4 ms·

What a bunch of bigoted hogwash. How many times must the particulars of the system be documented and disseminated before these arguments go away completely? I

by jMyles 9y ago

What a bunch of bigoted hogwash. How many times must the particulars of the system be documented and disseminated before these arguments go away completely? If you are white and wealthy, then drug possession is against the law only in vague terms on paper. It is not your practical reality. That's how the drug war has been made into the new jim crow. It's astonishingly simple, and very real. > If you wish to stay out of the felon caste, do not break obvious laws, like those regarding drug possession. Yeah, except that most humans don't consider the government a legitimate arbiter of their diet. I'm not going to decide not to consume cannabis because some person in Washington (or my state capital) overstepped his bounds. And yet, because I'm white and not poor, I suffer no consequences of this. > so long as laws are followed as written You can't be serious. The whole point is that laws aren't followed as written. If every person driving 56MPH in a 55 zone, if every person possessing cannabis, if every person violations "intellectual property" laws is suddenly subject to enforcement of those laws, they'll change real quick. But instead, only the "lower castes" are subject to enforcement, and they haven't the power to change the laws. Just please stop spreading this nonsense. There are possibly young people reading these threads whose understanding of basic sociopolitical principles isn't developed yet, and we need to stop poisoning the well of discussion with this, "follow the law and you'll be fine" nonsense. The world you describe is a world to work toward, but not the one that black and brown people live in today.

RobertRoberts 9y ago
>If you are white and wealthy, then drug possession is against the law only in vague terms on paper. Not to discount your other points, but this is exactly how the Chinese system will work as well. (and already does in other respects from what I have heard and read) >What a bunch of bigoted hogwash. What did he say that was bigoted? (I am serious, by the actual definition [0], not the pejorative commonly thrown around to silence dissent) As a side note, my brother has a felony on his record, so I have some knowledge of the cause and effects. [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigoted http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigoted Edit: This turned sour fast... not sure it's worth replying to comments.
- crankylinuxuser 9y ago
  "You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”" --Lee Atwater Just because you don't directly say "nigger", doesn't mean the policies aren't directed towards african americans. And we also know for a fact that cannabis was made illegal because "it would make blacks want white women". And, it was also easier to criminalize the peaceful actions of citizens they see as "undesirable" and then throw them in prison for a long time. So yeah, bigoted.
- jMyles 9y ago
  Black people are 12% of the population but over half those imprisoned for drug offenses, and GP's advice is, "If you wish to stay out of the felon caste, do not break obvious laws, like those regarding drug possession." I mean, that's bigotry. That's something I expect to read on the_donald.
  - RobertRoberts 9y ago
    I know we all have biases, but I reread the comment, and I didn't see any references to race. Is it really fair to apply a blanket percentage generically to any statement and equate it to race? Bigotry [0], are you sure you are using this word correctly? [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry
  - twblalock 9y ago
    If two groups of people commit the same crimes at similar rates, and individuals in one of those groups are imprisoned more frequently than those in the other group, that's unfair on a systematic level. Nobody here said otherwise. What aspect of this situation makes the GP's advice untrue? For any individual in either group, the best way to avoid becoming a felon is to avoid committing felonies.
elefanten 9y ago
I think you're doing more to poison the well of this conversation with the attitude and tone of this post. While I happen to agree more with your position than gp's, there is room for a discussion here. The accusations of bigotry and attempts to wish away different perspectives are counter-productive here. You did not make the point so much better than gp that you get to command them to exit the conversation. GP says: 1) laws are clearly defined, 2) increased attention/punishment for repeat offenders != institutional inequity You say: 1) laws are subjectively enforced, 2) white and/or rich people don't suffer the same consequences Note that neither of your points are necessarily responsive to or mutually exclusive with gp's. But your appeal to the youth who might be reading this was just over the top.
- jMyles 9y ago
  > Note that neither of your points are necessarily responsive to or mutually exclusive with gp's. I think you're ignoring the more serious point, though. GP literally advised disadvantaged people to more judiciously follow the stupid laws that were designed in the first place to disadvantage them. > But your appeal to the youth who might be reading this was just over the top. Listen, I usually find any sort of "protect the children" narrative nauseating. But in the specific case of racism, I do think it's reckless to spout this stuff on this forum. You and I have perhaps read The New Jim Crow or exposed ourselves to the statistics of the drug war, but a lot of people (sure, young and old) come here from other fora where they're more likely to have followed the breadcrumbs of technological development and might need a little more help before being able to pick apart these basic, bedrock examples of institutional discrimination.

by jMyles 9y ago

RobertRoberts 9y ago

>If you are white and wealthy, then drug possession is against the law only in vague terms on paper. Not to discount your other points, but this is exactly how the Chinese system will work as well. (and already does in other respects from what I have heard and read) >What a bunch of bigoted hogwash. What did he say that was bigoted? (I am serious, by the actual definition [0], not the pejorative commonly thrown around to silence dissent) As a side note, my brother has a felony on his record, so I have some knowledge of the cause and effects. [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigoted http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigoted Edit: This turned sour fast... not sure it's worth replying to comments.

crankylinuxuser 9y ago
"You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can’t say “nigger”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”" --Lee Atwater Just because you don't directly say "nigger", doesn't mean the policies aren't directed towards african americans. And we also know for a fact that cannabis was made illegal because "it would make blacks want white women". And, it was also easier to criminalize the peaceful actions of citizens they see as "undesirable" and then throw them in prison for a long time. So yeah, bigoted.
jMyles 9y ago
Black people are 12% of the population but over half those imprisoned for drug offenses, and GP's advice is, "If you wish to stay out of the felon caste, do not break obvious laws, like those regarding drug possession." I mean, that's bigotry. That's something I expect to read on the_donald.
- RobertRoberts 9y ago
  I know we all have biases, but I reread the comment, and I didn't see any references to race. Is it really fair to apply a blanket percentage generically to any statement and equate it to race? Bigotry [0], are you sure you are using this word correctly? [0] http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry http://www.dictionary.com/browse/bigotry
- twblalock 9y ago
  If two groups of people commit the same crimes at similar rates, and individuals in one of those groups are imprisoned more frequently than those in the other group, that's unfair on a systematic level. Nobody here said otherwise. What aspect of this situation makes the GP's advice untrue? For any individual in either group, the best way to avoid becoming a felon is to avoid committing felonies.

elefanten 9y ago

I think you're doing more to poison the well of this conversation with the attitude and tone of this post. While I happen to agree more with your position than gp's, there is room for a discussion here. The accusations of bigotry and attempts to wish away different perspectives are counter-productive here. You did not make the point so much better than gp that you get to command them to exit the conversation. GP says: 1) laws are clearly defined, 2) increased attention/punishment for repeat offenders != institutional inequity You say: 1) laws are subjectively enforced, 2) white and/or rich people don't suffer the same consequences Note that neither of your points are necessarily responsive to or mutually exclusive with gp's. But your appeal to the youth who might be reading this was just over the top.

jMyles 9y ago
> Note that neither of your points are necessarily responsive to or mutually exclusive with gp's. I think you're ignoring the more serious point, though. GP literally advised disadvantaged people to more judiciously follow the stupid laws that were designed in the first place to disadvantage them. > But your appeal to the youth who might be reading this was just over the top. Listen, I usually find any sort of "protect the children" narrative nauseating. But in the specific case of racism, I do think it's reckless to spout this stuff on this forum. You and I have perhaps read The New Jim Crow or exposed ourselves to the statistics of the drug war, but a lot of people (sure, young and old) come here from other fora where they're more likely to have followed the breadcrumbs of technological development and might need a little more help before being able to pick apart these basic, bedrock examples of institutional discrimination.