Print

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

[Cheeetar]

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

It is neither polite nor accurate.

You're going to have to explain yourself here, Pisskop. You claimed the problem you had with what was posted was not that it was untrue- just that the phrasing was wrong. Now you're claiming that to state the phrasing may have been off is unaccurate and impolite. Why?

[pisskop]

You're trying too hard.

wholesale slaughter

and other provocative and exaggerated phrases do not bring us closer to conclusion, they muddle the problem.

[Cheeetar]

Then it's a problem with phrasing, and there's a more accurate and more polite way to raise it than to ask for the 'science' to back up something you agree exists.

[pisskop]

Aye.  My apologies, my 'eye for an eye ' statement was meant as a diffusing manner, it wasnt meant to condone the concept.

[LordBucket]

black crime

The black crime correlations are difficult. The data can be interpreted in multiple ways. sometimes math is required in the process and who does the math tends to influence how the results turn out.

For example, imagine that in a population of 100 people, 80 members of group A and 20 of group B. Imagine that in specific time period, A commits 10 robberies and B commits 5 robberies. One could look at that and reasonably come to both these conclusions:

 * A committed twice as many robberies as B.
 * One fifth the population committed one third of the robberies, and four fifths of the population committed two thirds of the robberies. Adjusted for population, B commits robbery at double the rate as A.

Interracial crimes have similar problems. For example, imaging that in a population of 100 people, 80 of group A and 20 of group B, in a given time period, members of A rape members of B once, and members of B rape members of A 10 times.

Again, you could reasonably come to very different conclusions:

 * B rapes A ten times as often as A rapes B
 * A outnumbers B four to one. So assuming each rapist chooses a victim purely at random, the odds of a member of A targeting a member of B are one in five, and the odds of a member of B targeting a member of A are four in five. Therefore, with an even distribution we would expect that if both groups commit 10 rapes, 2 of A's rapes would be on B, and 8 of B's rapes would be on A. Therefore the B on A rape is only 25% higher than what you would expect assuming even distribution, not ten times higher.

And the whole matter is complicated further by the fact that the department of justice is notorious for releasing incomplete information. For example, sometimes you'll see something that looks especially damning like, in whatever year, 50,000 black men raped white women and there was not a single recorded instance of a white man raping a black woman. Which seems unlikely. So then you read the fine print and it turns out that there were 200,000 rapes, 50,000 were interracial, but for reporting purposes they only sampled 10 of them, and of the ten they sampled at random, all ten were black on white...and therefore approximately 100% of the 50,000 interracial rapes were black on white.

Because they only sampled 10 out of 50,000.

Stuff like that happens pretty regularly with the statistics. So you have to pay very close attention when looking at them.


Unfortunately, it has been my observation that both sides of the debate tend to ignore and selectively interpret facts that don't support their opinions. For example, blacks committing X times as many interracial crimes as whites doesn't necessarily mean very much. If whites outnumber blacks by X, you might expect them to target whites by X more simply because there are that many more available whites to target. But just because blacks are arrested Y times as often as whites, doesn't necessarily mean that white cops are disproportionately targeting blacks. It's possible that they actually are committing more crime, in which case you would expect more arrests of blacks.

[LordBucket]

My thoughts on this:


The thought alone is enough to influence actions. There is no such thing as "bigoted thought without action." Even your body language when having a conversation in regards to someone who you mentally dislike due to bigoted thought actively influences the conversation, and you won't even be aware of it as it happens. Here's a lovely PDF of all sorts of psychological experiments on the subject.

So yes, bigoted thoughts are inherently bad, because the premise doesn't exist.

What if the thought is based on fact and you're making the choice consciously and deliberately? For example, imagine that you're a girl at a party. A black guy and a white guy are both hitting on you and you want to get laid. After years of social conditioning you've come to have no personal preference about whom you sleep with. But you happen to know that according to the Center for Disease Control:

 * The chlamydia rate among black men is almost 11 times the rate among white men
 * The gonorrhea rate among black men is 22.2 times the rate among whites men
 * The HIV rate among black men is...hmm. They're not giving the direct black to white comparison, but they acknowledge that out of every racial group, blacks are the most affected by HIV, and that the rate of "new infections" is 8 times that of whites. Wait! No, I found it. According to the CDC, over the course of their lifetimes, 1 in 16 black men will be diagnosed with HIV vs 1 in 102 white men, therefore the black guy is a little over 6 times as likely to have HIV.
 * Blacks are 6.1 times more likely to have syphilis
 * Generally going through the lists, with only a few exceptions (for example their hepatitis rates are similar to other races) blacks have STDs more often than any other race.

So as a result, you choose to go upstairs with the white guy instead of the black guy, thereby reducing by a considerable amount the chances of having chosen a sexual partner with a communicable disease that in some cases might possibly even be incurable and kill you. You are having a bigoted thought and you are acting on it. You are also acting in your own personal best interest.

Is that bad?

[LordBucket]

That's statistics, not a bigoted thought.

Oh? Hmm. That goes back to the difficulty with definitions that was discussed a page or two ago, then. If that situation doesn't qualify as bigoted, then a lot of my position here might not be relevant.

Humor me: what qualifies as "bigoted" to you?

if she used those statistics to assume that all black men have STDs and views them with disgust, that becomes a bigoted thought

...ok, but with apologies, that starts heading into strawman territory. "All black men have STDs" is very obviously factually incorrect and probably even your average hardcore KKK member wouldn't make a claim like that and mean it seriously.

[dennislp3]

If anyone here thinks they live without some level of bigotry within themselves...they are lying idiots...its human nature and it is what it is...welcome to life where we as humans have to overcome obstacles to make the world better...

[wobbly]

...oops, forgot to answer part of the question.


To me, being "bigoted" is a measurable association of your internal association between a particular trait of a person (height, skin color, gender) with an emotion (anger, fear, disgust). There is suc
h a test, but I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called. Something referring to internal associations or somesuch. The test itself was straightforward:

Press f if the face is black or j if the face is white.
Press f if the word is good or j if the word is bad.
Press f if the word is good or the face is black or j if the word is bad or the face is white. (it would either be a face or a word that pops up)
Press f if the word is bad or the face is black or j if the word is good or the face is white.

By the end of it, they would measure the difference in response times to pressing f for either a good word or a black face against pressing f for a bad word or a black face, and same with a white face. A difference in those times would imply bigotry, since you are associating either positivity or negativity in the same part of the brain as race.

Or pausing because you think the word isn't a simple good/bad split and your deciding on a best fit...

[i2amroy]

Little late here, sorry bout that.

i2amroy: are you saying that profiling black people as criminals is the same as doing it to felons and rapists? Because that... no.

Not even close. I specifically mentioned that my point was that profiling is only ok with evidence to back it up. In cases like that felons and rapists have evidence backing up their profiling, while black, white, or whatever people do not have anything showing significant reasoning why. The fact that the police are profiling people isn't a problem in my book, since it actually aids them in doing their job of protecting people. It's the fact that they are doing so without good justification that is a problem.

@Scientific stuff
I'd say that while you could certainly set yourself again black people based on the studies that have been unveiled in the thread so far and not be considered a "bigot" under my definitions, I would say that I could label you as not being "thorough" before coming to that decision. A single study does not a correlation make, and even a correlation does not a causation make. To be thorough you would need to not only consider studies just with skin color, but also other studies that compare things like how people are raised, their incomes, and so on, and then correlate that data with studies that related skin color with the new study data. In total you should eventually be able to pin down whether or not it's an actual factor or just a linked trend, and you'd be able to make tons of little stereotypes, such as skin color, poverty levels, place a person was born, and then compile those little bits to make an overall averaged profile for a single person. (Which is literally Offender Profilers do as a job). This lets you put together a profile that is much more likely to fit a person, which you can then modify based on your interactions with them and any new knowledge you gained about them to better fit their actual person.

Since most of us don't have the time to track down and observe that data, it's best to just assume a neutral basis on a person unless you have looked it up (which is always a good idea if you don't mind drudging through statistics).

[wobbly]

...oops, forgot to answer part of the question.


To me, being "bigoted" is a measurable association of your internal association between a particular trait of a person (height, skin color, gender) with an emotion (anger, fear, disgust). There is suc
h a test, but I cannot for the life of me remember what it was called. Something referring to internal associations or somesuch. The test itself was straightforward:

Press f if the face is black or j if the face is white.
Press f if the word is good or j if the word is bad.
Press f if the word is good or the face is black or j if the word is bad or the face is white. (it would either be a face or a word that pops up)
Press f if the word is bad or the face is black or j if the word is good or the face is white.

By the end of it, they would measure the difference in response times to pressing f for either a good word or a black face against pressing f for a bad word or a black face, and same with a white face. A difference in those times would imply bigotry, since you are associating either positivity or negativity in the same part of the brain as race.

Or pausing because you think the word isn't a simple good/bad split and your deciding on a best fit...

If I recall, the words used had clear connotations.

Fair enough, hard to comment without seeing the actual test. Wouldn't testing for emotions pick up activists and victims as well as bigots?

[Leafsnail]

Freedom of speech and expression does not mean you aren't allowed to critique ideas.  In fact, it means the opposite: you are allowed to, and should attack harmful ideologies such as racism and fascism, otherwise they will spread and cause harm.

The OP question is irrelevant because it's asking a question about a person that cannot exist.  You might as well ask whether dragons are inherently bad.  Your thoughts and ideals influence your actions.  Yes it's not unusual to have some subconscious biases, but by suppressing them and not acting on them you're acknowledging that they're bad and they they don't fit in with your wider (good) ideals.  An actually racist person would not realise that their racist thoughts are bad and would thus act on them.  Because they'd think that racism is good because they're racist.

The original discussion was about a group of people who subscribed to fascist groups and attended their marches.  These people definitely are not the impossible people the OP is talking about, because they were trying to help promote their (anti-civil rights) agenda.

Is that bad?

Yes it is bad to selectively use statistics to be biased against a person due to their race rather than evaluating that individual on their own merits.  Otherwise I might as well shun all men because they're way more likely to commit violent crimes.

[Loud Whispers]

Yes it is bad to selectively use statistics to be biased against a person due to their race rather than evaluating that individual on their own merits.  Otherwise I might as well shun all men because they're way more likely to commit violent crimes.

Late at night whenever I see lone women cross the street at the sight of me (in fact, quite a while ago I even posted on B12 that I've for the second time ever had a woman scream in absolute terror at the sight of me) I don't take offence; it's nothing personal, they are looking out for their own safety. They don't know I won't mug them so they only have their prejudices to base their judgements on. They see a man, they see they're in a quiet area where help may be hard to find and they take action to remove themselves from the possibility of a violent altercation. There's also a lot of people who deliberately use these prejudices to stay safe; dressing to imitate those who have criminal connections in flashy sports clothes much in the same way a fly imitating the colours and behaviour of a wasp is left alone by observers none the wiser.

[Phmcw]

I'm still wondering why the proponents of "statistical racism" don't worship jews. I mean look at the numer of jew in major artists and scientists, compared to their filmsy 10 000 000 population, that shit's unreal.

[Loud Whispers]

I'm still wondering why the proponents of "statistical racism" don't worship jews.

They don't?