4 ms·

> Even left wing dominated cities have large numbers of right wing constituents. To think this is the cause of police brutality is a stretch to put it mildly.

> Even left wing dominated cities have large numbers of right wing constituents. To think this is the cause of police brutality is a stretch to put it mildly. > Right wing cancel culture are lynch mobs and the literal bombing of an American city and the imprisonment of an unconscionable number of black males. Again with the random grab of different grievances. None of these are relevant to this conversation, but explaining why would require a separate explanation for each one. Instead of trying to throw whatever you can against the wall to see what sticks, why not pick one or two things you think are the best example of what you are arguing, and I can just refute that?

Misdicorl 5y ago
Sure. Explain selective enforcement of drug policy and the subsequent imprisonment of a huge fraction of Americans who happen to be black on those charges. How does that not fall under "silencing people the right do not like".
- lliamander 5y ago
  > Concerned about the deadly effect of crack within their own communities, black members of Congress led the charge to pass the 1986 federal drug laws. The bill that was passed — which included the crack/powder sentencing disparity — did so with the support of the majority of black congresspersons. None at the time objected to the sentencing disparity as “racist.” > In 2006, the feds tried 5,619 crack sellers, and 4,495 of them were black — out of the 562,000 blacks in state and federal prisons at the end of that year. Add in county and city jails, and the figure rises to 858,000. And states’ crack cocaine laws are not the culprits. Only 13 states employ differing sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder — and their differential is much smaller than that of the feds. https://larryelder.com/column/five-myths-of-the-racist-criminal-justice-system/ https://larryelder.com/column/five-myths-of-the-racist-crimi...
Misdicorl 5y ago
I'm not able to respond to your below point. I understand why you jumped to the crack/cocaine disparity. In response if like to surface three points 1) it seems unlikely (although I don't have/know data) that a 10% population can have 80% of the convictions without intentional bias at play. Black people are not the only poor people in America. 2) I emphasized drug policy in general. I think you will find it much harder to explain the differential marijuana conviction rates 3) I also emphasized selective enforcement of policy rather than the policy itself on purpose. I know the policy itself is not a clear cut situation. Although I will remark having a few token black members of Congress behind the proposal is not a particularly strong counter argument in my opinion.
- lliamander 5y ago
  So there's two levels to this debate: 1) How unfair/biased is the policing of blacks in America? 2) To what extent is that unfairness the result of the right intentionally trying to harm their outgroup? That second point is essential to your argument that that bias in criminal law is a form of "right-wing cancel culture". When a left-wing twitter mob joins in to get a man fired from his job for holding his fingers in the shape of the "OK" sign[1], that is their explicit intention. Likewise, you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?). Even if you were completely correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not) the fact that the policy was championed by black politicians and endorsed by a Democratic-majority House of Representatives makes your thesis that it was all a right-wing plot completely untenable. As for the enforcement side, even if the police enforcing these laws were majority right-wing, this is still primarily happening in cities where the politicians, judges, district attorneys, etc. all have a left-wing bias. With all this in mind, what you are arguing sounds more like a conspiracy theory. Again, not every outcome you don't like is the result of intentional action by your political enemies. As for addressing the question how unfair in general the criminal justice system is towards blacks, there are several other good arguments in the link I shared. I don't have any specific stats about marijuana-related convictions, but even if there is a bias in that area, I think the arguments linked undermine the idea that in general the criminal justice system is unfair to blacks[2]. [1]https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/ https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove... [2]Of course, the higher rates of incarceration of blacks is certainly tragic, and I would be glad for solutions to reduce that rate. There are probably many factors that cause this higher rate, but my argument is simply that biased laws and law-enforcement are not among them.
  - Misdicorl 5y ago
    > (if you are) correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not) I think if we can't agree here, we are unlikely to agree on much of anything at all. > you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?) Yes. And closer to scapegoat/target than enemy, but sure. > even if the police enforcing these laws were majority right-wing They are, as I understand it. But I care little about this point and accept that there are many good police officers who are not biased. > it was all a right-wing plot completely untenable Its not a plot. Its a tool used by the right wing to achieve their aims. Whether that tool had good or bad motives at the start is immaterial to the discussion of how its used in practice. > With all this in mind, what you are arguing sounds more like a conspiracy theory. The right wing has many tools at its disposal in order to silence and oppress their targets. Of these tools, public derision via cancel culture requires specific targets and has a large chance of blow back via the Streissand effect rallying supporters to the targetted individual. In contrast, broad untargetted attacks afforded by diffuse structures like criminal law enforcement, crippling economic controls, political deactivation via gerrymandering and direct voter suppression are far more effective tools at their disposal. Notice the fact that you are able to point to a specific event and specific supporters of the outcome of that event in your comparison of "left" cancel culture to "right" oppression. I know you have decided that is the nail in the coffin of my argument. However, consider how much more effective my arguments could be and how difficult a time you would have if that person were fired from their job after holding that ok sign up. But there wasn't a twitter mob. Just a routine dismissal from the company. And all you could do was point at how often that happens to people like that and how little it happens to people who do the same thing but have a different skin color/sex/wear glasses/whatever.

Misdicorl 5y ago

Sure. Explain selective enforcement of drug policy and the subsequent imprisonment of a huge fraction of Americans who happen to be black on those charges. How does that not fall under "silencing people the right do not like".

lliamander 5y ago
> Concerned about the deadly effect of crack within their own communities, black members of Congress led the charge to pass the 1986 federal drug laws. The bill that was passed — which included the crack/powder sentencing disparity — did so with the support of the majority of black congresspersons. None at the time objected to the sentencing disparity as “racist.” > In 2006, the feds tried 5,619 crack sellers, and 4,495 of them were black — out of the 562,000 blacks in state and federal prisons at the end of that year. Add in county and city jails, and the figure rises to 858,000. And states’ crack cocaine laws are not the culprits. Only 13 states employ differing sentencing guidelines for crack vs. powder — and their differential is much smaller than that of the feds. https://larryelder.com/column/five-myths-of-the-racist-criminal-justice-system/ https://larryelder.com/column/five-myths-of-the-racist-crimi...

Misdicorl 5y ago

I'm not able to respond to your below point. I understand why you jumped to the crack/cocaine disparity. In response if like to surface three points 1) it seems unlikely (although I don't have/know data) that a 10% population can have 80% of the convictions without intentional bias at play. Black people are not the only poor people in America. 2) I emphasized drug policy in general. I think you will find it much harder to explain the differential marijuana conviction rates 3) I also emphasized selective enforcement of policy rather than the policy itself on purpose. I know the policy itself is not a clear cut situation. Although I will remark having a few token black members of Congress behind the proposal is not a particularly strong counter argument in my opinion.

lliamander 5y ago
So there's two levels to this debate: 1) How unfair/biased is the policing of blacks in America? 2) To what extent is that unfairness the result of the right intentionally trying to harm their outgroup? That second point is essential to your argument that that bias in criminal law is a form of "right-wing cancel culture". When a left-wing twitter mob joins in to get a man fired from his job for holding his fingers in the shape of the "OK" sign[1], that is their explicit intention. Likewise, you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?). Even if you were completely correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not) the fact that the policy was championed by black politicians and endorsed by a Democratic-majority House of Representatives makes your thesis that it was all a right-wing plot completely untenable. As for the enforcement side, even if the police enforcing these laws were majority right-wing, this is still primarily happening in cities where the politicians, judges, district attorneys, etc. all have a left-wing bias. With all this in mind, what you are arguing sounds more like a conspiracy theory. Again, not every outcome you don't like is the result of intentional action by your political enemies. As for addressing the question how unfair in general the criminal justice system is towards blacks, there are several other good arguments in the link I shared. I don't have any specific stats about marijuana-related convictions, but even if there is a bias in that area, I think the arguments linked undermine the idea that in general the criminal justice system is unfair to blacks[2]. [1]https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-over-alleged-racist-gesture-says-he-was-cracking-knuckles/2347414/ https://www.nbcsandiego.com/news/local/sdge-worker-fired-ove... [2]Of course, the higher rates of incarceration of blacks is certainly tragic, and I would be glad for solutions to reduce that rate. There are probably many factors that cause this higher rate, but my argument is simply that biased laws and law-enforcement are not among them.
- Misdicorl 5y ago
  > (if you are) correct about racial unfairness in the criminal justice system (which you are not) I think if we can't agree here, we are unlikely to agree on much of anything at all. > you are arguing that biased outcomes in criminal law are the intentional outcome of right-wingers targeting their political enemies (who are black people, apparently?) Yes. And closer to scapegoat/target than enemy, but sure. > even if the police enforcing these laws were majority right-wing They are, as I understand it. But I care little about this point and accept that there are many good police officers who are not biased. > it was all a right-wing plot completely untenable Its not a plot. Its a tool used by the right wing to achieve their aims. Whether that tool had good or bad motives at the start is immaterial to the discussion of how its used in practice. > With all this in mind, what you are arguing sounds more like a conspiracy theory. The right wing has many tools at its disposal in order to silence and oppress their targets. Of these tools, public derision via cancel culture requires specific targets and has a large chance of blow back via the Streissand effect rallying supporters to the targetted individual. In contrast, broad untargetted attacks afforded by diffuse structures like criminal law enforcement, crippling economic controls, political deactivation via gerrymandering and direct voter suppression are far more effective tools at their disposal. Notice the fact that you are able to point to a specific event and specific supporters of the outcome of that event in your comparison of "left" cancel culture to "right" oppression. I know you have decided that is the nail in the coffin of my argument. However, consider how much more effective my arguments could be and how difficult a time you would have if that person were fired from their job after holding that ok sign up. But there wasn't a twitter mob. Just a routine dismissal from the company. And all you could do was point at how often that happens to people like that and how little it happens to people who do the same thing but have a different skin color/sex/wear glasses/whatever.