Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Cheeetar]

What claim are you asking to be proved, Pisskop? That racially motivated police brutality is a big problem (in America), or that racist profiling of black people exists and is a problem (in America)?

Nobody is arguing that racial profiling happens, and I'm pretty sure I've made my position on the police power in modern day America clear.
  I'm saying that . . . impassioned cry is not going to be proven.  Would you climb into bed with that language?

I am going to be completely upfront- I don't know what you mean by what you're saying.

[LordBucket]

I'm not sure that I agree with your definition of the word itself.

...yeah, definition is unusually difficult in this case. I think in British English, the word bigot doesn't have anything to do with feelings about people at all, it has to do with intolerance of opinion, and there's been a generally messy evolution of the use of the word.

A) Dislikes a group of people without evidence (be it scientific or otherwise) or with dated/irrelevant evidence
or
B) Continues to hold onto dislikes of a person or group of people despite being shown that their reasons are false

Well, ok. I can work with those definitions. But there may be some problematic cases. For example, consider a guy who dislikes fat women or a girl who dislikes short guys. I think those are both common cases, but they probably don't generally have "scientific evidence" to support their preferences. They probably don't have "scientific-y" kinds of reasons at all. They simply dislike those groups. I'm not sure how to evaluate cases like those using your definition. You might be able to toy with "has or doesn't have personal experience in relationships with fat girls/short guys to support their opinion that they don't like them" but...I think my assertion that "it's ok to dislike people for whatever reason or lack of reason you want, just be nice to people you dislike" is a much simpler position.

If it's been proven by scientific, unbiased (unbiased is the key thing here) study to be a significant factor, then I don't care how politically incorrect it is, it's still true.

Huh, ok. Unfortunately I've found a strong tendency among people to perceive as biased anything that disagrees with their worldview, but let's play with that and see where it goes. For example:

Spoiler: Do not read if you are easily offended. Life is too short to spend it being angry at strangers on the internet. Go hug a kitten instead. (click to show/hide)

http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2009455.pdf (note: 561 page pdf)

 * "White students, however, had higher scores than Black students, on average, on all assessments. While the nationwide gaps in 2007 were narrower than in previous assessments at both grades 4 and 8 in mathematics and at grade 4 in reading, White students had average scores at least 26 points higher than Black students in each subject, on a 0-500 scale."

http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=171

(Sat scores for 2011/2012)

SAT-Critical reading
 * Black: 496
 * White: 527
 * Asian: 518

SAT-Mathematics
 * Black: 428
 * White:536
 * Asian: 595

SAT-Writing
 * Black: 417
 * White: 515
 * Asian: 528

http://www.udel.edu/educ/gottfredson/30years/Rushton-Jensen30years.pdf

 * The IQ debate became worldwide in scope when it was shown that East Asians scored higher on IQ tests than did Whites, both within the United States and in Asia, even though IQ tests were developed for use in the Euro American culture (Lynn, 1977, 1978, 1982; P. E. Vernon, 1979, 1982). Around the world, the average IQ for East Asians centers around 106; that for Whites, about 100; and that for Blacks, about 85 in the United States and 70 in sub-Saharan Africa
 * Black children from the best areas and schools (those producing the highest average scores) still average slightly lower than do White children with the lowest socioeconomic indicators

http://psychology.uwo.ca/faculty/rushtonpdfs/2010%20Review%20of%20Nisbett.pdf

 * ... compared the IQ and academic achievement scores of Black, White, and Mixed-Race children who were adopted into upper-middle-class White families in Minnesota, whose parents had a mean IQ of 120 (much higher than the population mean of 100). The biological children of the adopting parents were also tested...At age 17 adopted White children had an average IQ of about 106; Mixed-Race adoptees, 99; and adopted Blacks, 89

[Caz]

• I hate everyone who is happy all day every day with a smug smile in this grim paradise of rain and postmodern architecture.
• I hate everyone who is cheerful and dapper about being moral causes they have no understanding of.

I'm friends with two men who both have valley girl accents, are vegans who drink fair trade soy lattes, end every sentence with 'peace and love' or 'mwa,' have adamant opinions on topics they've never researched and are eternally happy or tired. They are living caricatures of all my prejudices, so far I've refrained from decapitating them.

Aliens do walk among us.

[pisskop]

What claim are you asking to be proved, Pisskop? That racially motivated police brutality is a big problem (in America), or that racist profiling of black people exists and is a problem (in America)?

Nobody is arguing that racial profiling happens, and I'm pretty sure I've made my position on the police power in modern day America clear.
  I'm saying that . . . impassioned cry is not going to be proven.  Would you climb into bed with that language?

I am going to be completely upfront- I don't know what you mean by what you're saying.

:|
Okay.  I was simply wondering if you thought the words chosen were too extreme.

---

Spoiler: @smeep (click to show/hide)

Well, now I remember why I hated this; I had to do all the research myself; and all the money shots can't be easily confirmed.  I'll see if I cant find the rest of it, but there is a fact that relative to 'white' individuals, 'black' individuals are arrested at twice the rate.  2x the rate relative to population isn't completely police bias.  Would you also like to throw in other likely factors, such as level of income, rates of single-parent households, teenage parents, intercity vs rural, college and highschool graduation rates, prior convictions, etc?  There's a lot more going on than policemen walking around engaging in

wholesale slaughter

and to pin the whole problem on racism is kind of a God-win.  Silly term, imo, but really.  This is a problem within the black community as much as without

To note, the crime rates only reflect reported crimes, and usually fail to include both the perpetrator and the victim's identifying stats.  I'd bet that a majority of the crime is black-black, another subject which never gets talked about.

Ill try this once more, and only once more. . .

The population of the U.S. according to the US census of 2010 is 308,745,538.

12.4% are identified as 'Black or African American alone'.
308,745,538 * 0.126 = 38,901,937.79 black individuals living in America on record.  Almost 40 million.

72.4% are identified as 'White alone'.
308,745,538 * 0.724 = 223,531,769.5 white individuals living in America on record.  About 223.5 million.

According to the FBI database for 2011 crimes, the following were arrested, organized by race:

White: 6,578,133.     6.6 Million  white people arrested.
Black: 2,697,539.     2.7 Million  black people arrested.


Now, this is where it gets tricky, you see.  To obtain the percentage of a given datagroup arrested you must divide the amount arrested by the total population.

First white people.
6,578,133 / 223,531,769.5 = 0.0294.  2.94% of white people in America on record were arrested in 2011.

Now black people.
2,697,539 / 38,901,937.79 = 0.0693.  6.93% of black people in America on record were arrested in 2011.


Over twice the rate.  Twice as many black people were arrested in 2011 as white people; relative to their populations.  Doesn't get any simpler than this.  This is sociology at work, chum.

Your raw numbers mean nothing.

I didnt include all my links, and some are gone, but these should suffice.
http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/law_enforcement_courts_prisons/crimes_and_crime_rates.html
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/table-43

[smeeprocket]

So you are saying, either via culture or poverty, black people are in fact more likely to commit crimes? That they are inherently more criminal? And that single parent households are inherently more likely to produce criminals,even though black fathers tend to be more present in their kids' lives even when not in the household than white fathers. And even though if you compare white poverty conviction rates versus black that disparity still remains?

Really, that all whittles this down to "black culture produces more criminals" or "black people are more likely to be criminals because they are black."

Neither of which I agree with or find to be acceptable stances on the matter. They just reinforce bias, which leads to more black convictions by racist juries and longer sentences by racist judges.

It's a neverending cycle of oppression against african americans.

edit: I have to drive an hour into town but found this study I don't have time to read that would possibly support your view of it being poverty.I will do more research when I get back.

http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html

[pisskop]

Spoiler: Smeep (click to show/hide)

So you are saying, either via culture or poverty, black people are in fact more likely to commit crimes?

This was just shown to be true, insofar as arrest rates go.  IIRC I couldnt find conviction rates for race.

That they are inherently more criminal?

Nope.  That sounds like a bigoted remark, to attribute crime to genetic factors based upon one year in one country when correlations are high enough to suggest at least significant environmental influences.

Do note Im not calling you or your views bigoted, whatever else.

And that single parent households are inherently more likely to produce criminals,

fact

even though black fathers tend to be more present in their kids' lives even when not in the household than white fathers. And even though if you compare white poverty conviction rates versus black that disparity still remains?

I don't recall ever mentioning racial differences between single-parent households

Really, that all whittles this down to "black culture produces more criminals"

Arguably true in it most simple pop-culture form.

black people are more likely to be criminals because they are black."

Refer to my comment about how one would be a bigot to assume that based on so little data.

Neither of which I agree with or find to be acceptable stances on the matter.

You don't get to make that decision, outside of your own sphere of influence.

They just reinforce bias, which leads to more black convictions by racist juries and longer sentences by racist judges.

We dont have any data on convictions by race, let alone how many were 'racist' convictions.  Which reminds me, that last site wanted me to pay, and the other two are good as alternet.

It's a neverending cycle of oppression against african americans.

No, it isn't.  Do you think equality can be achieved if we neglect the social circumstances around the issue?  I was under the impression that sociology was the champion of equality movements, and here you are denying the very existence of its principles.

[Talfryn]

Okay because this has gotten onto race in a big way, which is currently a hot topic in America, new rules:

1: Assume good faith. The people you're talking to may disagree, but they're good people who love their mothers. Unless their mothers are evil...
2: Distinguish between fact, opinion, and research. Research is closer to fact than opinion, and it is imperfect.
3: Please keep emotional language to a minimum. While this is a highly emotional subject, emotional language impairs ability of everyone to discuss this civilly.

I think the problem we've stumbled upon is really about the reliability of proxy traits. Even in science, when trying to follow a pattern/entity that is hard to track, we often use some other thing as a substitute. In crime and in profiling race is used fairly heavily in this way, because the facts are, more blacks are in prison than whites per capita.

This works out, until you realize it can be self fulfilling, and problematic as external factors can skew the data (What if you decided to base your profiling methods around data from a particular civil rights march? That's likely to not represent the data in general) into all sorts of wacky, unreliable things.

And, this is confounded by the general imprecision of life. If a faulty tool seems to be the best one we have, of course we will use it. So long as race seems to be a better profiling tool than not by its users, it will persist.


________________________________________

So the question becomes, what factors are causing the disparity between blacks in prison and whites? Common ideas include:

1: An inherent racial difference. Pretty much scientifically dead in the water, but it's worth bringing up
2: Racism. A likely factor, and I feel it gets used as a catch all for when people don't want to dig further.
3: Poverty! Poverty is well linked to crime, and is also fairly well linked to being black in America. Go figure.
3: Culture. This varies from the importance of respect/being tough in rap to the lack of nuclear families in black culture in America.
4: Bandwagon affect. I think this one is really important. If you're born into a society/culture where everyone is in prison, your role models are in prison, I could see that having a pretty strong persuasive affect for you behaving similarly.

[pisskop]

I like politifact:  its unbiased enough.

http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/nov/26/rudy-giuliani/giuliani-black-and-white-people-charged-murder-are/

We couldn’t find a single report detailing the nationwide percentage of people who are charged with homicide and are ultimately convicted -- let alone a racial breakdown for that question.

Fact is, the information isn't available publicly, but I'm positive the government runs the datum.  If they don't I'd honestly be aghast.  Its bad enough its so hard to get or talk about outside of sanitized reports . . .


http://www.crf-usa.org/brown-v-board-50th-anniversary/the-color-of-justice.html
This is a lesson plan devoid of any actual references.  I don't doubt some of it should be true, but Sources?

[scriver]

I'm pretty certain it's impossible to be bigoted without it affecting your actions and treatment of other people, so this whole question is meaningless anyway as far as I'm concerned.

[Loud Whispers]

• I hate everyone who is happy all day every day with a smug smile in this grim paradise of rain and postmodern architecture.
• I hate everyone who is cheerful and dapper about being moral causes they have no understanding of.

I'm friends with two men who both have valley girl accents, are vegans who drink fair trade soy lattes, end every sentence with 'peace and love' or 'mwa,' have adamant opinions on topics they've never researched and are eternally happy or tired. They are living caricatures of all my prejudices, so far I've refrained from decapitating them.

Aliens do walk among us.

And unfortunately they come in peace.

[smeeprocket]

Re: nuclear families in black culture:

There is a reason many black families are broken up. It relates to poverty, itself.

Welfare used to not pay out at all if there was a man in the house, regardless of how poor you were. So fathers had to literally move out so that the kids could have shelter and food and clothes.

That said, black fathers that are not in the home are more active in their children's lives than white fathers who are not in the home. The father figure is there, he just doesn't usually live in the house. (though that rule no longer exists in welfare.)

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2014/01/16/3175831/myth-absent-black-father/

Also, I don't think it's fair to assume single parent households contribute to delinquency. If you want to consider poverty as part of all of this (and I agree it has a hand though I maintain racism is very very much a factor alongside it,) poor single mothers are right up there. So is it a single parent home in that case, or poverty? I am going to go with poverty on this one. Especially since that also contributes to latchkey kids. But I don't think single parent homes are inherently inferior to two parent homes to the point where it would affect your chance of being a criminal by very much in and of itself. If you live a privileged life but only have one parent, I suspect you'd do just fine.

Either way, the point we are wandering away from is that it is not okay to racially profile people.

You can look at the Brown case for an example of why this is terrible. The officer perceived Brown as this hulking, violent brute. A belief a lot of white people foster about black men. They are dangerous and violent and criminal. But when police believe this stuff, they get itchy trigger fingers.

Unfortunately, the FBI only casually suggests keeping records of civilian casualties, and all casualties are classified as criminals. So you might get some numbers on it, but not a comprehensive look.

Also, it is becoming more widespread to have filming police be a felony. It's like the police really don't care about their PR image. I can't even think of why you would pass that law, other than to prevent cops from getting in trouble for abusing their authority, which is terrible. And we have seen, with the Garner case, that it's not going to help the victim anyway.

[Cheeetar]

What claim are you asking to be proved, Pisskop? That racially motivated police brutality is a big problem (in America), or that racist profiling of black people exists and is a problem (in America)?

Nobody is arguing that racial profiling happens, and I'm pretty sure I've made my position on the police power in modern day America clear.
  I'm saying that . . . impassioned cry is not going to be proven.  Would you climb into bed with that language?

I am going to be completely upfront- I don't know what you mean by what you're saying.

:|
Okay.  I was simply wondering if you thought the words chosen were too extreme.

Oh! No, not at all. America doesn't just have a problem with race relations- it has a really big problem. If you have a problem with the phrasing, the best way to raise it is to say "the words you chose may be too extreme" rather than "Where's your scientific proof?!". The second is way more aggressive and would generally be said if you don't think what the poster is saying has any truth to it.

[pisskop]

I cannot agree that single-family households have no or a positive effect on future crime
http://eds.b.ebscohost.com/ehost/pdfviewer/pdfviewer?sid=1c4bce91-84ae-4089-b228-73954d24d43a%40sessionmgr114&vid=1&hid=108

Spoiler: Association of Family Structure to Later Criminality: (click to show/hide)

The protective advantage of a two-parent family background with
regards to criminal offending was clearly demonstrated in our study. It was found to reduce
likelihood of committing crimes and, in other cases, delayed the onset of criminal
behaviour. A sharp increase in criminality after the age of 18 years indicated that psychosocial
support, has failed among adolescents from family types other than two biological
parents, particularly among child welfare adolescents

The result is nothing new, and neither is the knowledge.  No matter how think-progress makes things out to be, single parent households and the factors associated with them do not have a positive effect on the child.

---

:|
Okay.  I was simply wondering if you thought the words chosen were too extreme.

Oh! No, not at all. America doesn't just have a problem with race relations- it has a really big problem. If you have a problem with the phrasing, the best way to raise it is to say "the words you chose may be too extreme" rather than "Where's your scientific proof?!". The second is way more aggressive and would generally be said if you don't think what the poster is saying has any truth to it.

I'd disagree.  But I'm sure bigots wouldn't disapprove of the sentiment.

[Cheeetar]

Why do you disagree with the idea of phrasing things in a polite/honest way?

[pisskop]

Why do you disagree with the idea of phrasing things in a polite/honest way?

It is neither polite nor accurate.  I agree underlying racial tensions are present, but an eye for an eye.