5 ms·

Sorry to be the voice of Bill Cosby but my read of this is that black men are killing each other and then going to prison for it (drug charges are responsible f

by omonra 12y ago

Sorry to be the voice of Bill Cosby but my read of this is that black men are killing each other and then going to prison for it (drug charges are responsible for maybe 20% of people in prison - ie stats would still be largely same without the drug war). And somehow that's everybody else's fault?

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
steveeq1 12y ago
agreed.
picks_at_nits 12y ago
Whenever I ready “Sorry to ____, but...” I wonder to myself: 1. Is the speaker truly appalled at saying the thing that follows, but it's a radical, earth-shattering insight will cut through the Gordian Knot, e.g. “I’m really sorry to question the Bible, but maybe the Earth actually is older than 6,000 years?” Or: 2. Someone’s warning detection is working, but the connection to the brake has been severed, and the speaker wants to charge ahead and say it without any real concern for tone. If what follows the disclaimer needs to be said, just say it. If you get backlash, deal with it. The faux-pology up front undermines your sincerity rather than reinforcing it.
- omonra 12y ago
  The 'sorry' part referred to my comment sticking out like a sore thumb. Every other comment goes on about racism, etc - while I see a problem inherent in the subset of individuals themselves. It's a social thing - to prepare the reader for what may strike them as an unpleasant (yet I believe is true) perspective.
  - RodericDay 12y ago
    Wow you are really brave
  - picks_at_nits 12y ago
    > It's a social thing - to prepare the reader for what may strike them as an unpleasant (yet I believe is true) perspective I’m perfectly aware of what this is supposed to do on the surface, but I am sharing with you that there is a discrepancy between what you claim to be doing and how at least one person perceives what you are actually doing. You may think that you’re preparing the reader for an unpleasant truth, but note that if what you were about to say was inarguably true, you could just say it and present the evidence. You yourself admit that it’s just a perspective, another way to say that it’s an opinion. So by prefacing your perspective with a disclaimer that you know in advance that you are going to present an unpleasant perspective, what you’re saying is that you are going to be unpleasant, you know you are going to be unpleasant, and you know that this isn’t an uncomfortable but incontrovertible truth like the Bible not being literally true. So what it comes down to is this: Instead of just giving an unpleasant perspective, you have given an unpleasant perspective AND told everyone that you know it’s unpleasant, know that it isn’t and incontrovertible truth, and are telling everyone any ways. This drags yourself into the discussion. Instead of just thinking about your perspective, we are also asked to think about the fact that the perspective is unpleasant, why it is unpleasant, why you choose to share an unpleasant perspective, why you announce it to us, and so forth. People might, for example, think that you say such things purely because you enjoy being controversial. Is that true? I don’t know! But when you tell me that you are bing controversial on top of actually being controversial, it’s certainly a reasonable thing to wonder. Which is why I go back to what I suggested to you: If your perspective is worth sharing, just share it. Leave out the preparation. Don’t derail your point by inviting speculation as to why you’re sharing an unpleasant perspective if you know in advance its unpleasant. I hope you understand that I’m trying to help you share your ideas--whether I agree with them or not--in the best possible and most constructive manner.
    - omonra 12y ago
      It's like an Asperger points competition here :) My take is that it's a polite thing to do. Like when a doctor says 'Sorry, this might sting a bit' before they do something. The doctor is not sorry - they're simply acknowledging that they are about to do something unpleasant because they are being polite. So is this. I feel that majority of people commenting are afraid to face the truth because they think acknowledging it makes them racist. Well that's what make me say 'Sorry' - as verbalizing it pierces their self-created bubble in which certain thoughts are considered crimethink.
cm2012 12y ago
You can't think about demographic issues in terms of assigning fault. On a statistical level across large populations, fate is determined from before you turn 6 (upbringing, genetics, etc.)
veritas20 12y ago
Where did you get these stats? Your statement does not seem to acknowledge that there is an interdependence between violence/homicide and illegal drug trade.
- omonra 12y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440
ch4s3 12y ago
Combined state and federal incarceration in 2012: 47.7% violent, 52.3% non violent, of which 20.5% is drug related.[1] See also that 20% of 1.5 million is 300,000 people, a lot. Imagine for a moment a community where 50% of men over 18 are or have been in prison. If you erase 20% of that number then you have a community with a 10% bump in its productive male population. I would imagine that boost in available parents would keep some of those young men from ever slipping into cyclical violence. [1]http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339 http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...
learc83 12y ago
A huge number of people are in jail for commiting violent crimes that while not labled "drug related", are still related to the war on drugs. Drug prohibition funds gangs and cartels, which directly leads to a host of other crimes. If you ended the war on drugs, it's likely that the prison population would drop by much more than 20%.
- omonra 12y ago
  I'm not sure that's a given. Ie once drug trade loses its profitability, I expect the individuals involved in it to move to something else (but hardly to other poorly paid jobs requiring commensurate levels of education). Ie - did ending of prohibition bring the end of the organized crime?
  - stickfigure 12y ago
    I would be perfectly happy to accept a massive reduction in organized crime, even if it doesn't end. Crime is not perfectly fungible. There just isn't another victimless crime available with this kind of popularity and profitability.
    - omonra 12y ago
      I'm all for decriminalizing drugs, no argument from me on that. However Portugal homicide rate went up by 40% after they did it (https://fullfact.org/factchecks/Portugal_decriminalisation_drugs_effects-3276 https://fullfact.org/factchecks/Portugal_decriminalisation_d...). So not sure it's the silver bullet people expet.
      - stickfigure 12y ago
        That document pretty explicitly says it has no idea if the statistic is linked to drug policy. However, even if we posit that the correlation is significant, I'm not sure what you can read into this. While comparatively enlightened, Portugal did not legalize drug possession and didn't decriminalize vending of drugs. So organized crime is still the one making (and fighting over) all the money. To this day, the best example of the social effects of repealing prohibition is the repeal of Prohibition.
unprepare 12y ago
Do you have a source for your 20% figure?
- omonra 12y ago
  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440
  - unprepare 12y ago
    This source does not back your claims at all. Firstly, it doesn't break the statistics down by race. Blacks are arrested disproportionately for drug crimes [1][2], you can't assume because the general prison population is 20% that the same is true of a subpopulation. The FBI shows that White commit disproportionately more violent crimes[3] - though it is important to note that the FBI stats are arrests, and not prison. Blacks get harsher prison sentences for all categories, and thus would make up a higher percentage of prison populations than if sentences were even across races. To show you why its other peoples problem look at your own sentence here: >black men are killing each other Over what? The answer here is the drug war creating hyper competitive and very well paying black markets, especially prevalent in poor communities where drug abuse is the most common (and thus drug dealing and territory are more lucrative). No one is absolving the black community of responsibility, it would be crazy to do so. But to place ALL of the blame on a community with the worst schools, the least nuclear families, the highest rates of drug use, and the least financial stability would be well passed insensitive. The problem is the subjugation of the lower class, blacks just happen to be disproportionately in the class and have been for generations. Looking at these statistics by race is a red herring in the first place. What we need is to be seeing crime statistic based on socioeconomic status. It will then be obvious what parts of society are breeding crime. [1]http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2014/09/30-war-on-drugs-black-social-mobility-rothwell http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2... [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustice-of-marijuana-arrests.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-inju... [3]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/c...
haberman 12y ago
It drives me crazy how many people see a problem like this and are determined to conclude that that problem has only one cause. So one side decides that the (only) cause is that black people wantonly decide to choose a life of crime when they could just as easily have been upstanding members of society. Ergo, it is all black peoples' fault. And the other side decides that the (only) cause is that the criminal justice system incarcerates black people disproportionately, exclusively out of racism and bias. Ergo, it is all white peoples' fault. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that both of these are extreme positions? Both groups of people need to look inward, challenge themselves to fix what is broken, and work together to improve the situation.
- a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
  On the one hand you can argue there are "systemic" forces which are apparently unquantifiable driving blacks to elevated rates of criminality even after controlling for socio-economic factors. Presumably large, racially discriminatory social programs and cultural programming such as have been tried for the last 40 years are called for to remedy the problem. On the other hand you can take at face value the reams of data spanning over 80 years showing that across all categories of crime blacks have well over double the white rate. And this pattern holds up internationally, not just in America. We can just accept it as a fact of life and deal with it in a sane way that doesn't waste too much money or wrongly penalize innocent individuals.
  - haberman 12y ago
    > Presumably large, racially discriminatory social programs and cultural programming such as have been tried for the last 40 years are called for to remedy the problem. There are plenty of obvious things that need fixing, even if you don't believe at all in affirmative action-like programs: 1. Clear conflicts of interest in the criminal justice system, like regular prosecutors being responsible for bringing charges against police, with whom they have close professional and often personal relationships. 2. The unjustifiable war on drugs, which disproportionately affects black communities. 3. Bad behavior by police officers, which likewise disproportionately affects black communities. This is pretty hard to measure because the offenders are the same people who are counting the stats. But we frequently get to see it in shocking display, like when a police officer is caught on video shooting a man who is running away and then planting evidence on him.
southphillyman 12y ago
>And somehow that's everybody else's fault? Yah, it's called institutional racism. Policy generated poverty, sub par educational standards exacerbated by the destruction of the nuclear family, and a significant percentage of people who can't earn livable wages or vote after being filtered through the industrial prison complex. We are human beings, there is enough history to suggest we behave like savages when reduced to the lowest common denominator. Btw, murders can be related to drugs with out there being a drug related conviction (ie: gang turf wars)
- omonra 12y ago
  Institutional racism in the US was a lot stronger 60 or 100 years ago - yet the level of black crime was significantly lower. I had a hard time finding chart to show this, but here is the Chicago murder rate chart for 1870-2008: http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q689/john_albert1/murderrate_zps1764ceef.jpg http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q689/john_albert1/murder... I see a huge spike in the 60s with gradual leveling - but we are still 3x higher than before whatever happened in the 1960s...
  - rtpg 12y ago
    I think everyone acknowledges things have gotten better, but the effects of institutional racism are pretty long-term. Just an example, but up until maybe a generation ago, it was nigh-impossible to get a mortgage on your house if you were black or decided to live in a neighborhood that was less than 95% white. Even when going through federal aid programs. Meaning people end up having to go through what are basically loan sharks to get housing for their family, and if anything at all happened, the house is lost instantly. Makes it pretty hard for the grandparents to retire in their tiny house when nobody actually owns the property. I think the crime level stats are usually confounding with poverty rates. Pretty sure the color of one's skin doesn't make it more likely to kill someone, but there's an argument for poor environments (for example, the worst apartment possible because literally no one else will rent to you, in an area with poor social services) helping spawn crime.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]

by omonra 12y ago

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

steveeq1 12y ago

agreed.

picks_at_nits 12y ago

Whenever I ready “Sorry to ____, but...” I wonder to myself: 1. Is the speaker truly appalled at saying the thing that follows, but it's a radical, earth-shattering insight will cut through the Gordian Knot, e.g. “I’m really sorry to question the Bible, but maybe the Earth actually is older than 6,000 years?” Or: 2. Someone’s warning detection is working, but the connection to the brake has been severed, and the speaker wants to charge ahead and say it without any real concern for tone. If what follows the disclaimer needs to be said, just say it. If you get backlash, deal with it. The faux-pology up front undermines your sincerity rather than reinforcing it.

omonra 12y ago
The 'sorry' part referred to my comment sticking out like a sore thumb. Every other comment goes on about racism, etc - while I see a problem inherent in the subset of individuals themselves. It's a social thing - to prepare the reader for what may strike them as an unpleasant (yet I believe is true) perspective.
- RodericDay 12y ago
  Wow you are really brave
- picks_at_nits 12y ago
  > It's a social thing - to prepare the reader for what may strike them as an unpleasant (yet I believe is true) perspective I’m perfectly aware of what this is supposed to do on the surface, but I am sharing with you that there is a discrepancy between what you claim to be doing and how at least one person perceives what you are actually doing. You may think that you’re preparing the reader for an unpleasant truth, but note that if what you were about to say was inarguably true, you could just say it and present the evidence. You yourself admit that it’s just a perspective, another way to say that it’s an opinion. So by prefacing your perspective with a disclaimer that you know in advance that you are going to present an unpleasant perspective, what you’re saying is that you are going to be unpleasant, you know you are going to be unpleasant, and you know that this isn’t an uncomfortable but incontrovertible truth like the Bible not being literally true. So what it comes down to is this: Instead of just giving an unpleasant perspective, you have given an unpleasant perspective AND told everyone that you know it’s unpleasant, know that it isn’t and incontrovertible truth, and are telling everyone any ways. This drags yourself into the discussion. Instead of just thinking about your perspective, we are also asked to think about the fact that the perspective is unpleasant, why it is unpleasant, why you choose to share an unpleasant perspective, why you announce it to us, and so forth. People might, for example, think that you say such things purely because you enjoy being controversial. Is that true? I don’t know! But when you tell me that you are bing controversial on top of actually being controversial, it’s certainly a reasonable thing to wonder. Which is why I go back to what I suggested to you: If your perspective is worth sharing, just share it. Leave out the preparation. Don’t derail your point by inviting speculation as to why you’re sharing an unpleasant perspective if you know in advance its unpleasant. I hope you understand that I’m trying to help you share your ideas--whether I agree with them or not--in the best possible and most constructive manner.
  - omonra 12y ago
    It's like an Asperger points competition here :) My take is that it's a polite thing to do. Like when a doctor says 'Sorry, this might sting a bit' before they do something. The doctor is not sorry - they're simply acknowledging that they are about to do something unpleasant because they are being polite. So is this. I feel that majority of people commenting are afraid to face the truth because they think acknowledging it makes them racist. Well that's what make me say 'Sorry' - as verbalizing it pierces their self-created bubble in which certain thoughts are considered crimethink.

cm2012 12y ago

You can't think about demographic issues in terms of assigning fault. On a statistical level across large populations, fate is determined from before you turn 6 (upbringing, genetics, etc.)

veritas20 12y ago

Where did you get these stats? Your statement does not seem to acknowledge that there is an interdependence between violence/homicide and illegal drug trade.

omonra 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440

ch4s3 12y ago

Combined state and federal incarceration in 2012: 47.7% violent, 52.3% non violent, of which 20.5% is drug related.[1] See also that 20% of 1.5 million is 300,000 people, a lot. Imagine for a moment a community where 50% of men over 18 are or have been in prison. If you erase 20% of that number then you have a community with a 10% bump in its productive male population. I would imagine that boost in available parents would keep some of those young men from ever slipping into cyclical violence. [1]http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=004339 http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...

learc83 12y ago

A huge number of people are in jail for commiting violent crimes that while not labled "drug related", are still related to the war on drugs. Drug prohibition funds gangs and cartels, which directly leads to a host of other crimes. If you ended the war on drugs, it's likely that the prison population would drop by much more than 20%.

omonra 12y ago
I'm not sure that's a given. Ie once drug trade loses its profitability, I expect the individuals involved in it to move to something else (but hardly to other poorly paid jobs requiring commensurate levels of education). Ie - did ending of prohibition bring the end of the organized crime?
- stickfigure 12y ago
  I would be perfectly happy to accept a massive reduction in organized crime, even if it doesn't end. Crime is not perfectly fungible. There just isn't another victimless crime available with this kind of popularity and profitability.
  - omonra 12y ago
    I'm all for decriminalizing drugs, no argument from me on that. However Portugal homicide rate went up by 40% after they did it (https://fullfact.org/factchecks/Portugal_decriminalisation_drugs_effects-3276 https://fullfact.org/factchecks/Portugal_decriminalisation_d...). So not sure it's the silver bullet people expet.
    - stickfigure 12y ago
      That document pretty explicitly says it has no idea if the statistic is linked to drug policy. However, even if we posit that the correlation is significant, I'm not sure what you can read into this. While comparatively enlightened, Portugal did not legalize drug possession and didn't decriminalize vending of drugs. So organized crime is still the one making (and fighting over) all the money. To this day, the best example of the social effects of repealing prohibition is the repeal of Prohibition.

unprepare 12y ago

Do you have a source for your 20% figure?

omonra 12y ago
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9410440
- unprepare 12y ago
  This source does not back your claims at all. Firstly, it doesn't break the statistics down by race. Blacks are arrested disproportionately for drug crimes [1][2], you can't assume because the general prison population is 20% that the same is true of a subpopulation. The FBI shows that White commit disproportionately more violent crimes[3] - though it is important to note that the FBI stats are arrests, and not prison. Blacks get harsher prison sentences for all categories, and thus would make up a higher percentage of prison populations than if sentences were even across races. To show you why its other peoples problem look at your own sentence here: >black men are killing each other Over what? The answer here is the drug war creating hyper competitive and very well paying black markets, especially prevalent in poor communities where drug abuse is the most common (and thus drug dealing and territory are more lucrative). No one is absolving the black community of responsibility, it would be crazy to do so. But to place ALL of the blame on a community with the worst schools, the least nuclear families, the highest rates of drug use, and the least financial stability would be well passed insensitive. The problem is the subjugation of the lower class, blacks just happen to be disproportionately in the class and have been for generations. Looking at these statistics by race is a red herring in the first place. What we need is to be seeing crime statistic based on socioeconomic status. It will then be obvious what parts of society are breeding crime. [1]http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2014/09/30-war-on-drugs-black-social-mobility-rothwell http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/social-mobility-memos/posts/2... [2]http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-injustice-of-marijuana-arrests.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/29/opinion/high-time-the-inju... [3]http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/crime-in-the-u.s.-2012/tables/43tabledatadecoverviewpdf http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2012/c...

haberman 12y ago

It drives me crazy how many people see a problem like this and are determined to conclude that that problem has only one cause. So one side decides that the (only) cause is that black people wantonly decide to choose a life of crime when they could just as easily have been upstanding members of society. Ergo, it is all black peoples' fault. And the other side decides that the (only) cause is that the criminal justice system incarcerates black people disproportionately, exclusively out of racism and bias. Ergo, it is all white peoples' fault. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that both of these are extreme positions? Both groups of people need to look inward, challenge themselves to fix what is broken, and work together to improve the situation.

a8da6b0c91d 12y ago
On the one hand you can argue there are "systemic" forces which are apparently unquantifiable driving blacks to elevated rates of criminality even after controlling for socio-economic factors. Presumably large, racially discriminatory social programs and cultural programming such as have been tried for the last 40 years are called for to remedy the problem. On the other hand you can take at face value the reams of data spanning over 80 years showing that across all categories of crime blacks have well over double the white rate. And this pattern holds up internationally, not just in America. We can just accept it as a fact of life and deal with it in a sane way that doesn't waste too much money or wrongly penalize innocent individuals.
- haberman 12y ago
  > Presumably large, racially discriminatory social programs and cultural programming such as have been tried for the last 40 years are called for to remedy the problem. There are plenty of obvious things that need fixing, even if you don't believe at all in affirmative action-like programs: 1. Clear conflicts of interest in the criminal justice system, like regular prosecutors being responsible for bringing charges against police, with whom they have close professional and often personal relationships. 2. The unjustifiable war on drugs, which disproportionately affects black communities. 3. Bad behavior by police officers, which likewise disproportionately affects black communities. This is pretty hard to measure because the offenders are the same people who are counting the stats. But we frequently get to see it in shocking display, like when a police officer is caught on video shooting a man who is running away and then planting evidence on him.

southphillyman 12y ago

>And somehow that's everybody else's fault? Yah, it's called institutional racism. Policy generated poverty, sub par educational standards exacerbated by the destruction of the nuclear family, and a significant percentage of people who can't earn livable wages or vote after being filtered through the industrial prison complex. We are human beings, there is enough history to suggest we behave like savages when reduced to the lowest common denominator. Btw, murders can be related to drugs with out there being a drug related conviction (ie: gang turf wars)

omonra 12y ago
Institutional racism in the US was a lot stronger 60 or 100 years ago - yet the level of black crime was significantly lower. I had a hard time finding chart to show this, but here is the Chicago murder rate chart for 1870-2008: http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q689/john_albert1/murderrate_zps1764ceef.jpg http://i1354.photobucket.com/albums/q689/john_albert1/murder... I see a huge spike in the 60s with gradual leveling - but we are still 3x higher than before whatever happened in the 1960s...
- rtpg 12y ago
  I think everyone acknowledges things have gotten better, but the effects of institutional racism are pretty long-term. Just an example, but up until maybe a generation ago, it was nigh-impossible to get a mortgage on your house if you were black or decided to live in a neighborhood that was less than 95% white. Even when going through federal aid programs. Meaning people end up having to go through what are basically loan sharks to get housing for their family, and if anything at all happened, the house is lost instantly. Makes it pretty hard for the grandparents to retire in their tiny house when nobody actually owns the property. I think the crime level stats are usually confounding with poverty rates. Pretty sure the color of one's skin doesn't make it more likely to kill someone, but there's an argument for poor environments (for example, the worst apartment possible because literally no one else will rent to you, in an area with poor social services) helping spawn crime.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]