down? What do we do when the car is totally destroyed after being in a flood, or sliding on black ice?

But we imprison the thief, the cycle continues. More poverty, more ghettos, the insurance companies, and the car industry eventually profit from the crime, and a new generation of thieves are hatched.

Obviously, bad people need prison to keep them away from potential victims until they can stop being violent.

But institutional racism doesn't have a prayer of being solved as long as wealthy people like you, me and JBSF refuse to accept that we are the fountainhead of this racism. As long as property-owners like us employ the police, we have little chance to address the core poison in the relationship. We want our stuff and our lives to be protected from "bad guys" and we pay several thousands of dollars per year in property tax for that.

This was my complaint in the Confederate flag thread ... we find an easy scapegoat so that we don't have to accept our own contribution to this mess. 

And there is a left-right bias here. The righties at least accept that they want what they want and they pay for the right to get it. But us lefties ... cripes what a deluded bunch we are, we convince ourselves that the righties are the problem and then we wash our hands of it while accepting the same benefits of wealth as the righties.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, mikewof said:

The worker's car is stolen, he can't go to work. So if we catch the thief, we extract our pound of flesh, our eye for an eye, and then we feel better.

Yet, when a tree limb falls on that worker's car, do we extract our revenge on the tree by chopping the whole thing down? What do we do when the car is totally destroyed after being in a flood, or sliding on black ice?

But we imprison the thief, the cycle continues. More poverty, more ghettos, the insurance companies, and the car industry eventually profit from the crime, and a new generation of thieves are hatched.

Obviously, bad people need prison to keep them away from potential victims until they can stop being violent.

But institutional racism doesn't have a prayer of being solved as long as wealthy people like you, me and JBSF refuse to accept that we are the fountainhead of this racism.

Dude - you're way out there with these comparisons.  The real impact of what you suggest, decriminalizing behavior if it's "initiated by poverty" doesn't solve anything.   Isn't it racist to suggest that because someone's not white, that they are somehow unable to avoid poverty by virtue of their own efforts and decisions?  That the only response to poverty available to them is crime? 

I think you've got the right idea - that fixing poverty will be the biggest positive impact, but, I don't see how eliminating the deterrent for criminal behavior get us there. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Burning Man said:

For instance, if a member or a few members of the Milwaukee PD or the Wilmington PD does something racist - does that make the whole PD racist?  

So you belong to the crowd; “If you hate cops, the next time you get in trouble call a crackhead.” 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mikewof said:

But institutional racism doesn't have a prayer of being solved as long as wealthy people like you, me and JBSF refuse to accept that we are the fountainhead of this racism.

If we go back to the Homestead Act, African Americans didn't get their 40 acres of land.  They were denied that because of their skin color.  And thus denied the opportunity to build equity.

In the New Deal, the Federal Housing Authority denied black people low cost loans.  Even the GI bill explicitly denied blacks the opportunity to get ahead given to whites.  Once again, blacks denied the opportunity to build equity.

Equality can only come if African Americans are allowed to regain some of the equity that has been denied them and to end the mindset that continues to do so. 

But we first have to reign in the greed at the top.  It's like a disease and instead of Americans telling the rich "enough is enough", we put them on a pedestal.  We protect them.  We elect them to lead us.  We make them our royalty.  This is pretty fucked up.

We have to stop seeing massive wealth hoarding as something positive.  And if the uber-wealthy cannot control their greed, we have to do it with taxes, just like the old days, when the middle class owned 50% of American's wealth.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, jack_sparrow said:

So you belong to the crowd; “If you hate cops, the next time you get in trouble call a crackhead.” 

You're still not speaking the Queen's Engrish.  Try again please.

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

You're still not speaking the Queen's Engrish.  Try again please.

That was perfectly understandable, Vichy.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Average Net Worth per capita  in the US is ~$75k, Median is $11k (OK, that's quite a spread)

For $1T, you can grant each black person ~$25k

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Average Net Worth per capita  in the US is ~$75k, Median is $11k (OK, that's quite a spread)

For $1T, you can grant each black person ~$25k

And then instead of Americans in poverty getting murdered in the streets, it will be Americans who have $25k murdered in the streets.

You can't solve this problem by throwing money at it. And you can't solve this problem by scapegoating a segment of the country. This poverty is a result of racism built into society itself. And you and I may mean well but we ARE the problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

If we go back to the Homestead Act, African Americans didn't get their 40 acres of land.  They were denied that because of their skin color.  And thus denied the opportunity to build equity.

In the New Deal, the Federal Housing Authority denied black people low cost loans.  Even the GI bill explicitly denied blacks the opportunity to get ahead given to whites.  Once again, blacks denied the opportunity to build equity.

Equality can only come if African Americans are allowed to regain some of the equity that has been denied them and to end the mindset that continues to do so. 

But we first have to reign in the greed at the top.  It's like a disease and instead of Americans telling the rich "enough is enough", we put them on a pedestal.  We protect them.  We elect them to lead us.  We make them our royalty.  This is pretty fucked up.

We have to stop seeing massive wealth hoarding as something positive.  And if the uber-wealthy cannot control their greed, we have to do it with taxes, just like the old days, when the middle class owned 50% of American's wealth.

Your idea is solid, tax the elites.

But how do we actually accomplish that, when the elites control the political system?

I think we need to accept that the nature of all systems, from money to pole vaulting to playing chess, is going to be polarized, with a lot of people being shitty at pole vaulting, chess and accumulating wealth, while a handful of people are wealthy, can beat Grand Masters and can pole vault 13 feet.

If good people like you and I and the rest wait around for wealth equalization to solve racism, we'll never properly attack racism. We have some very powerful tools at our disposal right now to work to solve this problem. We need to do it with what we have and not rely on politics to save us.

Politicians are the weakest tool compared to our other tools.

You're exactly right that poverty drives this problem. So is the elite won't release their hold on power, why not go around them? You andI pay a sufficiently large tax that we can bring about a shocking amount of change if we change the institutions one at a time.

The police seem as good of a place to start as any. Police deserve to do their jobs in an environment that isn't built on the foundations of racism.

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Raz'r said:
43 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

You're still not speaking the Queen's Engrish.  Try again please.

That was perfectly understandable, Vichy.

Maybe vaguely understandable on it's own.  But it had zero relation to my quote he replied to.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Average Net Worth per capita  in the US is ~$75k, Median is $11k (OK, that's quite a spread)

For $1T, you can grant each black person ~$25k

 

I'm OK with that as long as after they get their $25K - any and all problems they have in their community such as poverty, poor education, addiction, housing, crime, etc. becomes their own responsibility to accept and that they get no more special treatment or status or labels due to skin color.  

Where do I send the check?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

If we go back to the Homestead Act, African Americans didn't get their 40 acres of land.  They were denied that because of their skin color.  And thus denied the opportunity to build equity.

In the New Deal, the Federal Housing Authority denied black people low cost loans.  Even the GI bill explicitly denied blacks the opportunity to get ahead given to whites.  Once again, blacks denied the opportunity to build equity.

Equality can only come if African Americans are allowed to regain some of the equity that has been denied them and to end the mindset that continues to do so. 

But we first have to reign in the greed at the top.  It's like a disease and instead of Americans telling the rich "enough is enough", we put them on a pedestal.  We protect them.  We elect them to lead us.  We make them our royalty.  This is pretty fucked up.

We have to stop seeing massive wealth hoarding as something positive.  And if the uber-wealthy cannot control their greed, we have to do it with taxes, just like the old days, when the middle class owned 50% of American's wealth.

I don't buy into reparations for something I had nothing to do with. It solves nothing in the immediate and fosters resentment in the long run. But the top 1% having more wealth than the entire middle class is a bigger problem black or white. Good luck reeling it in when those richest 1% are running your country (R & D) none of them have any interest in giving it back... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I'm OK with that as long as after they get their $25K - any and all problems they have in their community such as poverty, poor education, addiction, housing, crime, etc. becomes their own responsibility to accept and that they get no more special treatment or status or labels due to skin color.  

Where do I send the check?

Sorry homeboy, think of the cash as a downpayment.

lots more to do

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

Average Net Worth per capita  in the US is ~$75k, Median is $11k (OK, that's quite a spread)

For $1T, you can grant each black person ~$25k

 

And that would accomplish what? 

Who should pay? 

Certainly not recent immigrants, they had nothing to do with black injustice. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

And that would accomplish what? 

Who should pay? 

Certainly not recent immigrants, they had nothing to do with black injustice. 

Who should pay? Getting on the Fiscal Responsibility Express already? Trump, George and Ronnie all proved that Deficits Dont Matter. Remember?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Raz'r said:

Who should pay? Getting on the Fiscal Responsibility Express already? Trump, George and Ronnie all proved that Deficits Dont Matter. Remember?

Nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, where did that come from? 

If you're family tree in the US dates back to slavery, Jim Crow and the institutional racism that existed at that time you should pay. I had nothing to do with it. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Frenchie - that was actually helpful, and points out that there's not as much a difference of opinion as there is a difference of understanding in a definition.   I too was considering "systemic" to mean "articulated explicitly within the system", in contradiction to individually expressed behaviors and attitudes. 

Okay, good, then.  Just seemed I was being awful long-winded...

5 hours ago, Burning Man said:

When I'm talking about Systemic racism, I'm actually referring to BOTH implicit and explicit biases.  It was has to be "system wide" for it to be considered systemic.  For instance, if a member or a few members of the Milwaukee PD or the Wilmington PD does something racist - does that make the whole PD racist?  It would have to be a lot more that just the few members doing bad shit to be able to label something as systemic.  That is why I counter that "systemic" racism mostly doesn't exist anymore.  I think we've not only codified laws to make it stop, but we've inculcated that within our culture enough to the point where that behavior is no longer the norm, despite a few who continue to commit bad things.  

The issue is that "systemic racism" must continue to be used by the SJWs and the victim merchants, otherwise the ability to rail against individual racism will be more difficult to get traction.  Yes, we have individual racists throughout 'Murica, unfortunately.  But I think "systemic racism" is mostly gone.  Are there a few examples still, I'm sure there are.  But I don't buy that the structure of the US is still designed to hold the black man down.  Find a better card to play.....

Maybe an example would help. 

Look at NYC's stop & frisk program.  Blacks & Latinos were WAY more likely to be stopped & frisked, and WAY more likely to have the stop escalate into "use of force".  But the "hit rate", for finding weapons or contraband during a search, was much higher for whites.

The same sort of disparity shows up, in other jurisdictions, when you look at traffic stops, how likely they are to escalate into a search of the vehicle, and how often contraband's actually found.

That's not the result of any explicit, written policy that says "target black & brown people".  So it's not "intitutional". 

At the same time, you can't explain it as "a few racist cops": it's too widespread.  So, by definition, it IS systemic.

 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/stop-and-frisks-plummeted-under-new-york-mayor-bill-de

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/inside-100-million-police-traffic-stops-new-evidence-racial-bias-n980556

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Saorsa said:

It's good to have lots of labels.

As I said with racism and COVID, it's a matter of individual action.  In fact, systemized racism could be called "Affirmative Action" and for everyone who says you're not <insert topic of choice, race, sex, gender identity> so you can't understand they will be sure to find a way to subjugate others without basis.

There is NO discrete American culture.  Whatever that is called is an amalgam of hundreds of identifiable cultures.  There is an Amish culture, a biker culture, hundreds of 'cultures' which meet your criteria.  They are not unified and probably never will be.   Immigrants, legal or otherwise, have their own cultures.  Every one of those cultures recognizes differences between themselves and others.  But, that is not racism, it's the actual diversity everybody says they want but redefine to their own self image.  The differences aren't ranked, they are simply different and tolerance of difference is what is needed.

Without tolerance you are left with hate and fear.  Those are as normal as a virus mutation.  It's the actions taken on the basis of that hate and fear that you can legislate, control and punish.

When a wrong is done it should be corrected so that it never happens again.  (Ever heard about TQM?)  It's not resolved by reparations, reimbursement or destroying every vestige of history.  That's a Taliban thing.

Frankly, I see most of the Social 'sciences" as a statistical arm of Social Darwinism and I've made my views on that known often enough.

...talk about side-stepping an entire post? 

It's like various words triggered you, but... man.  Dude. 

I am completely failing to understand most of this, or how any of it relates to anything I said.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

And that would accomplish what? 

Who should pay? 

Certainly not recent immigrants, they had nothing to do with black injustice. 

I think only those born before 1865 need to pay reparations.  Or maybe only those with verifiable ancestors that owned slaves in America.  Lots of poor white folk in the south in 1860 didn't own slaves and had no relationship to the slave trade, so why should they pay?

Or maybe we could narrow it down to only those who were born before and were adults when the 1965 Civil Rights act was enacted into law.  

  

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, A guy in the Chesapeake said:

Dude - you're way out there with these comparisons.  The real impact of what you suggest, decriminalizing behavior if it's "initiated by poverty" doesn't solve anything.   Isn't it racist to suggest that because someone's not white, that they are somehow unable to avoid poverty by virtue of their own efforts and decisions?  That the only response to poverty available to them is crime?[/v 

I think you've got the right idea - that fixing poverty will be the biggest positive impact, but, I don't see how eliminating the deterrent for criminal behavior get us there. 

 

But I didn't claim that. Most people in poverty are just as law-abiding as anyone else. 

But you put your finger on the problem! Why are prisons so full of people from poverty? 

Racism? 

I don't think so. 

Institutional racism? 

Maybe, let's look at that ... when you or I hadl need medication, we get the legal stuff at the pharmacy, or we have a really well-made gin & tonic in the comfort of our home. Someone in poverty needs medication? The dealer on the corner will sell some fake fentanyl for $5, that's less than the copay. Can't drink a 40-dog in the apartment, there are people living there, I'll get more privacy on the stoop. Whoops, I just got picked up by the cops for buying an illegal drug, or I just got a desk appearance ticket for drinking on the sidewalk. Will I have $62 in four weeks for the ticket? If not, I might forget to appear. Warrant time! 

You just stole $25 out of an unlocked car? Prison. I just stole $2,500 using a questionable trade in the NASDAQ? Petty change, the SEC won't look for me. 

You and I have institutionally racist laws because you and I refuse to admit that we are racist. So we decriminalize our crimes, while leaving the crimes of poverty still perfectly criminalized. 

So to your question ... actual criminals need to be punished. If we have decided that stealing $25 from an unlocked car is a crime, then cheating the IRS for $25 needs to be a crime. If it's not a crime to buy fentanyl from a licensed provider, then it shouldn't be a crime to get it from a street corner? 

Criminals commit crimes. They commit real crimes, like rape, embezzlement and child abuse. 

Say we criminalize a class of drugs, say it's opioids? Why not criminalize all of them? Why do we criminalize street versions but give a pass to pharma version that wealthy people get? 

This disparity is one of rhe sources of generational poverty.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Okay, good, then.  Just seemed I was being awful long-winded...

Maybe an example would help. 

Look at NYC's stop & frisk program.  Blacks & Latinos were WAY more likely to be stopped & frisked, and WAY more likely to have the stop escalate into "use of force".  But the "hit rate", for finding weapons or contraband during a search, was much higher for whites.

The same sort of disparity shows up, in other jurisdictions, when you look at traffic stops, how likely they are to escalate into a search of the vehicle, and how often contraband's actually found.

That's not the result of any explicit, written policy that says "target black & brown people".  So it's not "intitutional". 

At the same time, you can't explain it as "a few racist cops": it's too widespread.  So, by definition, it IS systemic.

 

https://www.aclu.org/blog/criminal-law-reform/reforming-police/stop-and-frisks-plummeted-under-new-york-mayor-bill-de

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/inside-100-million-police-traffic-stops-new-evidence-racial-bias-n980556

There are over 1 million law enforcement officers in the US. if 1% were racist that would be 10,000 racist cops. Now while that seems lot a lot it's certainly not systemic... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, mikewof said:

But you put your finger on the problem! Why are prisons so full of people from poverty?

Racism?

I've said this before..... it's not race.  Its class.  Prisons are full of people from poverty because of socio economics.  And geography.  Poor blacks and latinos are more likely to live in denser urban environments than poor whites who live in rural areas spread out relatively far apart.  So black and latino frequency of contact with LEO is massively higher.  It's just a numbers game.  Time and opportunity.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

There are over 1 million law enforcement officers in the US. if 1% were racist that would be 10,000 racist cops. Now while that seems lot a lot it's certainly not systemic... 

Try opening the links and reading them.

For 1% of cops to generate disparities that large  -  a bunch of their co-workers would have to be turning a blind eye.  Which I suppose might be the case, but... would be a "systemic" issue, no?

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, frenchie said:

Try opening the links and reading them.

For 1% of cops to generate disparities that large  -  a bunch of their co-workers would have to be turning a blind eye.  Which I suppose might be the case, but... would be a "systemic" issue, no?

 

 

No, not really, it depends on where the data comes from.

Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

An analysis of federal police crime statistics and the Washington Post police shooting database shows that fully 12% of all whites and Hispanics who die of homicide are killed by cops. “In contrast, only 4% of black homicide victims are killed by cops. So about 1 in 8 white and Hispanic homicide deaths are at the hands of the police, and only about 1 in 25 black homicide deaths are at the hands of the police. 

Police officers are more likely to have tense interactions and feel threatened when they are investigating violent crimes, or interacting with violent criminals. So the numbers we need to look at are: what share of violent crimes do blacks commit? 

According to the most recent study by the Dept. of Justice, although blacks were only about 15% of the population in the 75 largest counties in the U.S., they were charged with 62% of all robberies, 57% of murders, and 45% of assaults.

So, one would expect about 50% of police shooting victims would be black, then, right? Actually, it’s about 36%. In fact, a police officer is more than 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male, than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

I've said this before..... it's not race.  Its class.  Prisons are full of people from poverty because of socio economics.  And geography.  Poor blacks and latinos are more likely to live in denser urban environments than poor whites who live in rural areas spread out relatively far apart.  So black and latino frequency of contact with LEO is massively higher.  It's just a numbers game.  Time and opportunity.  

in fact You've said it before, and in doing so you deny the impact of racism.

Some of the most expensive and land in the USA is the most densely populated. Why are those people on Fifth Avenue in the Embarcadero magically immune to the ravages of this "socio-economic" impact of this "numbers game"?

The reality of huge swaths of the global economy is that is is in fact built on keeping a certain class of people depressed, broken and poor. From medieval times to now, Britain to South Africa to the USA, Mexico and China, racism is a reliable method to maintain something resembling a peace, and to create prosperity for a fairly small number of people.

But how do you actually make the machines of racism work, if everyone is roughly the same? We finally found out there is no such thing as "race" and a Northern tribe of Swedes may in fact have more genetic commonality with a tribe of Africans than with the neighboring village. So how do we segreate a sufficiently large chunk of society to get this racism thing to work?

Eye color? Too hard to see from a distance. Intelligence? Intelligent people are a pain in the ass, and stupid people are fair-to-partly useless.Physical deformity? Too random. What else do we have to work the engines of racism other than skin color? It's visible from a distance, and it's almost impossible to change. In India, their castes are in fact based on skin color just like elsewhere. China, Japan, USA, Mexico, Australia, Germany, Ukraine ... skin color is used as an easy, accessible way of segregating a certain population to prime the pumps of racism. We use skin color as a determinant for racism not because it actually means anything, but just because it's a fairly easy system to implement. Germany didn't have enough dark skinned people, so they used Jewish facial features and birth records. Cambodia was fairly well integrated, so the Khmer Rouge used education, and simply murdered anyone who wore glasses.

The "time and opportunity"? It's right in front of you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mikewof said:

 Cambodia was fairly well integrated, so the Khmer Rouge used education, and simply murdered anyone who wore glasses.

 

Isn't that classism? or "glassism" if you prefer?

To separate by education one would expect the educated to be in a different class structure than the un-educated...

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

There are over 1 million law enforcement officers in the US. if 1% were racist that would be 10,000 racist cops. Now while that seems lot a lot it's certainly not systemic... 

Even if it averaged 10%, it wouldn't be systemic.

Systemic means that the problem is the system of the police. And yet, every police department in the country has different challenges, some manage them well, and others manage to put officers into the streets that murder the people they are paid to protect.

The racism is institutional because every department has a different challenge, and a different set of solutions. A police department on an Lakota Reservation will have a different set of challenges than one in Miami, and a different set of solutions. Institutions can address their inherent racism by restructuring their relationship with the people who pay them. Systemic racism is real, Nazi Germany had that, and even the USA has it in a few small areas. But the USA's police departments are not being instructed by any kind of national authority to make racist decisions. The racism they propagate is a result of the way they interact with the community they serve.

And it can be fixed.

Not in fifty years, or fifteen, but by the day.

Ever heard one of those dirty hippies talk about being "woke"? They're on the right path here, those patchouli-smelling hippies. When we pay our taxes to our counties, and cities, we then have a considerable amount of control in how our institutions do their business.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Isn't that classism? or "glassism" if you prefer?

To separate by education one would expect the educated to be in a different class structure than the un-educated...

 

It doesn't matter. It provided a scapegoat for that broken society, a source of plundered riches too, a source of slave labor. Germany did the same thing on an even larger scale. The only way they could get it to work in Northern Ireland was to use a slight variation of Christianity.

The USA is someone traditional in this sense, we do it the old-fashioned way, by skin color. Anyone who thinks this isn't "racism" likely doesn't have that pigmentation.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, mikewof said:

Cambodia was fairly well integrated, so the Khmer Rouge used education, and simply murdered anyone who wore glasses.

So education difference is now "racism"?  Mikey, brother, you've lost the plot on this one.  Don't go Full Twitchy Deer on us.  No one like Full Twitchy Deer.  Just saying.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, mikewof said:

It doesn't matter. It provided a scapegoat for that broken society, a source of plundered riches too, a source of slave labor. Germany did the same thing on an even larger scale. The only way they could get it to work in Northern Ireland was to use a slight variation of Christianity.

The USA is someone traditional in this sense, we do it the old-fashioned way, by skin color. Anyone who thinks this isn't "racism" likely doesn't have that pigmentation.

There is no doubt that the US was very racist at one time and is much less racist and more inclusive now. Unfortunately the BLM organization is not demanding equality they are demanding special dispensation based on color, which is racist by it's very nature!  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, where did that come from? 

If you're family tree in the US dates back to slavery, Jim Crow and the institutional racism that existed at that time you should pay. I had nothing to do with it. 

I don't have any family in prison or rehab, yet my taxes pay for your family to take advantage of those services.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So education difference is now "racism"?  Mikey, brother, you've lost the plot on this one.  Don't go Full Twitchy Deer on us.  No one like Full Twitchy Deer.  Just saying.  

Please don't quote Cliff.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Movable Ballast said:

No they don't... 

I'm so glad to hear your wife kicked the Oxy habit. That turning tricks at the truck stop had to really tire her out. Tire!  hahaha, damn I'm funny.

 

What brings you back, anyway? Other sock get the boot?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

There is no doubt that the US was very racist at one time and is much less racist and more inclusive now. Unfortunately the BLM organization is not demanding equality they are demanding special dispensation based on color, which is racist by it's very nature!  

I think that people are generally less racist now. But institutions ... probably just as racist, in some cases it's worse.

But what you wrote up there isn't right. BLM wants an immediate future where Black people are not murdered in daylight in front of witnesses and video and other cops and the perpetrators allowed to get away with it. They don't want "special dispensation." They want to be treated as well as the cops treat anyone else who signs their paychecks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Raz'r said:

I'm so glad to hear your wife kicked the Oxy habit. That turning tricks at the truck stop had to really tire her out. Tire!  hahaha, damn I'm funny.

 

What brings you back, anyway? Other sock get the boot?

 

Never had a sock. I've had this login of over 10 years. You should know that, but you've never let little things like facts get in the way of anything so nothings changed. 

New project, new venture and I needed a break from this place. It really does rot you soul... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Burning Man said:

So education difference is now "racism"?  Mikey, brother, you've lost the plot on this one.  Don't go Full Twitchy Deer on us.  No one like Full Twitchy Deer.  Just saying.  

Reading is Fundamental, JBSF.

Cambodia didn't have a sufficiently large population of ethnic minority to do their scapegoating, they chose their victims on education.

Germany didn't have a sufficiently large population of dark-skinned people to their scapegoating, they chose their victims on ethnicity. Ditto with Yugoslavia and China.

The USA has a sufficiently large population of dark-skinned people that we can use the same methods that Britain and Australia and Canada used.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

I think that people are generally less racist now. But institutions ... probably just as racist, in some cases it's worse.

But what you wrote up there isn't right. BLM wants an immediate future where Black people are not murdered in daylight in front of witnesses and video and other cops and the perpetrators allowed to get away with it. They don't want "special dispensation." They want to be treated as well as the cops treat anyone else who signs their paychecks.

That's a part of what they want and is totally legit. but not this stuff.... 

https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-slavery-reparations-criminal-justice-reform-policy-hillary-486198

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I think that people are generally less racist now. But institutions ... probably just as racist, in some cases it's worse.

But what you wrote up there isn't right. BLM wants an immediate future where Black people are not murdered in daylight in front of witnesses and video and other cops and the perpetrators allowed to get away with it. They don't want "special dispensation." They want to be treated as well as the cops treat anyone else who signs their paychecks.

Oh and then there's this.... I'm totally in favor of equality and accountability but this shit is not helping... 

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said during a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives that Black Lives Matter was a mandate from activists and that it was “time” for the American people to “pay us what you owe us.”

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Movable Ballast said:

Oh and then there's this.... I'm totally in favor of equality and accountability but this shit is not helping... 

Rep. Ayanna Pressley (D-MA) said during a speech on the floor of the House of Representatives that Black Lives Matter was a mandate from activists and that it was “time” for the American people to “pay us what you owe us.”

I bet it doesn't take much to light a fire under you. Ayanna Pressley is a member of congress with a year and a half of tenure, her demand will go nowhere.

Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

There is no doubt that the US was very racist at one time and is much less racist and more inclusive now. Unfortunately the BLM organization is not demanding equality they are demanding special dispensation based on color, which is racist by it's very nature!  

??

In what way is BLM demanding "special dispensation based on color"?

All I've heard them demand is to stop getting fucking killed by police for just walking while black

You got a problem with that?

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Movable Ballast said:

Nothing to do with fiscal responsibility, where did that come from? 

If you're family tree in the US dates back to slavery, Jim Crow and the institutional racism that existed at that time you should pay. I had nothing to do with it. 

Yeah but you benefited from it by moving to the country whose history shows clearly that it happened.

You could always move to Somalia and start in a country with a clean slate. But you won't.

FKT

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Movable Ballast said:

It was just yesterday the leader of BLM actually said just that. 

No they didn't

It's not the Trumpublican Party, there isn't a leader. It's a bunch of people shouting & marching in the street.

You robots that all feel a psychotic need to think & feel exactly the same thing as each other are really an aberration from humankind, the rest of us are perfectly happy to be individuals.

- DSK

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, badlatitude said:

Simply, it is a statement without any meat.

She's doing her job, playing to her constituency.

She undoubtedly knows that it will go nowhere. But she didn't say it for the people of Sailing Anarchy, she said it for her constituency.

And those once powerless constituents who read that, they likely felt empowered and awesome that such a thing would be said in that place. Imagine something with even half the meat uttered just fifty years ago?

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No they didn't

It's not the Trumpublican Party, there isn't a leader. It's a bunch of people shouting & marching in the street.

You robots that all feel a psychotic need to think & feel exactly the same thing as each other are really an aberration from humankind, the rest of us are perfectly happy to be individuals.

- DSK

yeah, of course not... 

https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-slavery-reparations-criminal-justice-reform-policy-hillary-486198

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:
18 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

No they didn't

It's not the Trumpublican Party, there isn't a leader. It's a bunch of people shouting & marching in the street.

You robots that all feel a psychotic need to think & feel exactly the same thing as each other are really an aberration from humankind, the rest of us are perfectly happy to be individuals.

 

yeah, of course not... 

https://www.newsweek.com/black-lives-matter-slavery-reparations-criminal-justice-reform-policy-hillary-486198

You ought to read your cites, before you post them. This is literally the very sentence of the article:

(from the link above) A coalition affiliated with the anti-racism Black Lives Matter movement called for criminal justice reforms and reparations for slavery...  

So no, it wasn't "the leader of Black Lives Matter" you dumbass.

- DSK

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, mikewof said:

She's doing her job, playing to her constituency.

She undoubtedly knows that it will go nowhere. But she didn't say it for the people of Sailing Anarchy, she said it for her constituency.

And those once powerless constituents who read that, they likely felt empowered and awesome that such a thing would be said in that place. Imagine something with even half the meat uttered just fifty years ago?

Good explanation, Mike.  It's an illustration of how we are so easily outraged without a full understanding of the issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

Totally uncalled for and excessive force on a citizen who was not resisting. You cant' fix stupid. Where do they get these guys? 

The military.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, frenchie said:

...talk about side-stepping an entire post? 

It's like various words triggered you, but... man.  Dude. 

I am completely failing to understand most of this, or how any of it relates to anything I said.

 

 

In a simple summary.

No number of laws will change how people think.  You can only marginally change how they act.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, Steam Flyer said:

You robots that all feel a psychotic need to think & feel exactly the same thing as each other are really an aberration from humankind, the rest of us are perfectly happy to be individuals.

- DSK

How do you motivate the mobs then?

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Movable Ballast said:

No, not really, it depends on where the data comes from.

Harvard economics professor Roland Fryer analyzed more than 1,000 officer-involved shootings across the country. He concluded that there is zero evidence of racial bias in police shootings.

Have you read that study?  Because that first sentence is relevant in ways I'm sure you did not intend.

Our results have several important caveats. First, all but one dataset was provided by a select group of police departments. It is possible that these departments only supplied the data because they are either enlightened or were not concerned about what the analysis would reveal. In essence, this is equivalent to analyzing labor market discrimination on a set of firms willing to supply a researcher with their Human Resources data!

...

fifteen police departments across the country were contacted by the author: Boston, Camden, NYC, Philadelphia, Austin, Dallas, Houston, Los Angeles, six Florida counties, and Tacoma, Washington. Importantly for thinking about the representativeness of the data – many of these cities were a part of the Obama Administration’s Police Data Initiative.

...

The OIS data have several notable limitations. Taken alone, officer-involved shootings are the most extreme and least used form of police force and thus, in isolation, may be misleading. Second, the penalties for wrongfully discharging a lethal weapon in any given situation can be life altering, thus, the incentive to misrepresent contextual factors on police reports may be large. Third, we don’t typically have the suspect’s side of the story and often there are no witnesses. Fourth, it is impossible to capture all variables of importance at the time of a shooting. 

 

Not to mention, Fryer was examining disparities among arrests of violent offenders  -  between shootings and non-lethal uses of force.  If there's a bias in who gets arrested in the first place, his result's not surprising at all.  The hit rate (how many of the arrested are actually violent) would be skewed.  There would be more actually-violent offenders among the whites, compared to the blacks.

 

No offence, but I'm going need links to the sources of your other stats, before I even think of responding to them.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, frenchie said:

 

Oh, good grief.  Is THAT why we're talking past one another? 

"Systemic"  -  look it up in a dictionary  -  just means that it's a quality of a system, as opposed an individual component of the system.  It has nothing to do with whether it's documented or explicit.  

 

Let me guess: you studied engineering?  Management? 

Me, I studied social psychology and sociology.  25 years ago, but... I'll try to dredge up some bits & pieces to explain what I think we're running into.

 

A culture  -  whether in the sense of "american culture", or in the sense of the work culture in a particular organization  -  is a social system. 

From one perspective, a social system is made up of the people in it; or rather, the relationships between them.  

From another perspective, it's made up of norms, mores, traditions, "how we've always done things"... and those are mostly unstated and undocumented.  A lot of the times the people living by them aren't even aware of them: they're implicit norms.  They're often in complete contradiction to the group's explicit, "documented", norms or regulations.

 

So  -  to clarify: when people say "systemic racism"  -  they're talking about these implicit, unspoken rules that (even if/when they're individually harmless) together, create a social system that's racially biased.

What you're talking about  -  documented parts of the explicit system (like redlining, or segregation laws, or Jim Crow) that's designed to create or uphold racial bias: that's called institutional racism.

Our system is also set up that lazy people go without.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jules said:

If we go back to the Homestead Act, African Americans didn't get their 40 acres of land.  They were denied that because of their skin color.  And thus denied the opportunity to build equity.

In the New Deal, the Federal Housing Authority denied black people low cost loans.  Even the GI bill ....

4 hours ago, mikewof said:

Your idea is solid, tax the elites.

But how do we actually accomplish that, when the elites control the political system?

I think we need to accept that the nature .....

 

 

4 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

I don't buy into reparations for something I had nothing to do with. It solves nothing in the immediate and fosters resentment in the long run.

 

Wolfsey and Moveable you are Americas problem and until you get it America's fucked.

All you see is reparations. All you see is white resentment. All you see is everything but the problem. There are some in the African American community who also think that and they too don't see the solution even though they may see the problem. 

You don't even understand BLM, if thinking it's roots are countering rascist and brutal police. It's not. 

What you don't see or want to see acknowledged is because you're pricing racial enlightenment as compensation, something that is measured and apportioned. Do that and the societal ledger is squared you think.

There is no compensation anymore when one section of society has leveraged their position, gained their equity off the back of others and capitalising their equity like compound interest for hundreds of years. That ship has sailed long gone leaving only equality to battle as they need that to just stay afloat. 

The ones that first got the leg up using a slaver ship in a foreign land, stole that equity and denying equality. The ones who followed incl those who immigrated all flourishing under the shade of that tree. All while either turning a blind eye and from time to overt action to counter equality if equality put its head above the parapet. Then and now they blame the ones left behind with little or nothing for their own ills and all the ills of American society itself. 

America has to start over at a fresh page, not tear a page out of a chequebook.

I'm not American and I can see it. Why can't you??

4 hours ago, Burning Man said:

I'm OK with that as long as after they get their $25K - any and all problems they have in their community such as poverty, poor education, addiction, housing, crime, etc. becomes their own responsibility to accept and that they get no more special treatment or status or labels due to skin color.  

Where do I send the check?

Actually Dogballs you and your like are not America's problem, You are and always will be the shit on its shoe. That is simply dealt with or just let it dry out while avoiding the smell and it will disappear... as you can do with shit.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, jack_sparrow said:

Wolfsey and Moveable you are Americas problem and until you get it America's fucked.

All you see is reparations. All you see is white resentment. All you see is everything but the problem. There are some in the African American community who also think that and they too don't see the solution even though they may see the problem. 

You don't even understand BLM, if thinking it's roots are countering rascist and brutal police. It's not. 

What you don't see or want to see acknowledged is because you're pricing racial enlightenment as compensation, something that is measured and apportioned. Do that and the societal ledger is squared you think.

There is no compensation anymore when one section of society has leveraged their position, gained their equity off the back of others and capitalising their equity like compound interest for hundreds of years. That ship has sailed long gone leaving only equality to battle as they need that to just stay afloat. 

The ones that first got the leg up using a slaver ship in a foreign land, stole that equity and denying equality. The ones who followed incl those who immigrated all flourishing under the shade of that tree. All while either turning a blind eye and from time to overt action to counter equality if equality put its head above the parapet. Then and now they blame the ones left behind with little or nothing for their own ills and all the ills of American society itself. 

America has to start over at a fresh page, not tear a page out of a chequebook.

I'm not American and I can see it. Why can't you??

Actually Dogballs you and your like are not America's problem, You are and always will be the shit on its shoe. That is simply dealt with or just let it dry out while avoiding the smell and it will disappear... as you can do with shit.

I can't speak for MB, but you have captured exactly zero of what I wrote.

What you wrote up there mostly means nothing more than recycled platitudes with no actual insight.

You are not an American and it shows. You have nothing at stake here, no insights to our process. I read what you wrote up there three times, sure that I must have missed something. But I realized that you in fact didn't actually write something with meaning.

With a little more precision, with what exactly do you disagree with what I wrote?

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Rok Dog said:

Our system is also set up that lazy people go without.

Sometimes. But someone who is born into a wealthy family can be as lazy as they like and still generally not go without.

Conversely, someone born into poverty can work their ass off their whole life and still go without. A lifetime of loyal work at even 150% of minimum wage likely won't provide for much more than the basics.

Life is often nothing like a Horatio Alger tale ... often times people do exactly what they are supposed to do and still never see more than the crust of bread to keep them alive.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, mikewof said:

I can't speak for MB, but you have captured exactly zero of what I wrote.

 What you wrote up there mostly means nothing more than recycled platitudes with no actual insight.....

...With a little more precision, with what exactly  do you disagree with what I wrote?

Mikey be assured I didn't reply using just that post as to where you stand or what you believe in. That is crystal clear. I have zero interest in engaging with you on that basis...I don't do Wolfsey.

30 minutes ago, mikewof said:

You are not an American and it shows. You have nothing at stake here, no insights to our process.

I might not be American dickhead but that doesn't mean I don't have "skin in the game." I could guess but maybe even have far more than you if you cared to think outside your prism and before blowing shit out of your arse.

Daresay America's position in the world community also means everyone has some skin on the line. Even if hypothetically I didn't, that doesn't preclude me from being knowledgeable on things US and furnishing an opinion, no matter how much you don't like or disagree with it. 

As your myopia is so bad and where you can't read between the lines. America by its own actions in recent years means many in the world have now reached a "tipping point" and have had a gutfull of America. 

The only winner from that is the cunts running China, so great "in goal" 1600 Pennsylvania Av.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Movable Ballast said:

There are over 1 million law enforcement officers in the US. if 1% were racist that would be 10,000 racist cops. Now while that seems lot a lot it's certainly not systemic... 

Same percent are gay, by statistics. What's the overlap?

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Mikey be assured I didn't reply using just that post as to where you stand or what you believe in. That is crystal clear. I have zero interest in engaging with you on that basis...I don't do Wolfsey.

I might not be American dickhead but that doesn't mean I don't have "skin in the game." I could guess but maybe even have far more than you if you cared to think outside your prism and before blowing shit out of your arse.

Daresay America's position in the world community also means everyone has some skin on the line. Even if hypothetically I didn't, that doesn't preclude me from being knowledgeable on things US and furnishing an opinion, no matter how much you don't like or disagree with it. 

As your myopia is so bad and where you can't read between the lines. America by its own actions in recent years means many in the world have now reached a "tipping point" and have had a gutfull of America. 

The only winner from that is the cunts running China, so great "in goal" 1600 Pennsylvania Av.

 

So ... you still don't actually know with what you disagree on what I wrote?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mikewof said:

So ... you still don't actually know with what you disagree on what I wrote?

 

Can't you read cunt.

8 minutes ago, jack_sparrow said:

Mikey be assured I didn't reply using just that post as to where you stand or what you believe in. That is crystal clear. I have zero interest in engaging with you on that basis...I don't do Wolfsey.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites