4 ms·
The polemic part is that he's says driving as a non-white person is a de facto crime in the US, which is of course utterly untrue. As a non-white person, I'm su
by cato_the_elder 4y ago
The polemic part is that he's says driving as a non-white person is a de facto crime in the US, which is of course utterly untrue. As a non-white person, I'm sure I would've known if that was the case.
(Also, I had linked to the wrong tweet in the thread. I've corrected it now.)
- Kbelicius 4y agoI don't see anything controversial with that statement. I think that you are mixing de jure and de facto.
- cato_the_elder 4y agoNo, I'm not. It's clearly not a de facto crime. How many non-white Americans get sentenced merely because of driving?
- simonh 4y agoDe Facto describes situations that exist in reality (in fact), even if they are not legally recognised. Sundown towns exist in reality regardless of the law, and non-whites driving through them can face harassment and even arrest or prosecution for no other reason than being non-white while driving. The reason given for the arrest or prosecution will be a book crime, but that's not the actual factual (de facto) reason for it happening.
- joemazerino 4y ago> driving through them can face As De Facto as getting hit by lightning. Let's leave the polemics out.
- Kbelicius 4y ago> How many non-white Americans get sentenced merely because of driving? Arresting non-white Americans merely for driving isn't de jure but your question presuppose that it is or that someone her is claiming that it is(nobody is). Can't get any more obvious that you are mixing de jure and de facto.
- type0 4y agoI like Cory, he isn't just a leftist but what I would call sjw light so I usually take everything coming from him with a big chunk of salt