Protests Across the America

12345679»

Comments

  • JaimieT said:
    JaimieT said:
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?
    That's not what they were claiming, they said 'these types of conversations' and gave examples of the types of things that come up in 'these types of conversations' not necessarily this particular conversation.

    You've asked for factual errors several times, but the conversation wasn't data or fact-driven - it was a panel of people discussing their thoughts, opinions, and views.  If you wanted me to explain what I found objectionable about it, it's in the framing of the issues, their selective interpretations etc.  I could present an argument that was diametrically the opposite of everything that was said and be 100% factually correct, and any of them could dissect my argument by attacking my framing, interpretations etc. 

    Did you watch it?
    The first hour or so, so far.  Nothing came up that wasn't within my expectations.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Off the top of my head, you didn't find the disagreement between 2 panel members about reparations to be a data-based argument? They referenced historical data, but obviously some of it will be conjecture, since we are talking about an uncertain future.

    How do you determine what types of conjecture are "good black man" and what types are "bad black man"? (My apologies for that simplication, but you haven't been very clear about that distinction.)


  • Re black lives matter support - https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/10/upshot/black-lives-matter-attitudes.html 

    And a non-paywalled source with the same graph - https://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Justice/2020/0612/How-support-for-Black-Lives-Matter-has-surged-in-one-chart 

    And as for more white people being killed by police, it's true, but only because there are more white people than black people. Per capita more black people are killed. 
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 3
    I also remember the data cited about historical welfare to the black community. How the welfare disincentivized 2-parent households, and that probably explains the dramatic decrease in 2-parent households in the black community. It seems to me that in panning this data, we might repeat mistakes in how we give welfare to the black community, if we go that route in the future. 

    Anyway, your insinuation that this is not data-driven is your opinion.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 3
    @asmallcat - Thank you! I was wondering about KC's source specifically. I was curious to see if how it was framed was accurate. Not a big deal, just curious. 

    Edit: KC said "comfortable with the TERM," which is different from what your data shows. For instance, I am wildly pro-choice, but I'm not going to claim that people who aren't aren't comfortable with the idea that women can choose things.
  • JaimieT said:
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?
    That's not what they were claiming, they said 'these types of conversations' and gave examples of the types of things that come up in 'these types of conversations' not necessarily this particular conversation.

    You've asked for factual errors several times, but the conversation wasn't data or fact-driven - it was a panel of people discussing their thoughts, opinions, and views.  If you wanted me to explain what I found objectionable about it, it's in the framing of the issues, their selective interpretations etc.  I could present an argument that was diametrically the opposite of everything that was said and be 100% factually correct, and any of them could dissect my argument by attacking my framing, interpretations etc. 
    Haven't finished the video yet, but, factual statements were few and far between.  Much more opinion, perception, desire, etc.  Trying to site factual errors seems a fool's errand.
    CretanBull
  • JaimieT said:
    Off the top of my head, you didn't find the disagreement between 2 panel members about reparations to be a data-based argument? They referenced historical data, but obviously some of it will be conjecture, since we are talking about an uncertain future.
    Time stamp?  I'm not sure what you're referring to.  Are you referring to when Loury raised the issues of welfare, affirmative action, and crime, and then dishonestly rolled reparations into welfare?

    How do you determine what types of conjecture are "good black man" and what types are "bad black man"? (My apologies for that simplication, but you haven't been very clear about that distinction.)

    I don't know what you're talking about ... "good black man" vs "bad black man'"?

    I also remember the data cited about historical welfare to the black community. How the welfare disincentivized 2-parent households, and that explains the dramatic decrease in 2-parent households in the black community. It seems to me that in panning this data, we might repeat mistakes in how we give welfare to the black community, if we go that route in the future. 

    The notion that welfare disincentivized 2 parent households isn't a data point at all.  It's an opinion/interpretation baked in assumptions.  Even if we accept that there was a disincentive, whether or not people acted on/reacted to that disincentive is speculatory.  At best we're looking at a possible cause for a known outcome.  You can potentially build a strong argument based on that, but a strong argument isn't a fact - it's what I called a discussion of "thoughts, opinions, and views".

    Anyway, your insinuation that this is not data-driven is your opinion.

    Citing data doesn't mean that the conversation is driven by facts.  They cite (relatively) objective facts, but the conversation is driven by their subjective interpretation of those facts.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying that when you ask for factual inaccuracies you're asking the wrong question.  The facts (for the most part) aren't what's in dispute. 
    Giovanni
  • edited September 3
    JaimieT said:
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?

    Good news, you may have no reason to be exhausted or triggered!  :D
    Sure I was more speaking to the general themes and framing of the introductions but after quickly skimming the intros again (please don't ask me to do that again

    EDIT: Of course my comment gets cut off as I'm talking about being exhausted lol that might be the universe telling me something. I'll try this again more succinctly.

    First off here are some links.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-views-of-black-lives-matter-have-shifted-what-happens-next/

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/10/upshot/black-lives-matter-attitudes.html

    Gist of the Fivethirtyeight discussion is around 11 min mark but  I haven't listened in a while.

    Regarding my points on the conversation, as has been said I was speaking to themes but similar or exact things likenI quoted were said at like the 6 and 14 min marks (I had a few more in my comment that somehow got erased but I don't feel like retracing back over that video again).

    Regarding White people being killed in greater total numbers that is a fact but also not relevant to the point that the likelihood is higher among black people despite the much smaller percentage of population so why did they even bring that up?
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 3
    tom_g said:
    JaimieT said:
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?
    That's not what they were claiming, they said 'these types of conversations' and gave examples of the types of things that come up in 'these types of conversations' not necessarily this particular conversation.

    You've asked for factual errors several times, but the conversation wasn't data or fact-driven - it was a panel of people discussing their thoughts, opinions, and views.  If you wanted me to explain what I found objectionable about it, it's in the framing of the issues, their selective interpretations etc.  I could present an argument that was diametrically the opposite of everything that was said and be 100% factually correct, and any of them could dissect my argument by attacking my framing, interpretations etc. 
    Haven't finished the video yet, but, factual statements were few and far between.  Much more opinion, perception, desire, etc.  Trying to site factual errors seems a fool's errand.

    WEIRDEST CRITICISM EVER.

    Look, I wasn't claiming this was wall-to-wall facts.

    My intent behind "let me know if anything is untrue" was: let me know if any of their discussions are off-base. Because as I showed, they DO have factual assertions that ground their discussions. (I pulled 2 examples from memory.) 

    This is a political discussion about next steps, and about the present fog-of-war.

    Why WOULDN'T there be opinions, perceptions, desires, etc?

    You don't love that?

    LOL.

    I'm sure BLM has plenty of that.

    You guys are fun, but I can't take on all of you at once. I am researching an earlier assertion someone made though, and probably I'll post about that later.

    Edit: @CretanBull you're the priority, since I was engaging you first. 
  • Who said . . . 

    "But I'll reiterate, I am open to anyone finding anything factually wrong with what the members of that panel said."
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    tom_g said:
    Who said . . . 

    "But I'll reiterate, I am open to anyone finding anything factually wrong with what the members of that panel said."

    Did you read my previous comment? Please read it again. I address that.
  • I thought the discussion was well-intentioned, interesting and thoughtful.  My personal beliefs generally align.  I did see two posts from different board members seeming to support the video as factual.  I just thought it was actually LIGHT on facts.

    Whatevs.
    JaimieT
  • JaimieT said:
    @asmallcat - Thank you! I was wondering about KC's source specifically. I was curious to see if how it was framed was accurate. Not a big deal, just curious. 

    Edit: KC said "comfortable with the TERM," which is different from what your data shows. For instance, I am wildly pro-choice, but I'm not going to claim that people who aren't aren't comfortable with the idea that women can choose things.
    In regards to your second point. You're correct my general feeling was baked into it when I said term. I don't really have any specific source right now to back that up. It's more something I intuit from the fact that All Lives Matter was created as a rebuttal to Black Lives Matter and also the idea that people reflexively pushed back against BLM without fully understanding it (this could be surmised by the fact that the country was previously against the BLM and the specific policy initiatives and is now more so in agreement with the movement but still not so on the specific policies). Also the general sense that the polling shows more Americans now consider racism a problem compared to previous years. One could take out my use of the word "term" to make it more straightforward but I sometimes get annoyed that the name is controversial at all in some circles.
    GiovanniDee
  • edited September 3
    Maybe the way we're fighting racism in the US right now isn't the best way. Hell, it almost certainly isn't. There's usually a better way. What I DO know is we did the whole "I don't see race!" shit for 30 years, and it got us where we are now. 
    GiovanniJoshTheBlack
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Kc0347 said:
    JaimieT said:
    @Kc0347 - Cool, did someone say that more white people are killed by the police? I don't remember that, but I guess that that may be a factual claim that I should research. Are you saying that that's untrue?

    Edit: A timestamp would be nice. Was this claim in the first 30 minutes? And do you recall who said it?

    Not to be pedantic, but I can't tell if you threw that out there, but no one said it. 

    Edit 2: I actually don't remember hearing any of the things you have in quotation marks?

    Good news, you may have no reason to be exhausted or triggered!  :D
    Sure I was more speaking to the general themes and framing of the introductions but after quickly skimming the intros again (please don't ask me to do that again

    EDIT: Of course my comment gets cut off as I'm talking about being exhausted lol that might be the universe telling me something. I'll try this again more succinctly.

    First off here are some links.

    https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/politics-podcast-views-of-black-lives-matter-have-shifted-what-happens-next/

    https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/10/upshot/black-lives-matter-attitudes.html

    Gist of the Fivethirtyeight discussion is around 11 min mark but  I haven't listened in a while.

    Regarding my points on the conversation, as has been said I was speaking to themes but similar or exact things likenI quoted were said at like the 6 and 14 min marks (I had a few more in my comment that somehow got erased but I don't feel like retracing back over that video again).

    Regarding White people being killed in greater total numbers that is a fact but also not relevant to the point that the likelihood is higher among black people despite the much smaller percentage of population so why did they even bring that up?

    Yes, I was certain you could find stats about support of the movement Black Lives Matter, but unsure whether I was missing data about support of the phrase "black lives matter."

    Your last paragraph, about the stats of police shootings, I want to talk about that more so stay tuned.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    JaimieT said:
    Off the top of my head, you didn't find the disagreement between 2 panel members about reparations to be a data-based argument? They referenced historical data, but obviously some of it will be conjecture, since we are talking about an uncertain future.
    Time stamp?  I'm not sure what you're referring to.  Are you referring to when Loury raised the issues of welfare, affirmative action, and crime, and then dishonestly rolled reparations into welfare?

    How do you determine what types of conjecture are "good black man" and what types are "bad black man"? (My apologies for that simplication, but you haven't been very clear about that distinction.)

    I don't know what you're talking about ... "good black man" vs "bad black man'"?

    I also remember the data cited about historical welfare to the black community. How the welfare disincentivized 2-parent households, and that explains the dramatic decrease in 2-parent households in the black community. It seems to me that in panning this data, we might repeat mistakes in how we give welfare to the black community, if we go that route in the future. 

    The notion that welfare disincentivized 2 parent households isn't a data point at all.  It's an opinion/interpretation baked in assumptions.  Even if we accept that there was a disincentive, whether or not people acted on/reacted to that disincentive is speculatory.  At best we're looking at a possible cause for a known outcome.  You can potentially build a strong argument based on that, but a strong argument isn't a fact - it's what I called a discussion of "thoughts, opinions, and views".

    Anyway, your insinuation that this is not data-driven is your opinion.

    Citing data doesn't mean that the conversation is driven by facts.  They cite (relatively) objective facts, but the conversation is driven by their subjective interpretation of those facts.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying that when you ask for factual inaccuracies you're asking the wrong question.  The facts (for the most part) aren't what's in dispute. 

    Are you referring to when Loury raised the issues of welfare, affirmative action, and crime, and then dishonestly rolled reparations into welfare?

    No. It's 53:00 where several talk about the precedent of Japanese Americans receiving reparations -- I didn't know about that, so forgive me if I consider that to be a "data" that excited me. Reparations would be an enormous debt for the country, so it's really cool we have a precedent and aren't flying blind like I had assumed.

    I don't know what you're talking about ... "good black man" vs "bad black man'"?

    Earlier you referenced the kind of black men that racists like. So let me rephrase to eliminate this, and maybe you can answer the question: Is a racist man liking what a black man says always an indicator of a black man one should ignore? If so, how do you measure this?

    The notion that welfare disincentivized 2 parent households isn't a data point at all.  It's an opinion/interpretation baked in assumptions.  Even if we accept that there was a disincentive, whether or not people acted on/reacted to that disincentive is speculatory.  At best we're looking at a possible cause for a known outcome.  You can potentially build a strong argument based on that, but a strong argument isn't a fact - it's what I called a discussion of "thoughts, opinions, and views".

    I agree with your last sentence.

    The decrease in 2 parent households is a data point. So is the timing of the welfare. The link creates an argument. I went back and edited my comment to say "probably explains the dramatic decrease" (see time stamps), hoping to correct that before you read it. 

    Citing data doesn't mean that the conversation is driven by facts.  They cite (relatively) objective facts, but the conversation is driven by their subjective interpretation of those facts.  There's absolutely nothing wrong with that, I'm just saying that when you ask for factual inaccuracies you're asking the wrong question.  The facts (for the most part) aren't what's in dispute. 

    I see what you mean.

  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 4
    Kc0347 said:
    JaimieT said:
    @asmallcat - Thank you! I was wondering about KC's source specifically. I was curious to see if how it was framed was accurate. Not a big deal, just curious. 

    Edit: KC said "comfortable with the TERM," which is different from what your data shows. For instance, I am wildly pro-choice, but I'm not going to claim that people who aren't aren't comfortable with the idea that women can choose things.
    In regards to your second point. You're correct my general feeling was baked into it when I said term. I don't really have any specific source right now to back that up. It's more something I intuit from the fact that All Lives Matter was created as a rebuttal to Black Lives Matter and also the idea that people reflexively pushed back against BLM without fully understanding it (this could be surmised by the fact that the country was previously against the BLM and the specific policy initiatives and is now more so in agreement with the movement but still not so on the specific policies). Also the general sense that the polling shows more Americans now consider racism a problem compared to previous years. One could take out my use of the word "term" to make it more straightforward but I sometimes get annoyed that the name is controversial at all in some circles.

    See, I think that people could have disagreed with the movement "Black Lives Matter" and not the term "black lives matter," and then later changed their minds on the movement "Black Lives Matter" -- and that doesn't mean that they used to be racist before. (Unless I misunderstood you.)

    For example, I think someone could have created the "Pro-Life" movement in response to the "Pro-Choice" movement, and then later changed their mind on it, but that didn't mean they used to think that women shouldn't be able to choose things in general.

    As for the polling that more Americans now consider racism a problem, that doesn't say anything (to me) about whether they were racist before. For instance, someone might say, "I don't think social media bullying is a problem," then change their mind when they see someone bullied on social media. And that doesn't make them pro-bullying.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    asmallcat said:

    And as for more white people being killed by police, it's true, but only because there are more white people than black people. Per capita more black people are killed. 

    Do you think that the fact that more black people are killed by the cops per capita is a strong indicator that the cops are racist? (I have a feeling your answer, just confirming.)
  • edited September 4
    JaimieT said:
    asmallcat said:

    And as for more white people being killed by police, it's true, but only because there are more white people than black people. Per capita more black people are killed. 

    Do you think that the fact that more black people are killed by the cops per capita is a strong indicator that the cops are racist? (I have a feeling your answer, just confirming.)
    I think, among many other data points, it demonstrates that the police as a whole, and the criminal justice system, is racist. Or at least disproportionately punishes black (and to a lesser extent latino) people, and I don't think the downtrodden really care if a racist system is intentionally racist or accidentally racist when the impact is the same.  

    Frankly, whether or not an individual cop is racist does not matter to me much, if at all, as they are all part of a racist system that refuses to change. Whether or not one cop is racist or not may change how that cop interacts with black people, but it doesn't change how the system treats them at all. 

    There are two, and only two, explanations for why black people have such worse interactions with police, why there is a wealth gap, why they tend to live in worse parts of cities, etc. Either it is the result his historic and ongoing racism (what I believe, obviously) or the races are inherently different in some way, and I refuse to believe the latter. So the fact that cops disproportionately harm and kill black people and the fact that black people are far more likely to be jailed under our system is clear evidence that the system is racist. It can be nothing else. And again, whether that racism is through intent or ignorance matters not at all to me when the result is the same.

    Edit - But if you want a clearer answer, I think cops are racist at a higher rate than the general population. Which makes sense. Police exist to enforce the status quo, so it's a job that is more likely to attract those with a conservative mindset, and conservative people are more likely to either be actively racist or believe that because the US is good, and good things can't be racist, there is no racism. 
    DashEngine
  • JaimieT said:
    Kc0347 said:
    JaimieT said:
    @asmallcat - Thank you! I was wondering about KC's source specifically. I was curious to see if how it was framed was accurate. Not a big deal, just curious. 

    Edit: KC said "comfortable with the TERM," which is different from what your data shows. For instance, I am wildly pro-choice, but I'm not going to claim that people who aren't aren't comfortable with the idea that women can choose things.
    In regards to your second point. You're correct my general feeling was baked into it when I said term. I don't really have any specific source right now to back that up. It's more something I intuit from the fact that All Lives Matter was created as a rebuttal to Black Lives Matter and also the idea that people reflexively pushed back against BLM without fully understanding it (this could be surmised by the fact that the country was previously against the BLM and the specific policy initiatives and is now more so in agreement with the movement but still not so on the specific policies). Also the general sense that the polling shows more Americans now consider racism a problem compared to previous years. One could take out my use of the word "term" to make it more straightforward but I sometimes get annoyed that the name is controversial at all in some circles.

    See, I think that people could have disagreed with the movement "Black Lives Matter" and not the term "black lives matter," and then later changed their minds on the movement "Black Lives Matter" -- and that doesn't mean that they used to be racist before. (Unless I misunderstood you.)

    For example, I think someone could have created the "Pro-Life" movement in response to the "Pro-Choice" movement, and then later changed their mind on it, but that didn't mean they used to think that women shouldn't be able to choose things in general.

    As for the polling that more Americans now consider racism a problem, that doesn't say anything (to me) about whether they were racist before. For instance, someone might say, "I don't think social media bullying is a problem," then change their mind when they see someone bullied on social media. And that doesn't make them pro-bullying.
    Based on this I think we disagree on the distinction between movement and term unless by movement you mean tactics. I also don't think the pro life/choice analogy fits if its being compared to all lives matter. In regards to your third paragraph, in a vacuum I agree with you but, in the context of all that has happened in the US and our overall trouble fully reckoning with racial issues, I'm not able to extend that much benefit of the doubt.
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    edited September 4
    asmallcat said:
    JaimieT said:
    asmallcat said:

    And as for more white people being killed by police, it's true, but only because there are more white people than black people. Per capita more black people are killed. 

    Do you think that the fact that more black people are killed by the cops per capita is a strong indicator that the cops are racist? (I have a feeling your answer, just confirming.)
    I think, among many other data points, it demonstrates that the police as a whole, and the criminal justice system, is racist. Or at least disproportionately punishes black (and to a lesser extent latino) people, and I don't think the downtrodden really care if a racist system is intentionally racist or accidentally racist when the impact is the same.  

    Frankly, whether or not an individual cop is racist does not matter to me much, if at all, as they are all part of a racist system that refuses to change. Whether or not one cop is racist or not may change how that cop interacts with black people, but it doesn't change how the system treats them at all. 

    There are two, and only two, explanations for why black people have such worse interactions with police, why there is a wealth gap, why they tend to live in worse parts of cities, etc. Either it is the result his historic and ongoing racism (what I believe, obviously) or the races are inherently different in some way, and I refuse to believe the latter. So the fact that cops disproportionately harm and kill black people and the fact that black people are far more likely to be jailed under our system is clear evidence that the system is racist. It can be nothing else. And again, whether that racism is through intent or ignorance matters not at all to me when the result is the same.

    Cool, I appreciate you expounding on that. I'm hearing that the disproportionate amounts of incarceration is also a big indicator for you. That makes sense to me.

    I'm also hearing that intentionality doesn't matter; impact does. In a large part, I agree with this. This is the basis of good policy. Actions speak louder. But you are still interested in what this impact means -- which I agree, we should ask that, especially when trying to correct a disparity.

    I don't think we need stats for this. I think we're agreed on the data. Just nailing down your argument...

    You're saying that because of these statistics (the disproportionate amount of police shootings per capita, and the disproportionate amount of incarceration), America has a problem with racism. Is that right?

    Edit: I just saw your edit -- I don't mean to be pedantic, lol.

  • JaimieT said:

    You're saying that because of these statistics (the disproportionate amount of police shootings per capita, and the disproportionate amount of incarceration), America has a problem with racism. Is that right?

    Well I think there's a lot more evidence that America has a problem with racism than just the criminal justice system, but yes I think these problems are caused by racism. 
    JaimieT
  • JaimieTJaimieT Atlanta, GA
    Okay, thank you. I'm very curious to hear your thoughts on this.

    Source



    Source




    Is America misandrist?
  • edited September 4
    No, it's not. The reason so many more men have violent encounters with police is not because there were centuries of oppression against men that led to them being forced into places with disproportionately high crime and low income. There's not some overarching power controlled by women that causes men to be killed by police and put in jail at higher rates than women.

    Some of the disproportionate impact on women, no doubt, stems from judges, juries, cops, and prosecutors being softer on women, although I doubt that comes from those people being misandrist and more likely from misogyny (women are soft, women can't handle prison, women are less likely to be violent, etc). 

    A lot more of it, I'd posit, come forms how our society treats men and women and what role they are expected to fulfill. Until very recently, historically speaking, women were supposed to be subservient, in the home, and not out working. Men were supposed to be out breadwinning. Men were supposed to be the soldiers. Men were supposed hunters. Men are supposed to defend their women. Standing up for yourself is manly and brave. Violence in media is associated with men. Violence happens between men. Violence happens to women, usually by men.

    Further, there are many ways in which women are disadvantaged in the US as compared to men, so even assuming arguendo that male vs female incarceration rates was some form of misandry, there are many competing societal forms of misogyny. I don't think there's a lot of stuff out there where Black people have a societal advantage over whites.

    Finally, men are arrested at about 3 times the rate of women, and about 4 times the rate for violent crime. Not a perfect measure to be sure, but as close as we will get for reporting actual crime. This doesn't count for all the disparity (men are something like 9 times as likely to have been in jail at some point), but it's a big chunk of it, and there's other stuff too like women being more likely to be sole caretakers of children and so more likely to get non-jail punishment, and I think (although I can't put my finger on it right now) that women were less likely to be repeat offenders, which is where you really start getting jail time. Now increased arrest rates don't answer why men seem to commit so much more crime than women (or at least get caught more) but it can help explain the numbers. 

    I'm curious what you think the causes are for the disproportionate impact the criminal justice system has on black people? And if the reason is that they are arrested and charged with crimes at disproportionately higher rates (which is true, and suggests a higher crime rate as noted above), what's the cause of the higher crime rate? 

    Edited a bit for clarity


    CretanBullDashEngine
  • JaimieT said:

    No. It's 53:00 where several talk about the precedent of Japanese Americans receiving reparations -- I didn't know about that, so forgive me if I consider that to be a "data" that excited me. Reparations would be an enormous debt for the country, so it's really cool we have a precedent and aren't flying blind like I had assumed.
    Ah, gotcha. 

    Earlier you referenced the kind of black men that racists like. So let me rephrase to eliminate this, and maybe you can answer the question: Is a racist man liking what a black man says always an indicator of a black man one should ignore? If so, how do you measure this?

    My comment that the panel was a who's who of every racist person's favourite black person wasn't a dig at any of the individuals or their opinions, but rather of the show itself.  Weinstein didn't invite a cross-section of African American thinkers (as one might assume when 7 people from a particular community are guests) on to his show, he invited a group of selected and curated guests who would predictably present arguments that would be palatable to centrist and conservative white people.  It's comforting and appealing for a racist person to listen to a group of black people talk about how racism really isn't that bad, that reparations aren't a good idea etc. those views are out of step with the African American community at large but presented here as being reflective of that community.  Shows do similar things with other topics too.  Take climate change for example, they'll bring on one person who believes in climate change and one person who is a denier.  Regardless of who 'wins' the debate, it creates the impression that climate change is a 50/50 proposition when it's really a 96/4 proposition.  75% of African Americans support reparations but in this panel of 7, only 1 of them (14%) did.  It's easier for a viewer to embrace or reject an idea if it's perceived to be popular...Weinstein is invested in a particular perspective and he picked people who would reinforce that.  Where were the voices of people like Cornel West, Ta-Nehisi Coates, Patricia Hill Collins etc?

    The decrease in 2 parent households is a data point. So is the timing of the welfare. The link creates an argument. I went back and edited my comment to say "probably explains the dramatic decrease" (see time stamps), hoping to correct that before you read it. 

    Let's accept that a decrease in 2 parent households is a data point, and the inception of welfare programs is another.  Here's are some other potential arguments from the same data points....the creation of welfare programs liberated women from loveless marriages, the creation of welfare programs allow women to escape abusive marriages, the financial independence provided by welfare programs played a meaningful roll in the women's right's movement and transitioned more women into the workplace, having welfare programs in place meant that women weren't dependent on men for financial reasons so less lesbians ended up marrying men out of necessity,  Here's a few totally different arguments...the arrival welfare programs had nothing to do with the decline in 2 parent households, rather it was the onset of the Viet Nam war and lots of men rushed to get married to avoid the draft.  Given that these were marriages of convenience we shouldn't be surprised that many of them didn't last and ended in divorce.  Another possibility is that there was a change in the cultural norms of the time and having a child out of wedlock wasn't as taboo as it once was.  Perhaps the availability of birth control (which wasn't 100% effective) resulted in more premarital/casual sex and that impacted marriage rates etc

    My point is, lots of wildly different arguments can be made from common data points and we need to be aware of that when we're watching things like this because it's easy to get sucked in by a particular narrative that is no more (or less) valid than any other point of view.
    asmallcatGiovanni
  • Another inviting incident last night. This time in Portland. This time it appears a protestor killed a right-wing agitator. 

    Looks a lot like a back and forth. Tit for tat.  

    We're not going to make it to the election without a lot more death and violence.  The door to civil war is wide open and we're staring at our phones not paying attention to the fact we're heading right through it. 
    August 30 me - That JoshTheBlack is out there . . . 

    October 8 me - They were gonna hold a governor hostage????
    asmallcatJoshTheBlackFreddyGiovanni
  • JoshTheBlackJoshTheBlack Atlanta, GA
    I don't want to be proven right. These things can start quickly, but they do NOT end quickly. 
    tom_gCretanBull
  • It is good news that the nut-jobs seem to be under surveillance, and that despite potus being who he is, the FBI seems to be serious about the threat. 
    CretanBull
Sign In or Register to comment.