Racism on display at University of Virginia

rjs330

Well-Known Member
CF Ambassadors
May 22, 2015
22,274
5,987
64
✟333,399.00
Faith
Pentecostal
Like I said before, if you the approach you want to take is simply vocalizing an "all racism is wrong" position (after one group has suffered disproportionately and is still feeling some of the lasting effects to this day), then while you may believe it's all wrong, don't expect any fences to be mended by that.

If I spent 10 years vandalizing your property (costing you thousands of dollars that you were still trying to pay back to this day), because the city didn't have any rule against it...and in some cases, embraced it, a new township ordinance cracking down on vandalism moving forward, alone, isn't going to do much to correct any past damage or give you any sort of satisfaction or make your current situation any better.

Everyone in the town saying "we realize now, that all vandalism is wrong" isn't going to make you feel much better either.

It's going to make you feel even worse when you try to advocate for policies that will help you out, and everyone patronizingly tells you "if you would've worked harder, you'd have more money to get your windows fixed and wouldn't be in this situation"

It's not going to take long before the thought crosses your mind of "hmmm...I wonder how they'd like it if someone vandalized their home and they had to cover the costs"

...like I said, it wouldn't make it right, but it certainly doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out how that progression of animus could occur.




...it'd be one thing if that were occurring.

For instance, if the vast majority of society was doing everything possible to right racial wrongs, and trying to take steps to undo damage, and you still had people bitter and engaging in, let's call it, retaliatory-racism for past wrongs, then I'd probably be on the opposite side of the debate along with you guys.

But that's not what's happening, and we shouldn't pretend that's what's happening.

In reality, the "all racism is bad" idea is one that's vocalized, but many folks (particularly on the far-right) only seem to invoke that talking point when they can pinpoint a case of black-on-white racism.

When folks in the black community try to highlight issues and current instances of racism targeting them, many of the "all racism is bad" folks on the far-right seemingly do everything they can to find a way to prove that "it's not racism, you're just being oversensitive" or "it's not racism, this is technically just your own fault because of XYZ"

Or, they make one of these disingenuous counter-movements or slogans (like the type I was describing before) like "All Lives Matter" or "Blue Lives Matter".

Basically, a portion of the country gives lip-service to that idea when think they can use it to prove some sort of point, but attempt to rationalize it or make it seem unimportant or secondary in many other cases.

For instance, many folks (not picking on you, Ana, or Ken here...I've never seen this behavior from you 3), who are quick to use the "all racism is bad" and use it as a central focal point when things like this story happen when they're trying to make a point...but when things like instances of racially motivated police action occur, the talking points are very different.

"What did they do wrong that made the police officer shoot?"
"We need to see the rest of the video"
"It's important to keep in mind that not all cops are bad"
"There's a culture problem, if they didn't dress & act like thugs, they wouldn't draw so much attention from cops"

Or my favorite, when someone mentions disproportionate sentencing for the same crime, the response of "well, the solution is simple, just don't break the law and you won't have to worry about it"

The vast majority of society HAS overcome to right racial wrongs. It's the minority that haven't.

The majority of people anymore look at actions rather than skin color. If I owned a store and a white dude walked in looking for a job and looked like a thug, acted like a thug and a black walked in dressed appropriately and acted like a normal person I would hire him 10 x out of 10 over the white dude. And if they both looked and acted like thugs I wouldn't hire either. If they both looked and acted the same I would definitely have some work to do to figure out who would be the best hire. If everything was equal I would probably ask about their past to see who I think needed the opportunity the most.

So any way, most people judge on actions not skin color.

And as far as BLM vs Blue Lives Matter is to counter the racist argument. Why because people ASSUME racism. A white gets shot and people don't get all up in arms about it because most of the time there isn't anything to get bent out of shape about. But a black guy get s shot and immediately the response is that the cop was racist or bigotted. That's why the response is, let's see the video first before jumping to conclusions. It's because the black community jumped first. Where is the outcry from them to say, let's see the video first. No the response is the cop was racist.

Look we all want to be understood. We all want to not be blamed for other peoples actions. Black people don't want to be blamed for other black peoples actions. White people don't want to be blamed for other white peoples actions. And we all don't want to have others assume the worst of us, because of what someone else did.

Racism is insideous. And the only way to overcome the racial divide is to be kind to one another and don't assume the worst in each other. Then not condone
it or excuse it when we see it. As long as we allow it under the guise of "well we have to understand" it will never go away.

Because then we just lend credence to the "I don't trust black people because I was assaulted by black people." Then racism will continue. Can we understand why? Sure, but should we say, it's okay because we understand? I don't think so.
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
The vast majority of society HAS overcome to right racial wrongs. It's the minority that haven't.

The majority of people anymore look at actions rather than skin color. If I owned a store and a white dude walked in looking for a job and looked like a thug, acted like a thug and a black walked in dressed appropriately and acted like a normal person I would hire him 10 x out of 10 over the white dude. And if they both looked and acted like thugs I wouldn't hire either. If they both looked and acted the same I would definitely have some work to do to figure out who would be the best hire. If everything was equal I would probably ask about their past to see who I think needed the opportunity the most.

The vast majority of individuals have...however, like I've been saying, there are residual effects (IE: the pattern of poverty left behind that takes 4-5 generations to overcome), and systemic effects.

For instance, 99% of the population can claim to abhor racism, but if >50% remain silent when certain folks are disproportionately prosecuted and incarcerated, and >50% are still actively voting for policies that we know have certain effects on certain communities, their words about "we're not racists, we think everyone should be treated as equals" ring hollow. Or at best, they're secondary or tertiary priorities for people when shaping their policy platform and they're not willing to "put pen to paper" for those ideas if means potentially having to concede on any other political views. Prime example of that would be on how people vote for certain drug policies. We know the disproportionate effect the war on drugs has had, yet, over half of republicans and almost a quarter of democrats still support keeping it going. If someone knows that a particular policy has a disparate effect on a particular demographic, and still votes in favor of it anyway simply due personal biases, that calls into question just how deep their commitment is to the equality they preach in favor of.


...and in some cases, it's not even intentional.
The fact that in your example you mentioned "dressed like a thug" vs. "dressed like a normal person"...what exactly does a "thug" "dress like"? Wouldn't judging someone based on what kind of clothes they have on be just as superficial? It's still just a judgment based on something that's 100% visual and shows nothing about the character of the individual (unless there's some sort of opinion being expressed on the articles of clothing themselves like a MAGA hat or a shirt saying "legalize it" or something of the sort)

Usually when people (even ones who feel like they hold no stereotypical views on race) categorize what "thugs" do or don't "dress like", that perception always just so happens to have a high level of overlap with the styles of dressing that just so happen to have been popularized by the inner city urban community (which skews more black and Hispanic) then later adopted by white guys in the suburbs trying to copycat.

In a nutshell, I don't think it's a coincidence for many folks that when it comes to styles of dressing, baggy jeans and hoodies and hats tipped to the side get labelled as "thuggish", yet skinny jeans, tight shirts and vests, and fedoras don't, and simply get categorized as being "artsy hipster" or something like that.

If you go throughout history and look at what the prevailing suburbanite perceptions were on what style of dressing "looks thuggish", there's a clear cut pattern there.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

All Englands Skies

Christian-Syndicalist
Nov 4, 2008
1,930
545
Midlands
✟219,557.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
If you go throughout history and look at what the prevailing suburbanite perceptions were on what style of dressing "looks thuggish", there's a clear cut pattern there.

What is the clear cut pattern that connects the "thug" stereotype styles of history? the examples being;

  • Hip hop/gangsta rap style
  • Skinheads
  • Punks
  • Metalheads
  • Greasers (Rockers in the UK)
  • Rudeboys
  • Bikers
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
We're not that far removed from some of those dreadful policies though. And certain forms take more degrees of separation to alleviate and correct for.

For instance, laws in the south that were aimed at taking simple misdemeanors and turning them into felonies

What laws are you talking about? I tried looking this up but couldn't find anything about it.

to deny voting rights and have an excuse to lock up black men created single parent homes, and as a result poverty. We know that kids in poverty stricken, single parent homes are more likely to engage in behavior that will repeat that pattern for the next generation. That's especially true if the neighborhood you grow up in has a lousy school and not much in the way of vocational opportunities.

...and with the skyrocketing college prices, and the fact that meaningful employment is requiring a degree more often than 30 years ago...combined with the fact that the more manual non-college jobs will be going the way of automation in the not too distant future. Generational poverty is going to be more impactful in the future than it was in the past.

40 years ago, even if your parents didn't have much money, you could always get a job at a factory, machine shop, etc... and make a middle class living even if you couldn't afford college. There's a good chance that may not be true 20 years from now.

That isn't true now....

Most manufacturing jobs left in the 70s and 80s. Factories moved to China. What you're describing definitely had a huge impact on every community...not just the black community. It certainly wasn't caused by racial policies.

...it's because the underlying message or purpose of those movements aren't a serious complaint to begin with.

What are you talking about? I'm not asking you to join or support any movement.

Like I noted way back on page one. Not all forms of activism are sincerely aimed at solving a problem, some are merely done to agitate or discredit another form of activism.

I'm not asking anyone to engage in activism...just acknowledge that her racist behavior is wrong.

For instance, the Men's rights movement or "White pride" or "straight pride", or "All lives matter" don't seem to be centered around solving any sort of issue or highlighting any sort of perceived systemic injustice that's disproportionately affecting their groups, they're merely there as a rebuttal to express outrage over Women's rights, black rights, gay rights, and black lives matter movements.

You keep bringing this up....

At first I thought you were trying to make some tangential but relevant point. Now I'm not so sure...

You realize we're talking about a person's racist behavior, right? Not men's rights groups?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What is the clear cut pattern that connects the "thug" stereotype styles of history? the examples being;

  • Hip hop/gangsta rap style
  • Skinheads
  • Punks
  • Metalheads
  • Greasers (Rockers in the UK)
  • Rudeboys
  • Bikers

I've never heard anyone refer to Metalheads or Punks as "Thugs", Punks are usually just called "punks", and metalheads are more likely to draw terms like "burnout"/"slacker"/etc...nor have I ever heard that term being used to describe greasers (granted, didn't have a lot of experience with greasers being popular in my time, I think that fad fizzled out about 10-15 years before I was born)

Since the late 70's/early 80's, "Thug" (with regards to way to describe what someone's dressed like) has almost always been used as a reference to whatever style is popularized by young black men or popularized by the hip-hop scene (which obviously skews mostly black).

The google image search algorithm doesn't lie, it's built off of heuristic logic that builds up what people click on after searching for a particular term, and slowly bubbles those results up to the top of the list. (thus establishing at pattern of what people are looking for when searching for a particular term)

Search for "dressed like a thug"...

Not seeing any skinheads, greasers, rudeboys, punks, or bikers coming back high on the list.

It's all pictures of young black people and whatever fashion style is prevalent at the time (or pictures of white guys trying to copy that style)
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
...a lot of the movements I've looked at don't seem to be seeking reparations, and are more aimed at combating current forms of discrimination, particularly in the criminal justice system.

Such as?

...and the people who were most vocal in their "All Lives Matter" stance didn't seem to say a peep about it until the BLM movement showed up. Timing is everything. They also have a high level of overlap with the people who support "Blue Lives Matter". Seems to me they're more concerned with simply opposing black lives matter more than actually advocating for anything.

Ever speak with any of their supporters?

I've never heard any person say "I just support all lives matter because I'm trying to diminish the message of black lives matter."

Overwhelmingly, they talk about not wanting people to racially divide themselves into "us" and "them".


Especially the blue lives matter...society already acknowledged how much the "blue lives" matter by giving them objects of lethal force to carry on their hip, giving them cars to drive around in, and putting laws on the books that disproportionately penalize someone for a crime against an officer vs. what they'd get for doing the same thing to an ordinary citizen.

In terms of total numbers yes, more white people are shot, when you adjust for population sizes, that's a different story. Black men are 2.5 time more likely to be shot by police in their lifetime than their white counterpart.

The reason for the BLM movement, from the feedback I've gotten from talking to advocates for that movement, wasn't that they weren't aware that white people were also being shot by police, it's that
A) they were being shot a disproportionate rate (even though white people are statistically more likely to be armed when police shoot them)
B) they didn't feel that the black shootings were being taken as seriously as the white shootings, thus the expression about "mattering".

Disproportionate to what? The general population?

They felt that the white shootings already "mattered" in society's eyes, but shootings against them did not. And it's not an unfair point to make. When concern is expressed over these shootings, there are an awful lot of people who immediately try to figure out "what the person did wrong to make the cop shoot them".

Kind of like how I think people only care about racism towards blacks and ignore racism towards whites? Like how when people see a racist black person they start making assumptions about what white people must have done for them to act that way?

Philando was shot while reaching to get his CCW permit and license to show the officer, after the officer instructed him to do so, and some peoples' first response wasn't to condemn the officer for being trigger happy, it was to say that "the officer was just doing his job, Philando should've moved slower".

I don't know what you're reading....but I saw a ton of support for Philando's family.

Kid gets shot by an officer after shoplifting, rather than saying "someone shouldn't be getting the death penalty for petty crime", they say "well that kid shouldn't have been shoplifting.

I didn't see that story....link?

Even non-police encounters play out the same way in a lot of cases...look at the staggering number of Zimmerman supporters there were during that whole thing. An adult male, deliberately defies police instructions and exits his vehicle to pursue a kid in his neighborhood. Intentionally escalates a confrontation with the kid, then uses the result of that escalation to justify killing the kid because he started losing the fight that HE started.

That's an interesting spin on events. Did he call 911 or the police? Every version of events I heard had Trayvon as the attacker.

For me, the biggest factor was that he originally wasn't charged. They weren't going to prosecute before the public backlash.

It's great that society has moved in the right direction, overall, for the last 50 years, but there is still progress to be made.

There always will be....

That's why incidents of racism like the OP need to be called out for what they are and not downplayed or dismissed.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
The vast majority of individuals have...however, like I've been saying, there are residual effects (IE: the pattern of poverty left behind that takes 4-5 generations to overcome), and systemic effects.

For instance, 99% of the population can claim to abhor racism, but if >50% remain silent when certain folks are disproportionately prosecuted and incarcerated, and >50% are still actively voting for policies that we know have certain effects on certain communities, their words about "we're not racists, we think everyone should be treated as equals" ring hollow. Or at best, they're secondary or tertiary priorities for people when shaping their policy platform and they're not willing to "put pen to paper" for those ideas if means potentially having to concede on any other political views. Prime example of that would be on how people vote for certain drug policies. We know the disproportionate effect the war on drugs has had, yet, over half of republicans and almost a quarter of democrats still support keeping it going. If someone knows that a particular policy has a disparate effect on a particular demographic, and still votes in favor of it anyway simply due personal biases, that calls into question just how deep their commitment is to the equality they preach in favor of.

That's a bit like saying that you aren't really concerned about climate change because you drive a gasoline powered car.

People prioritize what matters to them. Just because their priorities don't match someone else's doesn't make them a hypocrite.

...and in some cases, it's not even intentional.
The fact that in your example you mentioned "dressed like a thug" vs. "dressed like a normal person"...what exactly does a "thug" "dress like"? Wouldn't judging someone based on what kind of clothes they have on be just as superficial? It's still just a judgment based on something that's 100% visual and shows nothing about the character of the individual (unless there's some sort of opinion being expressed on the articles of clothing themselves like a MAGA hat or a shirt saying "legalize it" or something of the sort)

Usually when people (even ones who feel like they hold no stereotypical views on race) categorize what "thugs" do or don't "dress like", that perception always just so happens to have a high level of overlap with the styles of dressing that just so happen to have been popularized by the inner city urban community (which skews more black and Hispanic) then later adopted by white guys in the suburbs trying to copycat.

In a nutshell, I don't think it's a coincidence for many folks that when it comes to styles of dressing, baggy jeans and hoodies and hats tipped to the side get labelled as "thuggish", yet skinny jeans, tight shirts and vests, and fedoras don't, and simply get categorized as being "artsy hipster" or something like that.

If you go throughout history and look at what the prevailing suburbanite perceptions were on what style of dressing "looks thuggish", there's a clear cut pattern there.

You make it sound as if that word wasn't used by a group of people to describe themselves.....long before it ever was used in "the suburbs".
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
What laws are you talking about? I tried looking this up but couldn't find anything about it.


They talk about it roughly halfway through the video. It was basically an early effort for black voter suppression. They'd take minor crimes, reclassify them as felonies, and then pass laws saying that felons couldn't vote.

A search for "jim crow voter disenfranchisement" will turn up several articles as well.

That isn't true now....

Most manufacturing jobs left in the 70s and 80s. Factories moved to China. What you're describing definitely had a huge impact on every community...not just the black community. It certainly wasn't caused by racial policies.

What are you talking about? I'm not asking you to join or support any movement.I'm not asking anyone to engage in activism...just acknowledge that her racist behavior is wrong.

Correct, I realize you're not suggesting that you're asking anyone to join a movement...my point was that such movements exist solely for the purposes of undermining other movements.

You keep bringing this up....

At first I thought you were trying to make some tangential but relevant point. Now I'm not so sure...

You realize we're talking about a person's racist behavior, right? Not men's rights groups?

I'm referring to these "counter-movements", because their very existence demonstrate that biases do still exist even though people are under the impression that "it's not much of a problem anymore".

If a black person advocating for more police accountability and looking into why black men are being shot at a 2.5:1 rate compared to white men makes someone so agitated that they feel the need to go out of their way to participate in a "blue lives matter" group to counter it, that shows that some biases still exist...and those biases don't just end with someone putting a "thin blue line" sticker on their vehicle or posting about "supporting the boys in blue" in an obscure facebook group. Some of these guys are in positions of power in organizations and have the power of hiring and firing.

The reason I was mentioning those other groups (that aren't related to race) is to highlight a pattern and mindset among far-right conservatives in our country (who currently hold a significant amount of political power). That approach and mindset is coming from a similar place...which is, members of a group that enjoyed "superiority status" for a number of years seem to feel threatened by the prospect of losing their place on a societal pedestal, and seem to react harshly to it.
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
I'd argue that it did in a way. Obviously during the Jim Crow era, job competition wasn't exactly the same was it? (obviously there was going to be preferential hiring practices employed).

When businesses had signs listing out all of the types of people who "need not apply", if you're not one of the ones on that list, that certainly gives you a leg up on the job hunt.
Booker T Washington said; “You can never keep a man down, unless you are willing to stay down with him
I agree! When black people were kept down, they were prevented from contributing to society in a way that they would have had they been allowed to, their lack of contribution hurt everybody; even white people. Thus in holding black people back, white people were holding themselves back also.

Racial disparities didn't end when segregation did. Equality on paper doesn't equal societal equality and certainly doesn't equate to equal opportunities. Even after those racist laws in the south were shot down, hiring discrimination was still a very real thing (it was even in the northern states as well).

Recent studies have showed that even as recent as 10 years ago, "black sounding names" are less likely to get callbacks for interviews than "white sounding names"

As far as how many generations can you attribute lack of success to as a result of generational poverty...that largely depends on the policies in place in the region you live in.

OECD suggests that for the US, the average is 5. In countries where poverty is very widespread, that number goes up dramatically, in the Nordic countries that have more generous safety nets and fiscal equality measures in place, that number does down to 2-3..
So in your opinion, it takes approx 5 generations after legal segregation (1968 civil rights amendment) before black people should be treated equally to white people? Is this what you are saying?
 
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private

They talk about it roughly halfway through the video. It was basically an early effort for black voter suppression. They'd take minor crimes, reclassify them as felonies, and then pass laws saying that felons couldn't vote.
My problem with the video titled “disenfranchisement of black people” is they act as if the laws in question that results in a lot of blacks in jail applies only to blacks when it is applied to everybody.

If a black person advocating for more police accountability and looking into why black men are being shot at a 2.5:1 rate compared to white men makes someone so agitated that they feel the need to go out of their way to participate in a "blue lives matter" group to counter it, that shows that some biases still exist...and those biases don't just end with someone putting a "thin blue line" sticker on their vehicle or posting about "supporting the boys in blue" in an obscure facebook group.
Black lives matter isn't just about holding the police accountable, they have in many cases proven themselves to be a racist organization. You don't need to join a racist organization in order to demand accountability from the cops.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

They talk about it roughly halfway through the video. It was basically an early effort for black voter suppression. They'd take minor crimes, reclassify them as felonies, and then pass laws saying that felons couldn't vote.

A search for "jim crow voter disenfranchisement" will turn up several articles as well.

Sadly, they didn't actually mention any laws. In the one case they mentioned, it sounded like they were referring to drug felonies.

Drug felonies apply to everyone...regardless of race.

Reminds me of the old early 2000s NJ turnpike study. Police were being accused of racial profiling in who they stopped l...so a study was commissioned to see who was speeding. Radars and cameras were set up....and a panel of 3 judges were used to determine the race of the driver. When they agreed on race, they recorded the speed.

Speeding was defined as 15mph over the limit. They collected data on over 10k drivers. The results? Black drivers were speeding about 2.5 times as often as white drivers. If traffic stops were proportional....they should actually have been stopped more often than they were.

This was a massively unpopular study and to my knowledge, never repeated.

Now, assuming the results are accurate....does that mean speed limits are racist? I have no problem discussing whether or not non-violent drug offenses should be felonies....but the race of offenders shouldn't even enter into that discussion. That's a choice....people choose to sell drugs.



Correct, I realize you're not suggesting that you're asking anyone to join a movement...my point was that such movements exist solely for the purposes of undermining other movements.

I don't know that they do....I've seen it suggested, but I've never seen evidence of it.

I'm referring to these "counter-movements", because their very existence demonstrate that biases do still exist even though people are under the impression that "it's not much of a problem anymore".

Do you have any evidence these are created for the purpose of undermining some other movement?

If a black person advocating for more police accountability and looking into why black men are being shot at a 2.5:1 rate compared to white men makes someone so agitated that they feel the need to go out of their way to participate in a "blue lives matter" group to counter it, that shows that some biases still exist...and those biases don't just end with someone putting a "thin blue line" sticker on their vehicle or posting about "supporting the boys in blue" in an obscure facebook group. Some of these guys are in positions of power in organizations and have the power of hiring and firing.

No offense....but people have friends and relatives who are cops. There has been a lot of demonizing and rushing to blame cops before anyone has any evidence of a situation.

It's entirely possible that the people supporting cops simply do so because they support cops....not because they have something against black people.

The reason I was mentioning those other groups (that aren't related to race) is to highlight a pattern and mindset among far-right conservatives in our country (who currently hold a significant amount of political power). That approach and mindset is coming from a similar place...which is, members of a group that enjoyed "superiority status" for a number of years seem to feel threatened by the prospect of losing their place on a societal pedestal, and seem to react harshly to it.

And what does that have to do with calling out racism against whites?
 
Upvote 0

All Englands Skies

Christian-Syndicalist
Nov 4, 2008
1,930
545
Midlands
✟219,557.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
I've never heard anyone refer to Metalheads or Punks as "Thugs", Punks are usually just called "punks", and metalheads are more likely to draw terms like "burnout"/"slacker"/etc...nor have I ever heard that term being used to describe greasers (granted, didn't have a lot of experience with greasers being popular in my time, I think that fad fizzled out about 10-15 years before I was born)

Since the late 70's/early 80's, "Thug" (with regards to way to describe what someone's dressed like) has almost always been used as a reference to whatever style is popularized by young black men or popularized by the hip-hop scene (which obviously skews mostly black).

The google image search algorithm doesn't lie, it's built off of heuristic logic that builds up what people click on after searching for a particular term, and slowly bubbles those results up to the top of the list. (thus establishing at pattern of what people are looking for when searching for a particular term)

Search for "dressed like a thug"...

Not seeing any skinheads, greasers, rudeboys, punks, or bikers coming back high on the list.

It's all pictures of young black people and whatever fashion style is prevalent at the time (or pictures of white guys trying to copy that style)


All those styles were portrayed as thugs/lowlives and stereotyped as thugs at some time in history, you used the term "historic", nowadays they're not stereotyped as thugs anymore, but that's due to the era's of such styles being past. Also though they might not be specifically referred too by the specific term "thug", in certain parts of history they were clearly seen as a lowlife criminal element.
The reason the term thug is so connected with hip hop style is because its become stylized and self referential. The image was also around crime, I mean to the point of glorifying it, it was a large part of the image.

Over here in the UK, the term "Thug" was interchangeable usually with the Skinheads in the 1970's and 80's and than more recently in the 2000's the "thug" stereotype became the "Chav".
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
All those styles were portrayed as thugs/lowlives and stereotyped as thugs at some time in history, you used the term "historic", nowadays they're not stereotyped as thugs anymore, but that's due to the era's of such styles being past. Also though they might not be specifically referred too by the specific term "thug", in certain parts of history they were clearly seen as a lowlife criminal element.
The reason the term thug is so connected with hip hop style is because its become stylized and self referential. The image was also around crime, I mean to the point of glorifying it, it was a large part of the image.

Over here in the UK, the term "Thug" was interchangeable usually with the Skinheads in the 1970's and 80's and than more recently in the 2000's the "thug" stereotype became the "Chav".

It's odd when people pretend this correlation between the word "thug" and hip-hop/rap was something concocted by white people...

Pop Smoke killed in gang-related shooting inside Hollywood Hills home, sources say
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Darkhorse
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Now, assuming the results are accurate....does that mean speed limits are racist? I have no problem discussing whether or not non-violent drug offenses should be felonies....but the race of offenders shouldn't even enter into that discussion. That's a choice....people choose to sell drugs.

It depends on the impetus behind why a certain behavior was criminalized in in the first place. If you read someone of the articles pertaining to "Jim Crow Felon Disenfranchisement" efforts, it's like the equivalent of seeking out a behavior that I know one particular demographic is more likely to engage in, and disproportionately criminalizing it as a means to lock them up or keep them out of the voting booth.

...and those kinds of, what I would call, "suspicious criminalization" didn't end with Jim Crow. One could make a strong argument that there were some racial motivations behind cocaine laws

Crack vrs. Powder Cocaine: One Drug, Two Penalties


Do you have any evidence these are created for the purpose of undermining some other movement?

Even the naming of some of those movements would suggest that they're simply attempting to "rebuttal" other movements.

"Blue Lives Matter"
"Straight Pride Parade"

Just a coincidence that these didn't show up until after "Black Lives Matter" and "Gay Pride Parades", and that the movements opted to use the same naming convention?

No offense....but people have friends and relatives who are cops. There has been a lot of demonizing and rushing to blame cops before anyone has any evidence of a situation.

There is some demonizing that occurs, however, in most cases, people are calling for accountability and better training in using non-lethal means, and those calls are immediately conflated with "demonizing cops".

Saying that "a cop should have used non-lethal means to handle an unarmed suspect" or that "the cop shouldn't be shooting at a person who's laying on the ground with their hands up" isn't demonizing them, it's asking them to do their jobs better.

I have 2 family members in the profession...love them dearly, but there is a skewed mindset that seems to be found among many in the profession that because a job is dangerous, that somehow justifies certain behavior or warrants "looking the other way" on certain matters.

And what does that have to do with calling out racism against whites?

Because it ties in with some of the underlying dismissive attitudes and failure to acknowledge context & history on the part of some folks, which continues to fuel more feelings of animus in the first place.

It's basically the equivalent of telling a person who's angry about something to "calm down" in a dismissive tone, it's just going to make them more angry rather than having a productive conversation and sincerely trying to understand why they're angry.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
My problem with the video titled “disenfranchisement of black people” is they act as if the laws in question that results in a lot of blacks in jail applies only to blacks when it is applied to everybody.

...that's why my reply to the other poster mentioned looking for the impetus behind creating the laws in the first place.

Just as an example:
If I'm a city council member, and have had a history of having some "not so great things" to say about Irish Americans. And go out of my way to find a "crime of moral turpitude" that I know they're statistically engaging in more often, and go out of my way to make sure that particular crime is a disqualifier for voting,
It'd be pretty clear what I was trying to do there, and simply saying "it's not prejudiced, anyone who commits that crime gets the same punishment" is just trying to leverage some sort of deniability.


If you look at the history behind Jim Crow era disenfranchisement, the people behind those laws weren't even coy about their motivation for making them.

'To Disenfranchise Every Negro That I Could'

The very fact that the only concern with some of the disenfranchisement laws is that "they may reach too many white men as well", and that's the only reason they didn't make them even more sweeping than they did.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
So in your opinion, it takes approx 5 generations after legal segregation (1968 civil rights amendment) before black people should be treated equally to white people? Is this what you are saying?

You're pulling a bait and switch there..."how many generations after X should black people be treated equally?" wasn't the original question you asked, so that wasn't the question I answered.

Your original question was:
How many generations after segregation is it gonna be used as an excuse for a lack of success, bad behavior, and bigotry from black people?

To that, I provided the stats showing that, in the US, it takes 5 generations to break the poverty cycle according to OECD.

So, given that we've both acknowledged that laws of the past have been responsible for the initial state of poverty much of the black community was placed into, and that under normal conditions, it would take 5 generations to break that cycle, racist laws from pre-1968 aren't an "excuse" for a lack of financial success, they're a valid reason/explanation for a lack of success.

Meaning, it's quite feasible for a black person, still in sub-par economic conditions in the south in 2020, to lay blame on the entities that made the laws that created initial condition of poverty in the first place.

The resentment and anger starts to kick in when people (who aren't in that situation, or have been one of the folks fortunate to be in that 10% of folks who've enjoyed upward mobility from their prior generation) tries to tell them that their reasoning isn't valid and their situation is their own fault. (regardless of whether or not it's coming from a place racial bigotry)

That's not just on racial lines either...same goes for all poverty. (it just so happens to be that a substantial portion of black poverty was largely created out of racist environments years ago, as to where other forms of poverty can be attributed to various unfavorable market conditions)
The same way it'd be unreasonable for me (who was fortunate enough to have grandparents who had decent incomes, and have benefited from that) to drive to the trailer park 20 miles away, and tell them "this is your own doing, the reason you don't have a nice house like me is because you haven't worked hard enough, or because there's some sort of culture problem in the trailer park".

Me being secure enough to admit that the disparity (that's tipped in my favor) isn't 100% the result of my own doing doesn't diminish the fact that I did/do work hard for what I have, it just acknowledges the fact that my current standard of living compared to theirs is partly due to the benefits of generational income patterns that are out of both of our control.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ken-1122

Newbie
Jan 30, 2011
13,574
1,790
✟225,690.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
You're pulling a bait and switch there..."how many generations after X should black people be treated equally?" wasn't the original question you asked, so that wasn't the question I answered.

Your original question was:
How many generations after segregation is it gonna be used as an excuse for a lack of success, bad behavior, and bigotry from black people?

To that, I provided the stats showing that, in the US, it takes 5 generations to break the poverty cycle according to OECD.
.
My original question was;

To what end? How many generations after segregation is it gonna be used as an excuse for a lack of success, bad behavior, and bigotry from black people? When are you gonna start applying the same standards to us that you apply to everybody else? IOW when are you gonna start treating us as equal?

I think I was very clear my question was about applying the same standards to black people that you apply to everyone else, which is how you treat us as equals. My question was not about poverty. I asked a question about treatment and you answered about poverty; care to try again?
 
Upvote 0

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
My original question was;

To what end? How many generations after segregation is it gonna be used as an excuse for a lack of success, bad behavior, and bigotry from black people? When are you gonna start applying the same standards to us that you apply to everybody else? IOW when are you gonna start treating us as equal?

I think I was very clear my question was about applying the same standards to black people that you apply to everyone else, which is how you treat us as equals. My question was not about poverty. I asked a question about treatment and you answered about poverty; care to try again?

You're still asking two different questions here "how long is it going to be an excuse for lack of success?" vs. "when are you gonna start treating us as equal?" are addressing two different things.

Something explaining why an inequity exists is simply providing reasoning and has nothing to do with treatment of other people.

For instance, I could say "The reason why John is having hard times is because he broke his leg on the job, got laid off, and got caught up with pain pills and hasn't been able to bounce back yet". That has nothing to do with me treating him as equal or unequal, it's just providing the reasons for a particular financial outcome.

So, to summarize...
I did answer your original question, in that the generational income pattern data I provided explains that past institutional racism isn't just "an excuse for lack of success", it's perfectly valid and reasonable explanation for a financial inequity that exists. It's got nothing to do with treating people as equal or unequal in present day.


Technically, I could make the argument that having the expectation that a group of people should be expected to bounce back from poverty exponentially faster than the average rate (of 5 generations), otherwise "they're just using it as an excuse" is treating them unequally, as it's putting an expectation on them that's not being placed on anyone else, and drastically contrasts the statistical data we have on the subject.

For instance, if we were talking about the issue of drug addiction...a widely accepted stat is that it takes approximately 90 days to both A) break the chemical addiction as well as B) rewire your brain to remove the behavioral patterns that go along with it to avoid relapse.

If I singled out one particular group, and put the expectation on them that they should be able to accomplish that in 5 days and if they don't "they're just making an excuse", that would be treating them unfairly.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
37,390
11,318
✟433,509.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
It depends on the impetus behind why a certain behavior was criminalized in in the first place.

Ok...motives.

One could make a strong argument that there were some racial motivations behind cocaine laws

You have any evidence that the people who wrote that law were motivated by locking up black people?

Even the naming of some of those movements would suggest that they're simply attempting to "rebuttal" other movements.

"Blue Lives Matter"
"Straight Pride Parade"

Just a coincidence that these didn't show up until after "Black Lives Matter" and "Gay Pride Parades", and that the movements opted to use the same naming convention?

Coincidence? No. How do you infer a reason for creating them based on that though?

I think there's a direct correlation between the creation of black lives matter....protests of people marching in the streets chanting about killing cops....cops getting ambushed and killed....and the creation of blue lives matter.

There is some demonizing that occurs, however, in most cases, people are calling for accountability and better training in using non-lethal means, and those calls are immediately conflated with "demonizing cops".

How does one call for accountability when an investigation has just started?

That's part of the process of accountability.

Saying that "a cop should have used non-lethal means to handle an unarmed suspect" or that "the cop shouldn't be shooting at a person who's laying on the ground with their hands up" isn't demonizing them, it's asking them to do their jobs better.

Nope...demonizing them would be stuff like this....

1945f918cdcf48a084a596a20994e42c_18.jpg


Of course I'm referring to the "Stop Racist Police Terror" sign.

I have 2 family members in the profession...love them dearly, but there is a skewed mindset that seems to be found among many in the profession that because a job is dangerous, that somehow justifies certain behavior or warrants "looking the other way" on certain matters.

Oh? What are they "looking the other way" on?

Because it ties in with some of the underlying dismissive attitudes and failure to acknowledge context & history on the part of some folks, which continues to fuel more feelings of animus in the first place.

It's basically the equivalent of telling a person who's angry about something to "calm down" in a dismissive tone, it's just going to make them more angry rather than having a productive conversation and sincerely trying to understand why they're angry.

She's being racist....she's racially discriminating....

The problem isn't that she's angry....she can be angry all she likes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

ThatRobGuy

Part of the IT crowd
Supporter
Sep 4, 2005
24,643
14,530
Here
✟1,196,492.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
You have any evidence that the people who wrote that law were motivated by locking up black people?

Many of the drug laws racist intent...and in some cases, the authors of such policies didn't even hide it.

Nixon's own domestic policy advisor had this to say:

“You want to know what this was really all about?” he asked with the bluntness of a man who, after public disgrace and a stretch in federal prison, had little left to protect. “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or blacks, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”


This link also has an interesting take on the matter:
Crack vrs. Powder Cocaine: One Drug, Two Penalties

Coincidence? No. How do you infer a reason for creating them based on that though?

I think there's a direct correlation between the creation of black lives matter....protests of people marching in the streets chanting about killing cops....cops getting ambushed and killed....and the creation of blue lives matter.

Why Blue Lives Matter Is Just as Dangerous as White Lives Matter

The growing political support for White Lives Matters and Blues Lives Matter has ironically occurred in a period in which the deaths of police officers in the line duty are down 8% in 2016 compared to previous years. In fact— contrary to criticisms that Black Lives Matter incites violence against cops and what critics perceive as U.S. President Barack Obama's lack of support for law enforcement—police fatalities incurred in the line of duty between 2009 and 2015 are at the lowest levels in more than 30 years. Data collected on police fatalities simply does not show a growing crisis of mortal attacks on law enforcement.

The cooptation of the phrase "Black Lives Matter" for Blue Lives Matter and White Lives Matter by those opposing the Movement for Black Lives and by a national organization of police officers and their supporters epitomizes a willful ignorance about racist policing. Using the “Lives Matter” formulation rallies people wedded to the idea that police are under attack in an unprecedented way.


How does one call for accountability when an investigation has just started?

That's part of the process of accountability.

Yes, and when that process fails repeatedly, people lose faith in that process and seek accountability via legislative means rather than judicial/executive ones.

The "we investigated ourselves and cleared ourselves of any wrong doing" by the departments themselves hasn't shown to be particularly effective.

The court angle hasn't been very effective (it's the same system that found Brailsford innocent after executing an unarmed man who was on all 4's crying please don't shoot while outnumbered by armed cops 3-to-1), and then allowed the police force to re-hire him for 20 days, just so they could grant him a medical discharge so he could get his pension.

Look at the number of times when a judge clears the officer in a criminal case, then weeks later, a civil suit is filed and the police force was found to be guilty of wrongdoing, then it's taxpayers who get to pay for it when the city settles with the family.


Oh? What are they "looking the other way" on?

Anecdotes are not evidence, obviously, but based on the feedback I've heard from my family members in the profession, if you're a cop and get pulled over and are "a little tipsy", as long as you're not completely wasted, the normal operating procedure is to give "professional courtesy". There are news stories that cover such events occurring as well.

You can even look at documented statements from officers on the matter from interviews:
This is from a pro-police publication that interviews officers and gauges attitudes on a wide variety of topics (sort of like a gallup poll for cops)
offdutyticketpoll1.jpg


“I feel there are two things to consider: 1. An off-duty officer will help you if he is driving by and you need help. 2. We should treat our brother/sister officers like we want to be treated. If we would want professional courtesy when we get pulled over then we should pay the same respect back. The bottom line: we should not be giving other cops tickets, period.”
— Officer Anthony Signore, Redding (Conn.) Police Dept.


“I'm a Sgt. with my department with 18 years of service. Normally, I do not give other officers traffic tickets, but I have done so in the past.”
— Sgt. Guy Finney, La Coste (Texas) Police Dept.



“Law enforcement officers need to stick together, now more than ever! Petty nonsense like writing other cops is ridiculous and it should be taught in all police academies that you don’t write [up] cops!”
— Detective Gary Olivier, Rye (N.Y.) Police Dept.


“I’ve got more important things to do than cite a fellow officer. I haven’t found a need to do so in 37 years on the job.”
— Sgt. Brian Stover

“I thought ‘blue was blue’ but it appears from the poll that isn't the case anymore! Glad I'm retired after 31 years in LE. The job isn't the brotherhood it used to be.”
— Ken Frisbie, Retired from Chicopee (Mass.) Police Dept. since Sept. 2003

“Sorry, but to the officers that issue citations to other officers, I have to say: If you’re on a traffic stop and you’re getting your butt kicked, you had better pray an off-duty officer is driving by. We need to take care of each other because the general public is most likely not going to.”

— Officer Mike Ely, Aurora (Ill.) Police Dept.

Do these kinds of statements (combined with 38% officers responding opening saying "no, I don't ticket other officers, and over half saying it depends") give you a lot of confidence?
 
Upvote 0