Halloween and "cultural appropriation".

gaara4158 · Feb 15, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
To be fair, I did scan over it a bit, and the article seems to have the position that any disparity between races is the result of institutional racism. One point it made about Washington DC was:

In Washington D.C Black people make up 46% of the population but composed 72% of the people stopped even though the contraband hit rates between the two races are not statistically significant.

Now Washington DC has a black police chief, majority black police force, 9 of 12 city council members either black or brown, and even a black mayor, and they're all liberals. So I wonder why would a city where nearly every slot of political power is filled by liberal black people be an example of institutional racism against black people? Are we to assume when black people get into a position of power that they become racist against their own people? How do you explain this?

It’s not a result of institutional racism. It’s a manifestation of institutional racism. When systems functioning as they are designed to do adversely affect one or more races disproportionately to the rest by no fault of their own, that’s institutional racism. It doesn’t require any individual racists to function, but it doesn’t preclude it either.

Now, in the case of DC, that’s pretty cut-and-dry individual racism driving the institutional racism, despite the racial makeup of the police force. There are either some very busy white cops, or it’s possible to be biased against your own race. Given the lengthy discussion I’ve had with you, I’m putting my money on the latter.

Strathos · Feb 15, 2021

I thought the idea was that a lot of the bias was subconscious. People (regardless of race or political views) are raised with negative media portrayals of black people, such as being more likely to commit crimes and use illegal drugs, so when they grow up to be police officers they end up reinforcing that, even if they don't realize it.

Ken-1122 · Feb 15, 2021

gaara4158 said:
It’s not a result of institutional racism. It’s a manifestation of institutional racism.

How are you defining the difference?

gaara4158 said:
When systems functioning as they are designed to do adversely affect one or more races disproportionately to the rest by no fault of their own, that’s institutional racism.

How do you know it is through no fault of their own? And what system do you know of that is designed to discriminate against black people?

gaara4158 said:
It doesn’t require any individual racists to function, but it doesn’t preclude it either.

Examples?

gaara4158 said:
Now, in the case of DC, that’s pretty cut-and-dry individual racism driving the institutional racism, despite the racial makeup of the police force. There are either some very busy white cops, or it’s possible to be biased against your own race. Given the lengthy discussion I’ve had with you, I’m putting my money on the latter.

So rather than considering the possibility that there is a culture that is causing black people to be at odds with the law at a disproportionate rate compared to other races, in a city where black people control the police department, mayor’s office, and pretty much every position of power, you would rather assume those black people in positions of power turn white supremist rather than suggest those being locked up are being locked up for legitimate reasons. Is this the method to your madness?

gaara4158 · Feb 16, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
How are you defining the difference?

Systemic racism is the phenomenon of social/public/private institutions producing racially inequitable results by no fault of the victims themselves. When looking at examples of such inequitable results, those results are the systemic racism. It doesn’t make sense to question whether they’re because of institutional racism.

Ken-1122 said:
How do you know it is through no fault of their own? And what system do you know of that is designed to discriminate against black people?

Your example, the DC police, meets these standards. Black people being disproportionately stopped and searched despite being no more guilty in the end than white people isn’t the fault of those black people.

Ken-1122 said:
Examples?

Besides yours? Sure. Take public education. Funding for public education is largely sourced from local property taxes. The more expensive the properties, the better-funded the schools. Naturally, poor neighborhoods receive the lowest-quality educations, and since black people are disproportionately poor, the funding method of public schools disproportionately affects black students. There may be no law stating “black students shall have poor education,” and there may not be racist superintendents assigning bad teachers to black students, but the systems in place still end up having a greater percentage of the black population receiving a poor education than the respective population of white people.

Ken-1122 said:
So rather than considering the possibility that there is a culture that is causing black people to be at odds with the law at a disproportionate rate compared to other races, in a city where black people control the police department, mayor’s office, and pretty much every position of power, you would rather assume those black people in positions of power turn white supremist rather than suggest those being locked up are being locked up for legitimate reasons. Is this the method to your madness?

The problem is on the side of the law, since the black people from your example aren’t turning up guilty any more frequently than white people, despite being stopped and searched more. If you want to say that the black people are just constantly acting suspiciously, that won’t fly either. Whatever their behavior, it’s not associated with guilt any more than that of white people. This would mean the cops have an inaccurate concept of what a guilty black person actually looks like. That’s implicit racial bias.

Ken-1122 · Feb 16, 2021

gaara4158 said:
Systemic racism is the phenomenon of social/public/private institutions producing racially inequitable results by no fault of the victims themselves. When looking at examples of such inequitable results, those results are the systemic racism. It doesn’t make sense to question whether they’re because of institutional racism.

I find it lazy to assume whenever there is inequality of outcome in results between the races, racism is always the answer. There are so many other factors that need to be factored into this equation; to simply claim racism, is a poor argument to make.

gaara4158 said:
Your example, the DC police, meets these standards. Black people being disproportionately stopped and searched despite being no more guilty in the end than white people isn’t the fault of those black people.

Perhaps it is their fault. Perhaps guilty or not, they are doing something, or wearing something, white people are not doing or wearing that gives black police officers reason to suspect them.

gaara4158 said:
Besides yours? Sure. Take public education. Funding for public education is largely sourced from local property taxes.

No, most school funding is via state taxes or federal taxes; but there is a percentage of taxes that is from local property taxes.

gaara4158 said:
The more expensive the properties, the better-funded the schools. Naturally, poor neighborhoods receive the lowest-quality educations, and since black people are disproportionately poor, the funding method of public schools disproportionately affects black students.

But that is not a race thing, that is an economics thing; the more money you have, the better schools your kids go to regardless of race.

gaara4158 said:
There may be no law stating “black students shall have poor education,” and there may not be racist superintendents assigning bad teachers to black students, but the systems in place still end up having a greater percentage of the black population receiving a poor education than the respective population of white people.

The fact that poor white students go to sub par schools for the same reason, how can you call this a race thing?

gaara4158 said:
The problem is on the side of the law, since the black people from your example aren’t turning up guilty any more frequently than white people, despite being stopped and searched more. If you want to say that the black people are just constantly acting suspiciously, that won’t fly either. Whatever their behavior, it’s not associated with guilt any more than that of white people. This would mean the cops have an inaccurate concept of what a guilty black person actually looks like. That’s implicit racial bias.

A person go inside a store wearing baggy clothes on a hot day. Baggy clothes is associated with shoplifting regardless of if the person is guilty or not. The person could just like the style of baggy clothes, but his dress is associated with shoplifting more than a person wearing short pants and a T shirt, and the guy wearing baggy clothes will get the attention of store security regardless of race.
It is absurd to assume that because the end result is the same, these black people aren’t doing things that raises suspicion of the police.

muichimotsu · Feb 16, 2021

Systemic racism is the phenomenon of social/public/private institutions producing racially inequitable results by no fault of the victims themselves. When looking at examples of such inequitable results, those results are the systemic racism. It doesn’t make sense to question whether they’re because of institutional racism.

I'm seeing a trend where the issue is those who deny systemic racism will basically be unable to accept that some problems in society are not some intentional thing, either by individuals or by legislation, but simply because of prior situations that were improved (like how there could be systemic aspects of misogyny and racial inequality because of how America was founded on the idea that only white men could vote, possibly even white landowners only, I forget). They cannot understand a problem except by attributing agency and thus blame, which is a problematic angle to take

Ken-1122 · Feb 16, 2021

muichimotsu said:
I'm seeing a trend where the issue is those who deny systemic racism will basically be unable to accept that some problems in society are not some intentional thing, either by individuals or by legislation, but simply because of prior situations that were improved (like how there could be systemic aspects of misogyny and racial inequality because of how America was founded on the idea that only white men could vote, possibly even white landowners only, I forget). They cannot understand a problem except by attributing agency and thus blame, which is a problematic angle to take

Do you really believe in today's economy landowners have more rights than non land owners? Really??? What happened hundreds of years ago has little to do with what goes on today; times have changed.

muichimotsu · Feb 17, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
Do you really believe in today's economy landowners have more rights than non land owners? Really??? What happened hundreds of years ago has little to do with what goes on today; times have changed.

Considering landowners, I'm pretty sure you'd agree, would have more capital to mobilize in regards to what they can offer versus mere services, yeah, that's still technically a thing, in the same vein as the rich getting richer and making the middle class a thing of the past because of how people can't compete with those who already have an advantage.

Equity is not the same as equality, the latter is just expecting things to be fair, the other is acknowledging that it likely isn't, just by basic evidence and observation. It'd be like expecting every animal to be judged by their ability to climb a tree and then blaming the fish for failing.

gaara4158 · Feb 17, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
I find it lazy to assume whenever there is inequality of outcome in results between the races, racism is always the answer. There are so many other factors that need to be factored into this equation; to simply claim racism, is a poor argument to make.

You’re not grasping my argument. Racism isn’t the “answer” here. It’s the name that we call this phenomenon because of the results the systems produce.

Ken-1122 said:
Perhaps it is their fault. Perhaps guilty or not, they are doing something, or wearing something, white people are not doing or wearing that gives black police officers reason to suspect them.

They are by definition acting no more suspiciously than white people. I anticipated this response from you, which is why I already dealt with it.

Ken-1122 said:
No, most school funding is via state taxes or federal taxes; but there is a percentage of taxes that is from local property taxes.

Federal funding accounts for only 8% of public school funding. The state provides a significant percentage along with property taxes, but differences in state revenue suffer the same inequities as different school districts.

Ken-1122 said:
But that is not a race thing, that is an economics thing; the more money you have, the better schools your kids go to regardless of race.

Because it affects a higher percentage of the black population than the white population, it is considered a racial inequity. It’s not bigotry on anyone’s part, like I said.

Ken-1122 said:
The fact that poor white students go to sub par schools for the same reason, how can you call this a race thing?

Again, because a higher percentage of black students are poor.

Ken-1122 said:
A person go inside a store wearing baggy clothes on a hot day. Baggy clothes is associated with shoplifting regardless of if the person is guilty or not. The person could just like the style of baggy clothes, but his dress is associated with shoplifting more than a person wearing short pants and a T shirt, and the guy wearing baggy clothes will get the attention of store security regardless of race.
It is absurd to assume that because the end result is the same, these black people aren’t doing things that raises suspicion of the police.

You have a vivid imagination, but you’re still failing to grasp the point. Whatever excuse the police had for suspecting the black people, it was a poor one, because it failed to produce more hits than on the white people they searched. If I’m not speeding but the cop’s radar gun is unreliable when it comes to cars that come in my color, is it my fault when they pull me over?

gaara4158 · Feb 17, 2021

muichimotsu said:
I'm seeing a trend where the issue is those who deny systemic racism will basically be unable to accept that some problems in society are not some intentional thing, either by individuals or by legislation, but simply because of prior situations that were improved (like how there could be systemic aspects of misogyny and racial inequality because of how America was founded on the idea that only white men could vote, possibly even white landowners only, I forget). They cannot understand a problem except by attributing agency and thus blame, which is a problematic angle to take

Agent-seeking is one of the skills and predilections evolution has hard-wired into us as humans, and some believe it’s this attribute that causes us to conjure up gods, ghosts, and conspiracies as explanations for phenomena we don’t understand. I’ve never considered that this human habit might also contribute to some people’s insistence on blaming individuals for problems demonstrably caused by systems. That makes a lot of sense.

Ken-1122 · Feb 17, 2021

muichimotsu said:
Considering landowners, I'm pretty sure you'd agree, would have more capital to mobilize in regards to what they can offer versus mere services, yeah, that's still technically a thing, in the same vein as the rich getting richer and making the middle class a thing of the past because of how people can't compete with those who already have an advantage.

In today’s economy, the richest people are not land owners. Landowners were a big deal 200 years ago, but not today. A lot of things have changed ya know.

muichimotsu said:
Equity is not the same as equality, the latter is just expecting things to be fair, the other is acknowledging that it likely isn't, just by basic evidence and observation. It'd be like expecting every animal to be judged by their ability to climb a tree and then blaming the fish for failing.

Equality is fairness. Equity is the idea of being unfair in order to achieve equal outcome.

Ken-1122 · Feb 17, 2021

gaara4158 said:
You’re not grasping my argument. Racism isn’t the “answer” here. It’s the name that we call this phenomenon because of the results the systems produce.

No; inequality of outcome is not called racism. Racism is unfair; equality and fairness almost always results in unequal outcome.

gaara4158 said:
They are by definition acting no more suspiciously than white people.

What definition are you talking about?

gaara4158 said:
Because it affects a higher percentage of the black population than the white population, it is considered a racial inequity. It’s not bigotry on anyone’s part, like I said.

No, it’s called economic inequality, because the impoverished are effected regardless of race.

gaara4158 said:
Again, because a higher percentage of black students are poor.

There are more poor whites than poor blacks; how can you call poverty racism against blacks when it effects more whites?

gaara4158 said:
Whatever excuse the police had for suspecting the black people, it was a poor one, because it failed to produce more hits than on the white people they searched.

It doesn’t have to! If there is something about you that is suspicious, it is the cops job to investigate.

gaara4158 said:
If I’m not speeding but the cop’s radar gun is unreliable when it comes to cars that come in my color, is it my fault when they pull me over?

I’m not saying it is anybody’s fault, if a faulty radar gun is unreliable with red cars, and you get pulled over for driving a red car, it would be foolish to say you were pulled over because of your race; the reality is you were pulled over because your car was red.

muichimotsu · Feb 18, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
In today’s economy, the richest people are not land owners. Landowners were a big deal 200 years ago, but not today. A lot of things have changed ya know.

Equality is fairness. Equity is the idea of being unfair in order to achieve equal outcome.

No, you're just denying reality now: do you really think former president Trump wasn't exceptionally rich because he owned land and mobilized businesses accordingly (and cheaped contractors out of lots of money?). How is land ownership not a sign of wealth? How many people have the means to legitimately own land in the sense that we understand it today versus renting a property?

Equality is equal outcome, I've discussed this elsewhere, you're mistaking the idea of what equality entails in a socioeconomic context of maximizing opportunity rather than forcing the same outcome for everyone (which stagnates creativity and growth)

I don't want equal outcome, you're strawmanning yet again to make me the bad guy because you seemingly cannot imagine your ideal world where everyone just works hard and gets ahead could be...deluded!

gaara4158 · Feb 18, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
No; inequality of outcome is not called racism. Racism is unfair; equality and fairness almost always results in unequal outcome.

We’re not just talking about outcomes. We’re talking about opportunities and institutional functions that directly affect outcomes.

Ken-1122 said:
What definition are you talking about?

“Suspicious.” As in, acting in a way consistent with someone who is hiding something. The black people who were searched turned out to be hiding something at the same rate as the white people, despite being searched more often. Therefore, whatever their behavior was like, it was no more consistent with people hiding something — no more suspicious — than the white people. Are you tracking now?

Ken-1122 said:
No, it’s called economic inequality, because the impoverished are effected regardless of race.

Yes, and if you’ll notice, my prescribed systemic changes directly target economic inequality.

Ken-1122 said:
There are more poor whites than poor blacks; how can you call poverty racism against blacks when it effects more whites?

It affects a greater proportion of the black population than it does the white population. The native black poverty rate is 25%. The native white poverty rate is 7%.

Ken-1122 said:
It doesn’t have to! If there is something about you that is suspicious, it is the cops job to investigate.

Suspicious is subjective. There is nothing objectively more suspicious about the black people who were searched than then white people , as explained above. The problem lies with the police’s judgement. Let’s look into that.

Ken-1122 said:
I’m not saying it is anybody’s fault, if a faulty radar gun is unreliable with red cars, and you get pulled over for driving a red car, it would be foolish to say you were pulled over because of your race; the reality is you were pulled over because your car was red.

You understand the color of the car was a metaphor for race, right? No need to bring in the race of the driver for the metaphor to work. I’m once again struggling to buy that you missed the point by that far.

Ken-1122 · Feb 18, 2021

muichimotsu said:
No, you're just denying reality now: do you really think former president Trump wasn't exceptionally rich because he owned land and mobilized businesses accordingly (and cheaped contractors out of lots of money?). How is land ownership not a sign of wealth? How many people have the means to legitimately own land in the sense that we understand it today versus renting a property?

Yeah; Trump is one of those few land owners who are among the richest, but compare him to those in the tech industry who often rent! You know; guys like Bezos, Gates, Zukerberg....

muichimotsu said:
Equality is equal outcome, I've discussed this elsewhere, you're mistaking the idea of what equality entails in a socioeconomic context of maximizing opportunity rather than forcing the same outcome for everyone (which stagnates creativity and growth)

No; equality rarely results in equal outcome. In the real world when 2 guys begin a race at the same start line, they rarely cross the finish line at the exact same time.

muichimotsu said:
I don't want equal outcome, you're strawmanning yet again to make me the bad guy because you seemingly cannot imagine your ideal world where everyone just works hard and gets ahead could be...deluded!

Didn't you just make the claim equality IS equal outcome? So you don't want (according to you) equality?

gaara4158 · Feb 18, 2021

Sorry to jump in, @muichimotsu but this one’s just too juicy.

Ken-1122 said:
Yeah; Trump is one of those few land owners who are among the richest, but compare him to those in the tech industry who often rent! You know; guys like Bezos, Gates, Zukerberg....

This is by far the strangest hill you’ve chosen to die on. Are you allergic to facts? Landowners are on average 36-45 times more wealthy than renters, according to 2016 data. Further, the mega-billionaires you listed absolutely own land. Bezos is the country’s 25th largest landowner. Gates is the country’s largest farmland owner with over 800,000 acres in his name. Zuck owns 10 sprawling compounds and their surrounding properties. You couldn’t be more wrong about land ownership if you tried. How preposterous.

Seriously. This is an error on your part so severe that if it were chess you’d be forced to resign. Get the heck out of here.

Ken-1122 · Feb 18, 2021

gaara4158 said:
Sorry to jump in, @muichimotsu but this one’s just too juicy.

This is by far the strangest hill you’ve chosen to die on. Are you allergic to facts? Landowners are on average 36-45 times more wealthy than renters, according to 2016 data. Further, the mega-billionaires you listed absolutely own land. Bezos is the country’s 25th largest landowner. Gates is the country’s largest farmland owner with over 800,000 acres in his name. Zuck owns 10 sprawling compounds and their surrounding properties. You couldn’t be more wrong about land ownership if you tried. How preposterous.

Seriously. This is an error on your part so severe that if it were chess you’d be forced to resign. Get the heck out of here.

These guys are invested in all sorts of stuff; but they didn't build their fortunes by becoming landowners, their fortunes was built in the Tech industry. My point is, the laws of today do not favor landowners, and they don't favor white people over black people the way they did hundreds of years ago; things have changed. My point stands.

Ken-1122 · Feb 18, 2021

gaara4158 said:
We’re not just talking about outcomes. We’re talking about opportunities and institutional functions that directly affect outcomes.

What about culture? Don't that affect outcomes? When you have black cops arresting black people at a disproportionate rate, how can you call that racism? It must be something else; culture perhaps?

gaara4158 said:
“Suspicious.” As in, acting in a way consistent with someone who is hiding something. The black people who were searched turned out to be hiding something at the same rate as the white people, despite being searched more often. Therefore, whatever their behavior was like, it was no more consistent with people hiding something — no more suspicious — than the white people. Are you tracking now?

You've used the term "by definition" out of context. Just because they are searched more often (by black officers) doesn't mean they don't look more suspicious. Unless you are there during the traffic stop, you have no leg to stand on when you claim it is about racism.

gaara4158 said:
It affects a greater proportion of the black population than it does the white population. The native black poverty rate is 25%. The native white poverty rate is 7%.

Still; it's an economics thing, not a racial thing.

gaara4158 said:
Suspicious is subjective. There is nothing objectively more suspicious about the black people who were searched than then white people , as explained above.

You assume the behaviors are the same; suppose they are not?

gaara4158 said:
The problem lies with the police’s judgement. Let’s look into that.

Okay; let's look. Why would a black cop be more suspicious of black people?

gaara4158 · Feb 18, 2021

Ken-1122 said:
These guys are invested in all sorts of stuff; but they didn't build their fortunes by becoming landowners, their fortunes was built in the Tech industry. My point is, the laws of today do not favor landowners, and they don't favor white people over black people the way they did hundreds of years ago; things have changed. My point stands.

Owning land grants you entitlement to the equity generated by the increasing market value of that land by law, so yes, laws do favor landowners. Your point is nothing.

Ken-1122 said:
What about culture? Don't that affect outcomes? When you have black cops arresting black people at a disproportionate rate, how can you call that racism? It must be something else; culture perhaps?

We’ve beaten your culture argument to death already. If any culture is to blame, it’s a police culture of targeting black people.

Ken-1122 said:
You've used the term "by definition" out of context. Just because they are searched more often (by black officers) doesn't mean they don't look more suspicious. Unless you are there during the traffic stop, you have no leg to stand on when you claim it is about racism.

They look more suspicious to the officers. As in, the officers get a “feeling” that the black people are hiding something, even though they’re not. Whatever’s going on, it’s a problem on the officer’s side. It can’t be on the black people’s side, because they’re not hiding things any more often than white people. What I’m saying is the police are wrong to get a suspicious vibe from black people over white people.

Ken-1122 said:
Still; it's an economics thing, not a racial thing.

This is class reductionism. You can’t ignore the racial inequities created by a system that favors the rich. This is a betrayal of your own racial brothers and sisters, let alone wrongheaded and myopic.

Ken-1122 said:
You assume the behaviors are the same; suppose they are not?

I assume no such thing. No matter what they’re doing, police have failed to establish an association of guilt with the behavior that makes them feel suspicious enough to search them. The police are wrong.

Ken-1122 said:
Okay; let's look. Why would a black cop be more suspicious of black people?

The same reason a black man would fight so hard and fruitlessly against facts demonstrating the clear existence of systemic racism, perhaps?

Ken-1122 · Feb 18, 2021

gaara4158 said:
Owning land grants you entitlement to the equity generated by the increasing market value of that land by law, so yes, laws do favor landowners. Your point is nothing.

That’s the case with any type of equity. You don’t need land to have equity; your argument failed.

gaara4158 said:
We’ve beaten your culture argument to death already. If any culture is to blame, it’s a police culture of targeting black people.

They look more suspicious to the officers. As in, the officers get a “feeling” that the black people are hiding something, even though they’re not. Whatever’s going on, it’s a problem on the officer’s side. It can’t be on the black people’s side, because they’re not hiding things any more often than white people. What I’m saying is the police are wrong to get a suspicious vibe from black people over white people.

Your assumption that the cops wrong based on numbers is pure speculation. You have no way of justifying this claim.

gaara4158 said:
This is class reductionism. You can’t ignore the racial inequities created by a system that favors the rich.

By definition, if it favors the rich, it is an economic issue not a racial one.

Halloween and "cultural appropriation".

Gen Alpha Dad

No one important

Newbie

Gen Alpha Dad

Newbie

I Spit On Perfection

Newbie

I Spit On Perfection

Gen Alpha Dad

Gen Alpha Dad

Newbie

Newbie

I Spit On Perfection

Gen Alpha Dad

Newbie

Gen Alpha Dad

Newbie

Newbie

Gen Alpha Dad

Newbie

Similar threads