It just keeps happening

[Maverick 791]

Obviously I don't have the life experience that you guys do, and arguably less knowledge. I'm perfectly fine with that being used against me. It's when you act like a holier-than-thou dick that it gets too far.

 

Ignore blots. He's by far the most condescending member here. The fact that he makes condescending remarks towards you and you don't bite back tells me you're a lot more mature than he is regardless of how much older he is than you.

[Cherry 1,302]

And if you need LIVE evidence that minorities are treated differently than whites, look no further than the media coverage of these heavily-armed clowns who seized federal property in Oregon as their "base" of operations for "years to come" and threatening to shoot any police or govt that try to confront and arrest them versus any current minority movement (ie. Black Lives Matter). Or contrast how the police and govt will handle the situation versus how they've handled BLM. Think about how the police or govt would react if it were black folks or Muslims who seized the property armed with assault rifles.

 

Aaaand there it is: http://www.rawstory.com/2016/01/cnn-analyst-white-militiamen-arent-a-threat-like-black-protesters-because-theyre-not-looting-anything/

 

 

 

Are you so naive that you can't see the link between the two?

 

Candidates with "black" names are significantly less likely to get a call back from potential employers

 

Minorities, especially black people, receive harsher convictions than whites for the same crimes

 

White men with criminal records are more likely to receive a call black than a black man without a criminal record, and the unemployment rate for black college graduates is 12.4% versus 5.6% for the overall 4-year degree holding population

 

When "forced integration" occurs in America, it works. Test scores for black students rise...until the white families all leave town. This is not a thing of the past; it is still happening.

 

Minorities are paid less than their white counterparts and are more likely to be passed over for raises and promotions

 

All that and we haven't even breached America's legacy of racism yet!

 

I can link you literally hundreds of articles like the above. Better yet, read some black literature. And I don't mean MLK or other well-known authors you heard about in high school. Read some of the really inflammatory shit by WEB DuBois or Malcolm X (you can even find great interviews with X on Youtube). Read some Richard Wright, the king of black intellectuals (Black Boy is fantastic). Read Ta-Nehisi Coates, who might be the most brilliant human alive right now and who will give you a modern day perspective of race relations in America. But if you read or watch one thing, make it Obama's "A More Perfect Union" speech. It's one of the greatest speeches on civil rights in American history. And I've recommended these individuals because they're some of the smartest people you'll ever read, which is to say they are not full of shit. Their works are very well thought out, thought-provoking, insightful, and profound.

 

I know you're young and I used to think a lot like you when I was in high school, but the rosy pictures painted in text books does not portray an accurate description of the real world. I don't think anyone will hold against you some of the ignorant shit you've said in this thread, but if you take your worldview and opinions anywhere outside your immediate bubble you're going to realize how poorly thought out they are.

 

 

 

The key difference between the papers is that economists Roland Fryer and Steven D. Levitt found "little evidence" that names alone can have a direct effect on one’s economic livelihood, concluding that having a black name is "primarily a consequence rather than a cause of poverty and segregation.

They noted that having a black name on its own is not likely to have a big effect throughout the interviewing process

Also, the fact that Levitt and Fryer did not find a significant impact "could simply mean that their data aren’t comprehensive enough," said Alan Auerbach, a University of California Berkeley economist.

 

From the first article. While I don't necessarily agree that the names are a consequence of poverty, I'd argue that a "black name" is arguably more common in areas of low wealth. That's also very subtle racism, not blatant hateful racism, if anything. Subtle racism is not something that can be aggressively targeted and fixed. That will take likely hundreds of years to completely remove, if it is even possible.

 

The second article. One key piece from that I'd like to pull out is "Whites are more likely to hire a private attorney than latinos or blacks, and therefore receive a lesser sentence."

 

I'd argue that those in poverty are much more likely to get harsher sentences. "Comparable situations" is very vague and I'd have to read the entire thing to get a feel on the info. If by comparable situation it means type of crime, I completely agree. People with more money can afford better legal assistance and therefore a better chance in the justice system. If it is referring to poor whites vs poor blacks committing the same crimes then you're 100% on the racial unfairness in the justice system.

 

Not gonna argue against the third article. It's a very fair point, and one that I've tried to understand a lot lately in terms of many different common social issues today. I've heard it used on the topic of "rape culture" and it applies equally to this as well. This piece put it very well.

 

 

 

In her 2013 book, The Amer­ic­an Non-Di­lemma: Ra­cial In­equal­ity Without Ra­cism, DiTo­maso con­cluded that ra­cial in­equal­ity isn’t rooted solely in ra­cist ideas or con­scious ef­forts to ex­clude some groups from dis­tinct op­por­tun­it­ies. In­stead, she ar­gued that in­form­al net­works al­low whites, who still hold most of the de­cision-mak­ing po­s­i­tions in the private eco­nomy, to hoard and dis­trib­ute ad­vant­age among their fam­ily and friends, who tend to be mostly white.

 

It's a very real problem that needs to be addressed. How would you say we best go about fixing this?

 

On the fourth article they once again blame unconscious bias. I'd pose the same question as above.

 

If the argument is that race and poverty are tied together many times, I'll concede that. It's a cycle that repeats itself over and over. Poor blacks raise poor blacks who raise poor blacks and on and on. It also is often similar in poor white communities. It's a tough cycle to get out of. But I'd argue that the overwhelming concern is not the racial bias but instead the poverty bias. Just like we're inclined to believe that "Lakisha" is a worse worker than Abigail, we're inclined to believe that people from poverty are more likely to commit crime or work inefficiently due to lack of experience or education, regardless of actual ability.

 

On the topic of the last article, I think the federal government should use force in this situation. However, I don't think we'd see a difference from the federal government if blacks or muslims took over the place. It's a rural area and much less of a dangerous situation than an urban environment. If someone took it over in the name of ISIS or some other radical terrorist group I think force would be used. Otherwise? I doubt we'd attack them.

[oochymp 2,393]

If the argument is that race and poverty are tied together many times, I'll concede that. It's a cycle that repeats itself over and over. Poor blacks raise poor blacks who raise poor blacks and on and on. It also is often similar in poor white communities. It's a tough cycle to get out of.

this is actually a really interesting argument and I'd be fascinated to see how the numbers bore out as to whether it's easier for poor whites to break the cycle than poor blacks because I honestly have no clue how that would break, if anyone can enlighten us on that please do, I'm sure the numbers are really low for both and it might be an issue where sample size negates any predictive value, but they'd still be interesting numbers to see, I'm gonna do a little googling and report back

[blotsfan 2,112]

 

Ignore blots. He's by far the most condescending member here. The fact that he makes condescending remarks towards you and you don't bite back tells me you're a lot more mature than he is regardless of how much older he is than you.

 

 

 

In all seriousness, I do think your opinions will change as you grow though. I honestly used to think like you, twisting everything so it was never about race. When you're younger, you tend to have a more optimistic view of everything, including the state of race relations. Its why libertarianism is so popular among younger people.

 

Just think about how all of your arguments relies on so many different factors that all seem to explain why black people are treated worse in the US. Why is it so hard to accept that there is a problem with systemic racism here?

[oochymp 2,393]

interesting article (I'll link at the bottom) as I guessed there's definitely a sample size warning, but they looked at data from 1968 through 2005 and compared poverty rates through childhood and then again to poverty rates at ages 25-30

 

the numbers I was interested in are in a table on page 7, primarily:

 

6% of whites who were poor at birth were poor for 50% or more of their years at ages 25-30

41% of blacks who were poor at birth were poor for 50% or more of their years at ages 25-30

 

73% of white men who were not born poor were consistently employed at ages 25-30, 88% of white men born poor were consistently employed at ages 25-30

69% of black men who were not born poor were consistently employed at ages 25-30, 36% of black men born poor were consistently employed at ages 25-30

 

again, a number of cautions on this study, they caution the low sample sizes, they emphasize that race was not a focus of the study, they were just interested in overall numbers of how childhood poverty impacted adult poverty, but it seems like a reliable source (The Urban Institute) and the numbers are so different that I'm not willing to attribute the variance purely to sample size issues

 

and here's the pdf: www.urban.org/sites/default/files/alfresco/publication-pdfs/412126-Childhood-Poverty-Persistence-Facts-and-Consequences.PDF

Edited January 5, 2016 by oochymp

[Favre4Ever+ 4,476]

While I definitely agree that younger people tend to be more optimistic... Can the opposite not be true as well? As we get older, we naturally become more cynical. Overly so.. Just like our younger counter-parts. Your opinions do change and evolve as you grow -- that doesn't mean your new opinions are necessarily any better than your old ones. Certainly some will be, but to say all would be naive. Not to mention, discussing what is and isn't a 'better' opinion is by and large.... subjective.

To blanket the young generation of Libertarians as you have is a great example of that cynicism at work. Not to mention, it's ignorant of you. Does typecasting and stereotyping people really put you onto another plane of understanding above the rest of us -- or just the young people? In my opinion, it doesn't.

You desire every problem that we face and every solution we draw up to be black and white. Think about all the factors in his argument that results in "black people being treated worse in the US". Firstly, what a loaded statement that is. It's laced with poison and no matter how someone responds to it, you will come out on top because you set it up that way. Secondly...Why can't there be multiple reasons for the way things are. Is it really so simple as "this is the problem. This is the solution. That's it.". Again... I don't think so.

There ARE a variety of factors that get people in the situations they are in. Yes there are issues with racism. There are people who judge others based on the color of their skin and act in response to that venom. But people do the same thing in regards to politics... or religion... This country faces a massive disparity between social classes. Yes you see racial disparity in those lower social classes. Is the issue black and white enough to say it's simply because they are black and we (as a society) treat them poorly? Once more, in my opinion.. We can't say that.

Is it my optimism or my Libertarian leanings that see serious trouble in so many other facets of life that create poor situations for people? The family unit or structure has been decimated from what it once was, especially in the low social classes. Families are falling apart. There is little structure or continuity. Our education system is seriously flawed and not getting kids ready, prepared, or the help they need. Our schools, from preschool to universities are failing generation after generation. The list goes on and on.... And if you (general use, for anyone reading out there) read this paragraph and immediately thought i was referring to only blacks -- YOU are part of the problem. Because while it isn't the majority... Who accounts for the well educated, wealthy, powerful black family and who accounts for the white drug addict who abuses her children and lives off the taxpayer?

 

The world isn't black and white -- rather it's a palette occupied by boundless shades of gray.

[Maverick 791]

 

 

 

In all seriousness, I do think your opinions will change as you grow though. I honestly used to think like you, twisting everything so it was never about race. When you're younger, you tend to have a more optimistic view of everything, including the state of race relations. Its why libertarianism is so popular among younger people.

 

Just think about how all of your arguments relies on so many different factors that all seem to explain why black people are treated worse in the US. Why is it so hard to accept that there is a problem with systemic racism here?

I still love you blots, but you know it's true.

[RazorStar 4,025]

How can racism be real if our eyes aren't real?

[CampinWithaMissingPerson 2,025]

 

[DonovanMcnabb for H.O.F 2,241]

I only come in these threads every now and then to read how much people are willing to reach to ignore blatant things.

 

And you guys never disappoint.

[Guest Phailadelphia]

 

 

If the argument is that race and poverty are tied together many times, I'll concede that. It's a cycle that repeats itself over and over. Poor blacks raise poor blacks who raise poor blacks and on and on. It also is often similar in poor white communities. It's a tough cycle to get out of. But I'd argue that the overwhelming concern is not the racial bias but instead the poverty bias. Just like we're inclined to believe that "Lakisha" is a worse worker than Abigail, we're inclined to believe that people from poverty are more likely to commit crime or work inefficiently due to lack of experience or education, regardless of actual ability.

 

 

This is where we start getting into generational wealth. Your analysis is spot-on - when I was in college I did a synthesis of several studies showing your wealth and income in life is determined more by what you were born into (which is to say, your parents' income and wealth) than by anything within your control, such as college. And I think this is a key driver of inequality. Ta-Nehisi Coates gets into a lot of this in his writing and it's super interesting to read. He does a great job linking current income and wealth inequality between races to generational wealth and America's legacy of racism. Fascinating stuff, even if you don't agree with it.

[Thanatos 2,847]

And even more stupidness.

 

This woman stepped between a West Virginia cop and her dog because he was about to shoot the dog. The dog is clearly friendly, and is wagging its tail and was on a chain. For this "crime" she was charged with obstruction of justice and resisting arrest.

 

The cop, Seth Cook, claimed that he thought she had a crossbow during the trial. The WV state police's initial story backed the cops.

 

After the incident, Mr. Cook went inside the home and began confiscating all cameras and phones on the grounds that there was probable cause of a crime.

 

Story gets even better. The state assigned an attorney to her, Mrs. Lori Snodgrass, (what an awful name). Mrs. Hupp discovered that this attorney happens to be married to a state trooper. Not just any state trooper either- Bradley Snodgrass happens to be the boss of a certain Seth Cook. Yeah. No conflict of interest there.

 

Mrs. Snodgrass insisted she take a plea deal and said that was their best chance. Hupp wanted another attorney that wouldn't pressure her into a plea deal, but the judge refused to assign her one. Finally another attorney got wind of the story and took the case pro bono and got her off scot free from the obstruction of justice charge. She is still fighting the charge for resisting arrest.

 

After they took her phones, they demanded the password for them, (with no warrant), which Mrs. Hupp refused to give. They finally returned her phones after a month.

 

In addition, officer Cook claimed that WV state troopers are trained to shoot any dog that approaches them, regardless if it appears friendly or is on a chain.

 

Edited March 8, 2016 by Thanatos

[Cherry 1,302]

I understand the situation the officer is in and why he'd be concerned, but the dog is clearly not showing signs of aggression and if the woman steps between him and the dog he needs to back off and put his weapon away. Taking the woman to the ground and arresting her is probably the stupidest thing you can do in that exchange. The charges of resisting arrest and obstruction of justice are just downright ludicrous. Just the state looking to fine someone out the ass for even encountering the police.

[Thanatos 2,847]

Why would he be concerned? The dog is ON A CHAIN and his tail is wagging. He's not being aggressive in any way.

[Cherry 1,302]

He gets out of the car and the dog immediately runs at him barking. That's a cause for concern. Once he realizes it doesn't pose a threat, he should've stepped back and put his weapon away.

[Thanatos 2,847]

If you said he should never have pulled his gun out in the first place, okay fine.

[Cherry 1,302]

I don't think it's unreasonable to instinctively pull your gun out when a dog you don't know charges at you as you step out the car. It should've deescalated from there though.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It is for a police officer. That's part of the problem, their first instinct should not be "SHOOT THAT THING."

[Cherry 1,302]

It's not a friendly dog and it's not on a leash. The officer doesn't reach for his gun. It jumps for his throat and takes him to the ground. It starts gnawing at his face trying to kill him.

 

That's why the officer pulls his weapon. He doesn't know what to expect from that dog. He should be prepared to defend himself.

[BwareDWare94 723]

Welcome to America, where state troopers are trained to shoot domesticated animals that are excited to see them.

 

This is one of the many reasons nobody likes cops.

[Cherry 1,302]

They're trained to shoot dogs that are raised by people who mistreat them and turn them into hateful and angry little shits that will attack anything that comes up on the property.

 

Cut your "All cops are EVIL" bullshit. Cops don't go to your house looking to kill your pets. They're not the fucking bogeyman.

[GA_Eagle 595]

I work with police, Chern. I think this was was uncalled for if all the details are correct and nothing is left out. I also know some at least one cop that is a little too trigger happy when it comes to dogs.

 

That being said, I agree with you that the vast majority of cops are very good people.

Edited March 9, 2016 by GA_Eagle

[Cherry 1,302]

I think it was justified until the point where he took the lady to the ground. It's understandable to be caught off guard by the dog and the officer did look genuinely frightened. You can see it in the way he's backing away. After the woman steps in front of him though he should've shown better restraint and settled everything down. It's obviously a friendly dog and a protective owner if you take a moment to process it, which the officer didn't seem to do correctly.

[oochymp 2,393]

Story gets even better. The state assigned an attorney to her, Mrs. Lori Snodgrass, (what an awful name). Mrs. Hupp discovered that this attorney happens to be married to a state trooper. Not just any state trooper either- Bradley Snodgrass happens to be the boss of a certain Seth Cook. Yeah. No conflict of interest there.

if you're in a town of 30k and your husband is a supervisor in the local state trooper office, you probably shouldn't be a criminal defense attorney, but what do I know?

 

With that out of the way, the officer was definitely out of line starting from about two seconds after he reached for his gun. I get that officers are nervous and generally assume the worst, but they've gotta be aware of their surroundings. If a dog is charging at me the first thing I'm gonna do is figure out if he's on a leash, once that's established there shouldn't be an issue. Also, you should be able to tell the difference between an excited dog and an angry dog and know how to appropriately respond to either. And then there's no reason for the officer to assault the woman.

[Thanatos 2,847]

It's not a friendly dog and it's not on a leash. The officer doesn't reach for his gun. It jumps for his throat and takes him to the ground. It starts gnawing at his face trying to kill him.

 

That's why the officer pulls his weapon. He doesn't know what to expect from that dog. He should be prepared to defend himself.

 

It is, in fact, on a chain. So your argument is invalidated entirely.