A few facts to note: Blacks kill more blacks than any other race or ethinicity.[1] Blacks also kill more whites, than whites kill blacks in pure numbers.[1] When you factor in the size of the respective populations on a per capita ratio, then the numbers just get worse.[2] On a more positive note, though, crimes are reported to generally have gone down over the last few years. In fact there's nothing in the data to suggest that there is a systemically racist problem in the USA. If anything, the data has a bias towards whites...[1] As for the article from the clearly Left-biased Vox,[3] public opinion only reflects how poorly educated most people are about the matter.
If you think it's racist of me, a Sami minority person from Norway to say this—whose history also contains a lot of racism and atrocities systematically committed towards the Sami people—then please just excuse what I just said, and instead look at this black person saying just about the same exact thing.[4] Here's another slightly more famous black person wheighing in on the matter, with his opinion on what might be the cause of this tragedy.[5] Either way I don't believe in original sin, or that the current generation should atone for the sins of their fathers.
The sad fact that I'm forced to refer to black-only sources before anyone will believe me—a slightly racist thing to demand in the first place—should tell you how stigmatizing this discussion has become. Most people don't even dare to quote facts these days, and for good reason! Nevermind being banned from social media; people these days stand to lose their jobs if they have the wrong opinion! This is extremely chilling on the much needed democratic discussion on this topic. Thus I hope people will refrain from personal attacks or downvoting, and instead will use well researched factual sources to discuss the matter in a civil way.
You're making a lot of (intentional or not) dogwhistles. So let's dive in to a few of them:
> Blacks kill more blacks than any other race or ethinicity.[1] Blacks also kill more whites, than whites kill blacks in pure numbers.
Indeed, let's rephrase this: races in the US continue to be relatively segregated[0]. And crimes, even violent ones, are usually committed within-community. So the meme around "black on black violence" is a bit of a distraction unless you also are concerned about "white on white" violence. And if you are, organizations like stop the violence[1] do exist to address specifically violence within the black community.
So you start by stating true, but ultimately misleading claims that are often used to justify racial prejudice.
Then, you justify this opinion with two videos from black people. Neither Larry Elder nor Denzel Washington is an expert on incarceration or the US justice system. Larry Elder, in fact, is a right wing political pundit, so his income relies on his viewership. This calls into question his reliability. I'd suggest you watch the documentary 13th[2] or read up on these issues from actual experts.
But I'll spend some time breaking down his video:
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. Then he restates the whole issue of black on black crime, which we've already discussed.
He then cites a paper from Roland G. Fryer[3], which I happen to be familiar with. It concludes
> On non-lethal uses of force, there are racial differences – sometimes quite large – in police use of force, even after accounting for a large set of controls designed to account for important contextual and behavioral factors at the time of the police-civilian interaction.
These racial differences show more police violence towards minorities.
Elder then notes that police forces can be diverse, which is true but ultimately a distraction. 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].
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.
He then mentions his movie, Uncle Tom, which contains a number of "conservative thinkers", who are mostly pundits. It contains no academic experts. Compare to 13th, which includes interviewees from both political parties, as well as non-political subject matter experts. Uncle Tom peddles ultimately irrelevant facts, such as that the democratic party was historically in favor of slavery. This is true, but 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.
But you can see some of it in things like this[6] Lee Atwater quote (Atwater was a republican political strategist), where he 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.
Edit: I actually forgot one thing Elder mentions, that no one cares when unarmed white people are shot by police. This isn't actually true: The Black Lives matter movement has a reasonably well documented history of raising some awareness about cases of police killing unarmed white people. For example, during BLM protests in the wake of Michael Brown's murder in 2014, Christian Roupe[11], a white kid from Georgia, was among the names of people killed by police violence mentioned at the protest. More recently, in the wake of Daniel Shaver's murder, BLM voices raised awareness[12].
Which leaves one more thing that Elder discusses: "black fathers", which is also what Denzel Washington discusses. So once again, go watch 13th, I'm basically repeating the things it says here.
In the Nixon/Reagan era, "Law and Order" politics[7] became a central issue. Most notably, the "War on Drugs". Through this, laws were passed that disproportionately keep black people in prison, notably around crack vs. powder cocaine. But even with other drugs like marijuana, where white and black people use and historically used cannabis at the same rate, but black people are 3x more likely to be arrested for cannabis use[8] even today, and as a result literally tens of thousands of young black men are in prison for things that aren't a crime.
Those disproportionate arrest rates, combined with some of those other crime laws from the "Law and Order" era mean that someone who never commits a violent crime can end up a felon or even behind bars for life. Those people are disproportionately likely to be black men, especially young black men. Young black men who should be forming families but who can't because they're being put behind bars for crimes that white people commit at equivalent rates.
That, combined with historical issues like redlining[9] and housing policies that prevented black communities from building generational wealth[10] mean that it's difficult, if not impossible, for black fathers to create stable homes. They don't have the generational wealth that white households do, not as a result of their actions, but instead due to years of explicit government policy that directly prevented their parents generation from accumulating wealth. Then, of course, they're overpoliced and sent to prison which can prevent them from doing important and economically stabilizing things like attending college, or even in some cases completing high school, and acquiring decent jobs.
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".
Hope that helps inform you about these issues. I'm also happy to break down why some of the things you've done generally won't engender you much sympathy and will result in you being accused of "dogwhistle" racism. But I'll only dive into that rhetorical analysis if you specifically request it.
[10]: https://youtu.be/AGUwcs9qJXY?t=240, covers redlining and generational wealth issues, but the whole video is great and, it should be noted, is made by a Christian who I believe identifies as conservative. It overlaps a lot with 13th, but 13th covers a few more recent things about the US prison industrial complex and contains more firsthand accounts and interviews.
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.
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)
> On dogwhistles. I'm tired of hearing this term thrown about.
Did you get the impression from my comments that I couldn't be bothered to build the bridge across the gap of our misunderstanding? Telling people that there are rhetorical issues with how they will be perceived is valuable. It is, in fact, exactly what you frame your post as doing.
> Besides which, appeal to authority
As an aside, you should read up on "appeal to authority". Appeal to authority isn't really a logical fallacy. Appeal to false authority is. Which is to say appealing to someone who has no real reason to claim authority on a subject. Like Denzel Washington.
Broadening this, we now notice a pattern of you pointing out rhetorical devices that I use in a negative light, when you and those I'm responding to use the same devices. I ask why? It's certainly not constructive.
> The fact is politics is not just about facts or the collection/interpretation thereof
I agree! You should tell that to GP!
> Now where American politics may legitimately have a problem is that the first time a felony occurs
Again on the rhetoric bit, be careful with phrases like this. It implies that other problems are less legitimate. You're trying to build bridges here, remember. Belittling the legitimate concerns of the other doesn't do that.
This isn't to say that you're wrong to bring up this concern. It is a legitimate issue. But your phrasing here frames other issues as illegitimate. Is that your intent?
> 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.
Indeed, this is the great American mistake that recent activism hopes to highlight. It is the recognition of de facto discrimination, that despite supposed equality under the law, different groups are treated differently by the humans who apply the justice system.
> Well, seems to be a self-correcting problem does it not?
I'm not sure what your point is here. That we've recognized a problem doesn't mean that it isn't hurting people. Recognizing that a problem exists often a necessary, but also always insufficient, step in fixing it. These mistakes of the prior generations are actively harming people right now. Saying that the problem will eventually self correct because people notice it is both naive and probably not true even in the long run without a concerted effort, and does nothing to address the people harmed right now.
> the black community are not the only ones who noticed the gem of zoning laws contributing to continued segregation
I'm not sure why this matters. Could you elaborate on why you included this comment.
> 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)
Note that I'm not talking about history in my statistics. I'm talking about data from the last 5 years. Today, right now black people are 3x more likely than white people to be arrested for marijuana use.
> A police officer's primary evaluation loop involves working out what isn't right given their environment.
This is where stop and frisk data is useful. In NYC stop and frisk didn't result in a decrease in violent or property crime. What it did result in was young black men being stopped and searched for no (literally, they were stopped without probable cause which is why the policy was stopped by the courts) reason. So a white person and a black person engaging in exactly the same behavior, the black person was multiple times more likely to be stopped.
> 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.
This is actually the exact opposite of what the data shows. Police are given wide leeway to use their judgement and escalate. And when given these leeway, they "require less suspicion to search black and Hispanic drivers than white drivers"[0]. This pattern ties in with the one from the Fryer paper: police have a higher baseline suspicion of minority individuals and as a result require less evidence to consider them a threat (and therefore to escalate physically) or to be engaging in criminal behavior (resulting in a search or in NYC a stop and frisk).
> Those who didn't are, to the limited resources of the justice system, not worth going after
Right, this is what I mean when I say systemic discrimination. It's easier to get a conviction against a poor black person than a rich white person. Therefore police have systematic incentives to engage with black people. They're at least as likely to find contraband, the person is more likely to be poor and therefore more likely to be convicted. It's not clear why you're bringing this up. Like yes, these are problems that need to be addressed. They're problems that are actively raised by activists at this very moment. It's not news to me, and it's certainly not good.
We shouldn't excuse systems that encourage discrimination because it's more economical. We should dismantle those systems.
> 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.
I'm familiar. These don't help the people being harmed right now by these existing systems of oppression. Saying "well we should change how we write future laws" doesn't address the injustice in existing laws.
> That cycle you describe sounds pretty pan-racial to me.
Most of it is (the police discrimination part isn't, but the economic factors are). What you seem to have missed is the history. The reason that we're here now is due to explicit racial discrimination in prior generations. So the pan-racial factors will continue to perpetuate the harms of racism unless we take explicit steps to stop them.
> I still see people from some of the shittiest circumstances become absolutely great people in their own right
Sure, there's some level of agency. But now's a good time to remember that Black men (and as a result black families) enjoy much less economic mobility than white men[1]. In this case it doesn't matter what the causes are. The effect is that, controlling for other factors, it's harder for a black person to escape bad circumstances than it is for a white person. So even in a statement like this, you're glossing over racial inequality.
> That's what kills me right now. BLM has the gall to think it's just black people who suffer.
They really don't. See my comments about Christian Roupe and Daniel Shaver. But importantly, even if they were, there are unique ways in which black people suffer. Denying that there is naive. And those specific ways of suffering need to be addressed before we can have true racial equality. Yes there are economic issues that cause everyone to suffer. And yes, those issues should be addressed. But addressing only those issues will still leave black people disadvantaged.
This is implicitly an "All Lives Matter" argument. Black people are drawing attention to issues that disproportionately affect them, and instead of saying "oh yes, you're right", your response is to say "but look at all these other people who are suffering". So what? That other people are suffering doesn't change the unique modes of suffering due to race.
> your suffering isn't intentional on anyone's part, but arises due to synergism's you aren't even aware of yet,
Yes, this is what "systematic" means. This isn't news to anyone.
> There were extensive attempts made to have their voices heard before the only reasonable choice of action fell to armed conflict.
I'm not sure what your point is. Do you think people haven't been peacefully protesting these things for decades? That people haven't been trying to pass legislation to fix these issues for years? They have. We just haven't been paying attention (or worse punishing them), until now. Colin Kaepernick? Progressive politicians have been working to reverse broken windows policing since its inception.
> Wanton unrestrained violence, and trying to topple the culture that made your act of protest possible will get no one anywhere.
Destruction of property as a form of protest marked the beginning of the American revolution. The property was destroyed because other attempts to enact change had failed. Destroying property got people to pay attention. Many people were not fans of the political unrest. Sure sounds familiar.
There was one difference though: the American revolution was led, by and large, by people in the upper class. Washington was the richest man in America. Many of the revolutionaries held political office or bureaucratic posts in the British system. They were all wealthy white property owners, members of the eventual voting class. Their challenge wasn't to get the ruling class to recognize their issues, they were the ruling class. It was to get the lower class to fight in a war that for many didn't improve their situation.
But most people aren't taught that in school either, because US history builds a cult of personality around the founding fathers. One that tearing down these statues caused me to do more research on. I learned a lot. And I keep learning a lot. Here's an example from today[2]. Would I have learned that Wilson was an avowed white supremacist without the sequence of events involving toppling of statues? Perhaps. Would I have learned it today? No. I expect many other people are the same way.
(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.
"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."
> 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!
> 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!
That's exactly my point. When I said that Larry Elder's video mentions a number of true but irrelevant facts, this is what I meant. The fact that the police force is relatively diverse doesn't actually matter if the policies and culture of the police perpetuate systemic injustice and violence.
> And for good reason, because AFAIK it was wildly successful, and made New York a lot safer for most people.
Not really, crime in NYC didn't fall at a rate particularly faster than anywhere else. Freakonomics has a good chapter on this that suggests that the general drop in crime may have been caused by social policies across the US that helped stabilize the black community, notably the legalization of Abortion. Yeah, the legalization of Abortion in 1973 caused a drop in crime in the mid 90s.
> 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?
No, because the study controlled for other factors including violence of the person the police was interacting with. The conclusion of the paper (which if you'd read, you'd already know) was that police were more likely to escalate force with a black person compared to a white person exhibiting the same behavior. The caveat to this was that as the level of force increased, the racial disparity decreased. So while police were significantly much more likely to grab or manhandle a black person than a white person (again, controlling for the behavior), they were only mildly more likely to tase a black person and statically equivalently likely to shoot people of all races.
> That's because there is no opposite here... Abuse ≠ Legitimate use of force.
No, like I said this was controlling for the behavior of the civilian. So police were more likely to use force on black people for exhibiting the same behavior.
It's also worth mentioning here that crime is in many ways socially constructed. And the US justice system does a lot of things to make poor (and especially poor black) people admit to crimes that they didn't commit[0].
District Attorneys and police work together to put the most people behind bars (in some cases because they have quotas to meet, again watch 13th for more here), and they can do so most effectively by overpolicing poor communities.
This is for two reasons, one, yes, those communities often have more crime occurring in them, but two the people in them can't defend themselves. So if you're innocent put charged with a crime, you are forced to take a plea bargain or be stuck in jail (unless you can afford bail, which affluent people can, but poor people can't). So you admit to a crime which you didn't commit just so that you can get out of jail and maintain your employment.
Notice how this means that even innocent people are admitting to crimes they didn't commit, because it's actually in their best interest to do so. Notice how this means that crime numbers in some of these over-policed communities could be artificially inflated since even people are admitting to crimes they didn't commit.
> 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!
Yes, this is the entire idea of Defund The Police, an idea being pushed by BlackLivesMatter[1].
> Were these fears unfounded then?
It doesn't matter. People being afraid isn't an excuse to enact literally explicitly racist laws.
> [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.
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.
> Do you think this is respectful: "You're making a lot of (intentional or not) dogwhistles"?
Absolutely! I'd certainly want to know if there were connotations to my words that could offend people or cause them to misconstrue my words.
> But also because you deserve to hear the truth.
I also want to make want to make something very clear before continuing: I have done nothing but correct you so far. There is no truth you have revealed to me. You have opinions that are based in misinformation, and I'm doing my best to correctly inform you. This is not a comment on you personally. We all are misinformed about things. But this isn't and hasn't been a debate. It's been me giving you information you didn't have before. I haven't been exposed to anything I haven't heard before. I'm spending my time trying to educate you and others, because I think that's a worthwhile thing to do.
> Does this mean that more whites probably get away with smoking pot? Probably. But then they commit far less crimes anyway.
No, that's the point I've made 3x now: the rates of marijuana use are basically the same (technically they're slightly higher) among white Americans. In other words, white people are committing, per capita, more drug crime, but being arrested 3x less per capita. That isn't the same standard.
And keep in mind here I'm only focusing on the crime of drug use. Nothing else. You keep mentioning murder and violent crime, but there is no reason that someone else choosing to murder people should affect how likely or not I am to be prosecuted for smoking weed.
> Because they're not saying that "the cards are stacked against us".
Yes they are. Saying that laws are enforced unequally is saying the cards are stacked against them.
> 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.
But again, this isn't the standard you're holding white members of society to. So you're holding black members of society to a higher standard.
> I'm merely asking them to follow the law
But you're not asking white members of society to follow the law. They can break the same laws you want black people to follow without facing consequences.
> 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?
No, I'm suggesting that they should be held to the same standard.
You can claim that you just want everyone to follow the law, but the reality is that the laws are enforced unevenly. Again, for crimes that we know white and black people commit at the same rate, black people are arrested 3x more often. You are asking black people to commit 3x less crime to be treated equally under the laws. That is a far higher standard for one race than another.
Let me perhaps explain this one more way. Let's compare exactly two people. One black, one white. If we hold them to the same standard, we would expect that if they committed the same number of criminal acts over their lifetime they would be arrested the same number of times. Anything else is a different standard. They are currently held to a different, higher standard. This should change.
> 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?
They are. Organizations are more than capable of doing multiple things.
But it's worth mentioning that many people have learned a ton about US history in the past month or so due to these actions. US history is whitewashed (both literally and figuratively) when taught in most schools. Even the idea that the civil war was fought over slavery is not always taught to some kids.
Similarly, the US forms a sort of cult of personality around various historical figures: the founding fathers, Lincoln, etc. These people did good things for the nation, yes, but weren't without fault. Washington for example owned hundreds of slaves, and even abused legal loopholes in laws he helped pass to maintain ownership of his slaves[0].
When we ignore the flaws and negative aspects of our history, and the normalization of oppression that is laced into the history of the US, it's much easier to pretend that things were, and are, better than reality. It's still possible to admire people's good acts in context, in museums for example. But cults of personality and cults of nationalism don't help anyone. And tearing them down helped encourage me and may others to learn some more history.
If you think it's racist of me, a Sami minority person from Norway to say this—whose history also contains a lot of racism and atrocities systematically committed towards the Sami people—then please just excuse what I just said, and instead look at this black person saying just about the same exact thing.[4] Here's another slightly more famous black person wheighing in on the matter, with his opinion on what might be the cause of this tragedy.[5] Either way I don't believe in original sin, or that the current generation should atone for the sins of their fathers.
The sad fact that I'm forced to refer to black-only sources before anyone will believe me—a slightly racist thing to demand in the first place—should tell you how stigmatizing this discussion has become. Most people don't even dare to quote facts these days, and for good reason! Nevermind being banned from social media; people these days stand to lose their jobs if they have the wrong opinion! This is extremely chilling on the much needed democratic discussion on this topic. Thus I hope people will refrain from personal attacks or downvoting, and instead will use well researched factual sources to discuss the matter in a civil way.
Thank you!
[1]: FBI murder statistics by race from 2018, https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2018/crime-in-the-u.s.-... 2018 was the latest year I could find such data on.
[2]: US Census Bureau, ACS Demographic and Housing Estimates 2018, https://data.census.gov/cedsci/table?d=ACS%205-Year%20Estima...
[3]: VOX, "White Americans are finally talking about racism. Will it translate into action?" https://www.vox.com/2020/6/11/21286642/george-floyd-protests...
[4]: The Systemic Racism and Police Brutality Narrative is Getting People Killed | Larry Elder, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z572XopBVFc
[5]: Denzel Washington on systemic racism in the USA, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0dCvQdt5XI