5 ms·

I would never blame it ON the skin color. That would make zero sense.i don't get more prone to murder when I get a tan. But you can't say it's just from being p

I would never blame it ON the skin color. That would make zero sense.i don't get more prone to murder when I get a tan. But you can't say it's just from being poor. Poor Eastern Europeans don't murder each other for a pain of shoes. Something is going on in the culture of the African American community. I'm not sure what happened in the last 50+ years, but home ownership and marriage rates are WAY down in the African American community compared to 50 years ago and it's causing a lot of problems. Edit: I can't even believe you said I blamed it on skin color. I talked about what the group is doing, not what is making the group do it. Amazing people miss this

mandmandam 3y ago
> I can't even believe you said I blamed it on skin color Unless you believe yourself to speak for America, I very clearly didn't say that. > I'm not sure what happened in the last 50+ years, Institutional racism, drug wars, three strike laws, mandatory minimum sentencing, relentless propaganda and demonization, underfunded schools, leaders smeared and assassinated, etc etc etc. And now you, you specifically, are blaming it on "their culture" and acting like it's a big mystery. Ugh.
- throwaway894345 3y ago
  All of those things plausibly lead to cultural differences. How else do you get from those things to “elevated homicide rates” without traversing “culture”? Feels like you’re violently agreeing.
  - mandmandam 3y ago
    > Feels like you’re violently agreeing. No, I'm calmly providing context. I'd call it 'violence' when you assassinate leaders, throw fathers in jail for non violent drug offenses as deliberate racist policy, etc, and then stir people up against those with darker skin tone because of "math" that was stripped of all context. This thread is giving me a headache. Feels like when thedonald would raid subs back in 2016.
    - throwaway894345 3y ago
      For what it’s worth, “violent agreement” is a specific concept—it just means using an argumentative tone when they seem to be agreeing. I’m not actually suggesting you were behaving violently. I agree that your additional context is important, but it has opened almost every single conversation about race in America for the last 10-30 years. At a certain point, it would be good if we could advanced beyond it because absent the verboten cultural aspect it’s difficult to imagine how these things (particularly those which were officially ended decades ago, like the overwhelming majority of our racist policies) are manifesting as population-level differences in behavior apart from culture. For what it’s worth, we should absolutely release nonviolent drug offenders and repeal any remaining racist laws, but I don’t think anyone is expecting those things alone to solve crime in black communities. Refusing to look at it and shouting “racist” at anyone who does certainly hasn’t worked so far.
      - mandmandam 3y ago
        > At a certain point, it would be good if we could advanced beyond it It sure would; but if you can't call out literal white supremacist talking points then that's gonna be pretty hard to do. > Refusing to look at it and shouting “racist” at anyone who does certainly hasn’t worked so far. I didn't do that, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. There are literal racists toxicing up this thread, deliberately, so it's weird you'd focus your debate on the people adding the context which "has opened almost every single conversation about race in America for the last 10-30 years" yet is still somehow necessary to say.
        throwaway894345 3y ago
        > I didn't do that, so I don't know why you're bringing it up I'm not trying to mischaracterize you, but I'm pretty sure you used "literal white supremacist talking point" to refer to the parent's suggestion that culture seems to play a role in disparities. > so it's weird you'd focus your debate on the people adding the context ... yet is still somehow necessary to say. My debate wasn't focused on you adding this context, my argument is that critiquing culture is a valid thing to do. I never argued that you oughtn't add context, only that omitting the context (as it is common sense) isn't proof of racism in the same way that not opening a conversation with a treatise on gravity doesn't make one 'anti-science'. I'm trying to read and respond to your comments carefully so as to not accidentally argue against straw men--please afford me the same courtesy.

mandmandam 3y ago

> I can't even believe you said I blamed it on skin color Unless you believe yourself to speak for America, I very clearly didn't say that. > I'm not sure what happened in the last 50+ years, Institutional racism, drug wars, three strike laws, mandatory minimum sentencing, relentless propaganda and demonization, underfunded schools, leaders smeared and assassinated, etc etc etc. And now you, you specifically, are blaming it on "their culture" and acting like it's a big mystery. Ugh.

throwaway894345 3y ago
All of those things plausibly lead to cultural differences. How else do you get from those things to “elevated homicide rates” without traversing “culture”? Feels like you’re violently agreeing.
- mandmandam 3y ago
  > Feels like you’re violently agreeing. No, I'm calmly providing context. I'd call it 'violence' when you assassinate leaders, throw fathers in jail for non violent drug offenses as deliberate racist policy, etc, and then stir people up against those with darker skin tone because of "math" that was stripped of all context. This thread is giving me a headache. Feels like when thedonald would raid subs back in 2016.
  - throwaway894345 3y ago
    For what it’s worth, “violent agreement” is a specific concept—it just means using an argumentative tone when they seem to be agreeing. I’m not actually suggesting you were behaving violently. I agree that your additional context is important, but it has opened almost every single conversation about race in America for the last 10-30 years. At a certain point, it would be good if we could advanced beyond it because absent the verboten cultural aspect it’s difficult to imagine how these things (particularly those which were officially ended decades ago, like the overwhelming majority of our racist policies) are manifesting as population-level differences in behavior apart from culture. For what it’s worth, we should absolutely release nonviolent drug offenders and repeal any remaining racist laws, but I don’t think anyone is expecting those things alone to solve crime in black communities. Refusing to look at it and shouting “racist” at anyone who does certainly hasn’t worked so far.
    - mandmandam 3y ago
      > At a certain point, it would be good if we could advanced beyond it It sure would; but if you can't call out literal white supremacist talking points then that's gonna be pretty hard to do. > Refusing to look at it and shouting “racist” at anyone who does certainly hasn’t worked so far. I didn't do that, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. There are literal racists toxicing up this thread, deliberately, so it's weird you'd focus your debate on the people adding the context which "has opened almost every single conversation about race in America for the last 10-30 years" yet is still somehow necessary to say.
      - throwaway894345 3y ago
        > I didn't do that, so I don't know why you're bringing it up I'm not trying to mischaracterize you, but I'm pretty sure you used "literal white supremacist talking point" to refer to the parent's suggestion that culture seems to play a role in disparities. > so it's weird you'd focus your debate on the people adding the context ... yet is still somehow necessary to say. My debate wasn't focused on you adding this context, my argument is that critiquing culture is a valid thing to do. I never argued that you oughtn't add context, only that omitting the context (as it is common sense) isn't proof of racism in the same way that not opening a conversation with a treatise on gravity doesn't make one 'anti-science'. I'm trying to read and respond to your comments carefully so as to not accidentally argue against straw men--please afford me the same courtesy.