While not the author of the post you are responding to, I really appreciate this response. I have largely spent my life believing one way on these issues and have tried to be more open minded regarding my basic assumptions about American society. You taking the time to respond in such a thoughtful manner and tone and providing good information to dig deeper on helps me tremendously.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
> [Atwater] (F) essentially admits the racism at the core of the southern strategy, and the need to, over time, move from explicit and overt racism to more systematic changes that, while not explicitly racist, help white people at the expense of black people.
Well, that's a pretty tall claim! All it lacks is a "what about Atwater" at the start. I can play that game too, pal. What about Biden's racist remarks? Man, I call strawman! What's some quaint southern strategy from the 70's to do with the current FBI dataset on racial crime anyway? And who even is this Atwater-dude? I see he used to play with B.B King tho, so he can't be all bad, right? :D
> I actually forgot one thing Elder mentions, that no one cares when unarmed white people are shot by police. This isn't actually true: (...)
Dude, we all know what BLM is about, and it's not whites...
> laws were passed that disproportionately keep black people in prison, notably around crack vs. powder cocaine.
"Laws were passed..." This sounds awfully like an excuse—again—due to the fact (not claim) that blacks statistically commit more crimes anyway.
I note that a lot of states are currently relaxing their stance on Marijuana, though. Hopefully this will lead to fewer people being arrested for petty things like posession.
I think it's horrible to incarcerate people merely for possessing small amounts of illegal substances, especially if it's for a long time. More likely that is due to addiction, rather than trying to push it. And addiction requires treatment and care, not incarceration. Both treatment and incercerations cost money though, so IMHO it's better to spend it on treating the thing, rather then employing a tactic that is proven to be ineffective (i.e. higher or harsher sentences for petty crimes).
On the other hand, crack and cocaine really does destroy lives, so going harsh on it, is IMHO the only right thing to do. I mean, ruining your own life is one thing, but it's quite another to ruin the lives of someone else, and that is what pushing drugs does. That is why I think pushing drugs should always incurr the full wrath of society.
But then it's probably better to go after the big guys, rather than scoring easy points for your unit's stats by going ofter small fry. It might look good on paper, but throwing addicts in jail doesn't really solve the problem. For that you need to find the big fish, which is sadly a lot harder and costly to do. And sometimes those guys are well connected too. Either way, this is pretty tangential to the topic we're discussing.
The fact is, you're individually responsible for following the law. And it's illegal to use certain substances for good reason. When people then still go ahead and use illegal substances, despite knowing the law full well, then you can't really blame that on the system. You can't really blame the law for making black kids fatherless! The only guys responsible for that, are the fathers themselves, in that case, because what they did is inexcusable.
The fact is, they did have alternatives, but chose not to take them. That is how they ended up behind bars, and not the other way around. Perhaps you can blame that on bad culture, but then man the fuck up and do something about that culture then, and don't blame others for your own failure.
In fact, by blaming "the law," or "policies" or "whites" or "unfairness," you really only end up communicating that blacks are inferiour. On top of that, such behaviour naturally incurrs some legitimate prejudice, because why should you respect someone who themselves communicate that they are weaker than others? I mean, if that's really the case, then it's probably better to ask for help, rather than playing the blame game.
The only logical answer here, is to do like Denzel, and demand that blacks take back their own pride, and start fixing their own lives. Because that's the only way they'll also garner respect from others. And guess what, in todays America, they have all the opportunity to do just that! Hell, if you go into politics, you can even become the next president now! So stop playing the victim card and take back your pride! Then notice how people will immediatly start respecting you more. People who have self-respect of their own, and not pussies who bend the knee to avoid trouble at every corner.
[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-bloomberg-stop-and-frisk-keeps-new-york-safe/2013/08/18/8d4cd8c4-06cf-11e3-9259-e2aafe5a5f84_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/michael-bloomberg-st...
I'll remind you that you asked for us to have this discussion in a respectful manner. You don't seem to be doing that. So I'll just leave you with a few questions to ponder:
If Black people and White people use cannabis at the same rate, why are Black people more than 3x more likely to be arrested for marijuana use?
> The only guys responsible for that, are the fathers themselves, in that case, because what they did is inexcusable.
So given the above fact (that black people are more likely to be punished for the same crimes), you're saying that it is ultimately black people's responsibility to be more law abiding than white people?
> On top of that, such behaviour naturally incurrs some legitimate prejudice, because why should you respect someone who themselves communicate that they are weaker than others?
How does saying "the cards are stacked against us" imply weakness? Again, based on the facts, you want Black people to hold themselves to a higher standard than white people to stay out of the justice system. You're asking them to work harder. How is them recognizing that they are held to a higher standard recognizing some kind of weakness?
> What's some quaint southern strategy from the 70's to do with the current FBI dataset on racial crime anyway?
Do you think drug laws passed in the 70s, but which are still on the books today, and which define what is criminal might influence the statistics on crime today?
Do you think it might be worth looking at the disparate impact of some of those laws if people admitted that the strategy at the time was to pass laws that had negative impact on certain communities?
> you that you asked for us to have this discussion in a respectful manner. You don't seem to be doing that.
Do you think this is respectful: "You're making a lot of (intentional or not) dogwhistles"?
You might not believe it, but I actually do respect you. That's why I'm not treating you like a snowflake, and instead answering in kind. But also because you deserve to hear the truth.
> If Black people and White people use cannabis at the same rate, why are Black people more than 3x more likely to be arrested for marijuana use?
I don't buy the equivalence. Obviously, if blacks sell more drugs, then they will also be more closely followed by cops. This is certainly the case in Norway, where there are far less native drug pushers than non-Westerners, for instance. On top of that, if they already are followed more by cops, why aren't they changing their bad habits?
> So given the above fact (that black people are more likely to be punished for the same crimes), you're saying that it is ultimately black people's responsibility to be more law abiding than white people?
There is no "more" in this equation. Either you abide by the law, or you don't. And if you don't, then there can be consequences. If there is already more police present in your community, because more crimes are being committed there, then yeah, you'll get caught more often for committing those crimes. That isn't unfair. That is a consequence of you doing something illegal.
Does this mean that more whites probably get away with smoking pot? Probably. But then they commit far less crimes anyway.
> How does saying "the cards are stacked against us" imply weakness?
Because they're not saying that "the cards are stacked against us". They're instead claiming victimhood, spesifically at the hands of whites, as an excuse for committing more crimes, and doing more murders than any other community, and most of all among themselves. The fact is, that they have every opportunity to not commit those crimes, and instead become productive members of society. Nobody is forcing them to pick up that gun, that blunt or that screwdriver. Not even the policies you claim are so unfairly targetted at them. It's just not true. And so the only conclusion you can draw from such moaning, is that they are weaker and softer than other men, and so they probably don't deserve as much respect. The only way to turn that around, is to suck it up and accept responsibility for their own lives. Then added respect, and peace and prosperity, will effortlessly follow.
> Again, based on the facts, you want Black people to hold themselves to a higher standard than white people to stay out of the justice system.
No. Just a high enough standard to don't do drugs, don't do crime, and don't murder people, and instead be productive members of society. It's not exactly rocket science.
> You're asking them to work harder.
No, I don't. I'm merely asking them to follow the law, and stop pandering to a destructive and self-victimizing culture.
> How is them recognizing that they are held to a higher standard recognizing some kind of weakness?
That's not true. I'm holding them to the same standard as everyone else. Anything else would indeed be racism. Or wait, are you suggesting that blacks should be held to a lower standard than the rest of the communy then?
> Do you think drug laws passed in the 70s, but which are still on the books today, and which define what is criminal might influence the statistics on crime today?
Do you think the earth is revolving around the sun?
> Do you think it might be worth looking at the disparate impact of some of those laws if people admitted that the strategy at the time was to pass laws that had negative impact on certain communities?
All laws should always be reviewed and amended if they aren't serving the purpose they were originally made to serve. Why aren't BLM protesting these laws, then, and lobbying to have them changed, instead of tearing down statues? That is, if these laws really aren't serving their purpose. As I said before, pushing drugs still seriously and adversely affects the lives of others, and people doing that deserve the full wrath of the law.
> He starts by noting that white men and black men are killed by police at around the same rate. This is, again true. But this means that Black people are killed at around 5 times the rate of White people.
> These racial differences show more police violence towards minorities.
Naturally. Don't you think it's completely logical that people who also commit far mor crimes, also get into far more tussles with the police? Probably find a way for your community to become more law abiding and peaceful, and this will stop being an issue all by itself!
One way to do it, is to ask for policies that open up for more social community work, where the first responder to economical, drug related or abusive behaviour stops being the police, but rather a social worker, or some other community representative. It's just a suggestion. Should be right down your lane since you are a left winger!
If you can get democratic traction for something like this, which is far more fruitful than playin the blame game, I think it would help crime go down greatly. It's basically what is done in my own country, and while the system isn't perfect, it's preferable to storming communities with police all the time; a thing that naturally causes some legitimate outrage, though it's not necessarily due to racism.
This way of doing things isn't free, however—and let's face it, Norway is filthy rich—so you can assume there will be pushback on how it should be funded, especially from the Right. Then there's the fact that Norway is a far smaller and more close-knit society in general. But then so are most ethnicly homogeneous neighbourhoods. I still think it's an idea to at least explore. And I also think these ideas are far more preferable to the Right than tearing down statues.
> Elder then notes that police forces can be diverse, which is true but ultimately a distraction.
No, it's not. I means there's a far less chance that the police are racist.
> He mentions the NYPD as an example of a highly diverse police force, but neglects to mention that the NYPD's Stop and Frisk policy was so problematic that it was deemed unconstitutional due to its discriminatory nature[4].
Dude, what has the obviously political and administrative policy of "stop and frisk" to do with the racial composition of NY cops? I'll tell you: Nothing! They'd have to carry out that policy whether they were all black, all white, or diverse to the point of employing martians!
Either way, don't you think it's a little unfair to try to pin political policies on the police force? In fact, then Mayor Bloomberg (D) had the power to stop the frisking policy in New York at any point, but instead he chose to defended it.[1] And for good reason, because AFAIK it was wildly successful, and made New York a lot safer for most people.
> He then mentions that the Police-Public contact survey shows no evidence of police abuse against black people, but the Fryer paper Elder cites manages to reach the opposite conclusion: that based on the Police-Public contact survey, there is statistically significant evidence of greater police use of force against minority populations, even when controlling for a number of factors.
That's because there is no opposite here... Abuse ≠ Legitimate use of force.
> He then mentions his movie, Uncle Tom, which contains a number of "conservative thinkers", who are mostly pundits. It contains no academic experts.
Of course. All academic experts of the Right are just pundits. I get it...
> [It] ignores the Southern Strategy[5], an explicit Republican strategy to gain support in the south by appealing to white fears about race in the wake of the civil rights movement. 13th goes into detail on this.
Were these fears unfounded then? Obviously the numbers show that blacks do indeed kill far more whites than whites kill blacks, both per capita and in pure numbers. Again, facts, not claims. Do you think that shouldn't be a cause for consern? Man, lives are literally at stake!
"You're making a lot of (intentional or not) dogwhistles."
And you're not, of course...
"races in the US continue to be relatively segregated[0]."
Yes, similar groups, culturally or otherwise, tend to want to live among their own. Is this a problem?
"crimes, even violent ones, are usually committed within-community."
Of course.
"So the meme around "black on black violence" is a bit of a distraction unless you also are concerned about "white on white" violence."
I disagree. The most logical thing to do, is to look closer at the groups that actually commit the most crime, if you want to fight that crime. You have to remember that the decision to do something illegal is individual, so you have to put the blame where the blame is due. You can't blame the system, because it's equal for everyone. And if it's not, well, then you have to prove that it's unfair, and so far haven't really been very persuasive. This doesn't make white-on-white violence unimportant. Only less important thatn black-on-black violence under this discussion.
"organizations like stop the violence[1] do exist to address specifically violence within the black community."
Has it helped? I think we both agree on the answer here.
"So you start by stating true, but ultimately misleading claims that are often used to justify racial prejudice."
Make up your mind, please! Are the facts "true" or not? Facts are just facts, man. It's how you respond to them that matters. And by the way, facts aren't "claims." The fact that blacks kill most blacks isn't a claim; it's a fact! The proof is in the pudding, as it where, or in this case in the FBI statistics.
Look, if one group pesters you daily, and tries to steal your candy, then yeah, you're probably justified in being somewhat prejudiced against them, no matter the colour of their skin...
But guess what, if one groups steals and murders way more than another group, then probably this will cause the authorities to look closer at that group. Sadly this will also lead to more false positives being produced when the police finally starts doing their job. Of course, it's easy to label that as "institutional racism," especially when there's political power and money in it, but let's face it, it's really just an excuse, and a poor one at that.
"you justify this opinion with two videos from black people."
Of course I do. Otherwise you'd just call me a racist. I assume you're now going to do your best to discredit these two gentlemen instead of answering the facts...
"Neither Larry Elder nor Denzel Washington is an expert on incarceration or the US justice system."
But you are, of course...
"Larry Elder, in fact, is a right wing political pundit, so his income relies on his viewership. This calls into question his reliability."
Yes, only left wing pundits like yourself have the monopoly on truth, I see... Look, I have no horse in this race, but I can only assume that you're a flaming Democrat. :D
"I'd suggest you watch the documentary 13th[2] or read up on these issues from actual experts."
Thanks, I might look into it.
I worked my way through your post backwards, as it helps cut down on the number of heuristic based cognitive stop points. Just wanted to point out a few things that stood out.
>On dogwhistles.
I'm tired of hearing this term thrown about. This word more than any other cements the ostracization of those who have fundamentally different slices of world view from you into the social space of "I can't be bothered to try to convince you or build a bridge across the gap of our misunderstanding."
Are there hopeless cases? Yes, Absolutely. I consider myself a socially liberally inclined sort of fellow who embraces a "do as thou wilt, but don't break anything" attitude toward life. The don't break anything part being tacked on there in recent years based on immersion in and attempts to understand where more conservative mindsets come from. Believe it or not, conservative != racist. It doesn't equal stone wall, What it does encompass is a way of evaluating the world and proposed changes in terms of harmful malbehaviors that may be introduced. Whether you like it or not, you must appreciate that force at work to bridge the gap with a conservative. Show them you thought about it, took it seriously, and have means to minimize harms and you can get them on board.
Call everything they say a dogwhistle and paint them all as racists, and you will be amazed at how tightly ranks close.
>on the Fryer paper...
Haven't read it yet, but I'll give it a go. No comment til then.
>Uncle Tom and lack of academic experts
Thank God the world isn't run solely by academics, and statisticians! Give two statisticians the same set of data, and they'll generate two different models and stories for the same damn thing, and clearly there has been absolutely nothing like any sort of reproducibility crisis is the social sciences or economics fields, nor have their been controversies with the academic environment being gamed through innumerable submissions of low quality irreproducible papers!
Oh wait! Yes there has! If you've spent any amount of time here you should have more than a few to sample from.
Besides which, appeal to authority, while useful in fact discovery, does not score rhetorical points. Often for reasons alluded to above, and no, I'm not an anti-intellectual. I've been around the block more than once and I've seen some shit. Not the least of which is black holing of narratively inconvenient yet legitimate papers.
(See David Shor's recent cancelling).
The fact is politics is not just about facts or the collection/interpretation thereof. Politics at it's core is about building something that works for everyone involved, without overly burdening any party unduly. Now where American politics may legitimately have a problem is that the first time a felony occurs, a person is discounted from the political equation effectively even after they have played their debt to society and served their sentence. That the taint of the felony persists so long after an official sentence is served, and that full rights are not restored automatically to that of a citizen in good standing, and that there is no semblance or measures, or protections in this age of interconnected databases to protect anyone unfortunate enough to have picked up that felon label, seems absolutely problematic to me. However, that stands as a political necessity, since in a purported land of the free, there is the assumption that no one else carries the blame for the choices you've made but you and your lonesome. Furthermore, I don't think anyone has ever stopped to actually consider what would happen if a non-trivial fraction of the population was booted out of the political limelight entirely, because there is an implicit assumption the world is better off without accommodating the "demonstrably morally bankrupt" holding the reins of power. Not my view, but an observation of one of the terminus points of the Overton window in my experience, and one I don't see much point in arguing with beyond in the sense that we have an imperfect, by men justice system, so it sure does seem rather odd that there is no clean process for handling reintegration back into society. That's getting into completely different areas of how our political system and incentives are screwed up, but nevertheless, the point to take away is, the direct route in politics is frequently not the most expedient.
>Lee Atwater et al.
Well, seems to be a self-correcting problem does it not? Redlining is getting the scrutiny it deserves as well as myriad other forms of proxies for racism like Euclidean zoning; and no, the black community are not the only ones who noticed the gem of zoning laws contributing to continued segregation, I assure you. It just tends to take a while for people to hit that point in life where they've got other things nailed down enough to start asking juicy questions like "What's up with this zoning stuff anyway?" Like it or not, not everybody is terribly tuned to the difficulties of shaping public policy for resource consumption.
>on black fathers
So are you saying early adulthood incarceration causes bad fathers? Because I can see a case being made by many people for that causality to be the other way around.
>on greater likelyhhod of being arrested for marijuana abuse.
Don't know about anyone else, but when I was growing up and still in the primary grades (when marijuana based crackdowns was generally considered worthwhile), I always found it interesting that there were two distinct usage groups. Those who'd light one up in front of God and everyone, and those who'd do it somewhere private, and generally not when they were busy doing something for someone else. Furthermore, a large number of marijuana related cases I've heard of tend to result from consent being given to search a vehicle containing it, or from someone having hotboxed, and generated plenty of probable cause for an officer to suspect driving under the influence. The fact that it's practically a boutique charge (much like most firearm regulation charges are treated as) used to sweeten the list of crimes to be potentially prosecuted for never really helped matters. Point is, the disproportionate arrest rate of black vs. White may come down not on racial divides, but consumption pattern lines and ability to meld into the environment, and capacity to adhere to patterns of behavior that do not escalate you into the limelight of being noticed. A police officer's primary evaluation loop involves working out what isn't right given their environment. I'm willing to wager that cops would love to just let "endemic" crime slide, but that's not really an option given their need to act with integrity. Remember, statistics only reflect those who got caught. Those who didn't are, to the limited resources of the justice system, not worth going after. Does this infuriate me? Yes. I want white collar crime to be gone after with the assumed exuberance the police allegedly demonstrate going after people of color. That's reality though. The constraints of what we can get done are necessarily bounded by that which we can do.
>redlining/housing & the War on Drugs.
The war on drugs was in general aimed at the principle destabilizers of public order at the time; hippies/anti-war Protestors and the civil rights movement. If you're really annoyed the legacy still exists today, I'd advise you to read up on the concept of legislative sunset dates, and how their mandated inclusion forces choices in terms of prioritization of laws worth keeping on the books.(1/2)
(2/2)
>And this cycle is self-reinforcing. Without the ability for the current generation to create stable households, the next generation won't have wealth to build off of and will continue to be unstable. And so the cycle will continue. That's why we call it "systemic".
That cycle you describe sounds pretty pan-racial to me. I know many friends in the position of not being able to offer their children the facade of stability that their parent or parents offered them if any at all. I still see people from some of the shittiest circumstances become absolutely great people in their own right, and see other people who haven't suffered a want in their life become miserable, shallow, ugly people.
That's what kills me right now. BLM has the gall to think it's just black people who suffer. It isn't whataboutism, it's about growing up enough to realize the system is about more than you, or your in-group, and that maybe in the grand scheme of things, your suffering isn't intentional on anyone's part, but arises due to synergism's you aren't even aware of yet, then coming out of that rough to learn lesson that if the system is that tilted against you, it's all the more reason to work hard, thrive and succeed in spite of it that then the rest of the world will take you seriously. You and your in-group must be the paragons of the change you want to see. Wanton unrestrained violence, and trying to topple the culture that made your act of protest possible will get no one anywhere. Otherwise you simply undermine the efforts of the decent folk who are trying to make positive change happen.
I'll stop now, as this composition has eaten up far too much of my day, but I at least hope that you understand a bunch of links and sources does not a rhetorical argument make. You have to be willing to understand that virtue exists on all sides of a controversial topic. You also have to be fundamentally willing to accept that the change that may be possible may fall far short of your expectations.
And before anyone else tries to say the Founding Fathers don't seem overly concerned with doing that, you're also dead wrong. There were extensive attempts made to have their voices heard before the only reasonable choice of action fell to armed conflict. Even then, each and every one of those men going into it it knew they would have to become some of the most well versed individuals of the era in terms of having a grasp of Statecraft to have a shot at surviving the aftermath. I see nothing resembling that sort of commitment in our political arena today.
Anyway... That took way more of my day than I was setting out to expend, so I think I'll leave it there. I'm probably getting Randy any way.