+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: AACbbs (/forum-460.html)
+---- Forum: Members (/forum-401.html)
+----- Forum: Rice (/forum-444.html)
+------ Forum: Kent Rowald Memorial Quad (/forum-660.html)
+------ Thread: Response to the killing of George Floyd (/thread-900334.html)
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 07-23-2020 02:21 PM
(07-23-2020 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Huh? You do know all of those examples I provided just implemented those reforms, so they are new there...
You didn't say new 'there' and I didn't say they weren't new 'there'. It should be clear with my inclusion of your LA, Baltimore (and others) comment that my point wasn't that they aren't new to Minneapolis... What I'm saying is that Minneapolis should have been aware of these options for a decade or more... and one would assume that they didn't adopt these before because they didn't see the value in doing so... and I don't see any evidence suggesting that they worked anywhere else...
It's a bit like a football coach saying... I know we've been losing for the past 13 years... but rather than fire me and go in a different direction, I want you to allow me to install a Pro-Style offense. This isn't a new offense, but it's new to us... and it hasn't been working in other places, but we're going to try it here and believe it should work... and you should accept our opinion that it will work, despite the fact that we've been trying things for the last 13 years and they didn't work.
Obviously I'm being a bit cheeky here, but only so that there is no confusion about what I'm saying. I say this same thing about long-tenured politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Quote:Camden is an example of a city that implemented similar reforms - they disbanded their police department years ago, and has had mixed results with the force that was developed in its place. So this overall idea isn't new, but it being implemented is fairly new, given that very few places have actually tried.
But that's not really true. We've had places with no police force, or limited jurisdiction police force (schools) and other similar situations since we began as a nation... but more to the point, there hasn't been a proposal of 'what to replace it with'. That is the discussion I tried to have, and you could have joined me. All I see here (from them, not from you) is platitudes.
Quote:And I don't disagree with portions of the rest of your post, that there are societal ills that contribute to the problem. But, why not address both? Just because societal ills exist doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on structural issues that contribute to problems. It's just a lot easier to change how government operates than how society does - we know how to pull levels to change the former.
And I'm 100% on board with decriminalizing more drugs - we should focus on trying to help those with addictions and punish those harming others.
'Why not address both'? Because we haven't articulated what those structural issues are. You can't address what you don't identify. You touch on one possibility... drug decriminalization... that has been passed around since the 1960's... and while there has been a SLIGHT move towards that recently, there isn't one jurisdiction anywhere that has signed on for this... and in the ones that have come the closest (including STRONG left-leaning California in 2016... that passed 'medical' in 1996 and all it takes to get a 'green' card is $40 and a pulse)... there is no clear evidence that it is having an impact. My point is that it's not just been the right who has rejected a lot of this so far... and to the limited extent that the left has embraced it, they can't demonstrate efficacy.... even the example you give is a 'mixed bag', and surely they've tried to tweak it since its implementation. Now all of a sudden the call is for national defunding of police as if it's the obvious solution.... and yet despite all that, resistance to the idea is met with aggression, as if the evidence is somehow 'clear' that 'defunding the police' is 'the' solution.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - RiceLad15 - 07-23-2020 03:12 PM
(07-23-2020 02:21 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:(07-23-2020 09:36 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: Huh? You do know all of those examples I provided just implemented those reforms, so they are new there...
You didn't say new 'there' and I didn't say they weren't new 'there'. It should be clear with my inclusion of your LA, Baltimore (and others) comment that my point wasn't that they aren't new to Minneapolis... What I'm saying is that Minneapolis should have been aware of these options for a decade or more... and one would assume that they didn't adopt these before because they didn't see the value in doing so... and I don't see any evidence suggesting that they worked anywhere else...
It's a bit like a football coach saying... I know we've been losing for the past 13 years... but rather than fire me and go in a different direction, I want you to allow me to install a Pro-Style offense. This isn't a new offense, but it's new to us... and it hasn't been working in other places, but we're going to try it here and believe it should work... and you should accept our opinion that it will work, despite the fact that we've been trying things for the last 13 years and they didn't work.
Obviously I'm being a bit cheeky here, but only so that there is no confusion about what I'm saying. I say this same thing about long-tenured politicians on both sides of the aisle.
Quote:Camden is an example of a city that implemented similar reforms - they disbanded their police department years ago, and has had mixed results with the force that was developed in its place. So this overall idea isn't new, but it being implemented is fairly new, given that very few places have actually tried.
But that's not really true. We've had places with no police force, or limited jurisdiction police force (schools) and other similar situations since we began as a nation... but more to the point, there hasn't been a proposal of 'what to replace it with'. That is the discussion I tried to have, and you could have joined me. All I see here (from them, not from you) is platitudes.
Quote:And I don't disagree with portions of the rest of your post, that there are societal ills that contribute to the problem. But, why not address both? Just because societal ills exist doesn't mean we shouldn't also focus on structural issues that contribute to problems. It's just a lot easier to change how government operates than how society does - we know how to pull levels to change the former.
And I'm 100% on board with decriminalizing more drugs - we should focus on trying to help those with addictions and punish those harming others.
'Why not address both'? Because we haven't articulated what those structural issues are. You can't address what you don't identify. You touch on one possibility... drug decriminalization... that has been passed around since the 1960's... and while there has been a SLIGHT move towards that recently, there isn't one jurisdiction anywhere that has signed on for this... and in the ones that have come the closest (including STRONG left-leaning California in 2016... that passed 'medical' in 1996 and all it takes to get a 'green' card is $40 and a pulse)... there is no clear evidence that it is having an impact. My point is that it's not just been the right who has rejected a lot of this so far... and to the limited extent that the left has embraced it, they can't demonstrate efficacy.... even the example you give is a 'mixed bag', and surely they've tried to tweak it since its implementation. Now all of a sudden the call is for national defunding of police as if it's the obvious solution.... and yet despite all that, resistance to the idea is met with aggression, as if the evidence is somehow 'clear' that 'defunding the police' is 'the' solution.
I think one issue here is you're arguing to me about what others say.
See the bolded, which sound like you're trying to offer a rebuttal to items I haven't brought up or discussed.
I've never said that it was just the right who rejected change - in fact part of the reason I believe the issues are more structural is that change hasn't really depended on what political party has been in office.
I haven't argued that "defunding the police is clearly the solution," but rather provided backup about what it actually means, and where it has seen mixed results (Camden, which I think you're misunderstanding if you don't think Camden defunded its police department and clearly replaced it).
I guess I fail to see the point of whether or not an idea is new, what makes you seem so caught up on ideas being new or not new? Is it just so you can point to the other side, since you feel like your side is being attacked?
If so, then you keep missing my point about these issues being structural in nature. Drug decriminalization is a perfect example - let's focus on weed. Liberals overwhelmingly support weed legalization, yet we don't actually see politicians moving on that proposal on a national level. I'm not sure why, but it's a good example of why the politics of a population isn't always reflected by the politicians who represent them (which gets to a comment I had earlier about your labeling of Minneapolis as progressive).
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Hambone10 - 07-23-2020 04:34 PM
(07-23-2020 03:12 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: I think one issue here is you're arguing to me about what others say.
See the bolded, which sound like you're trying to offer a rebuttal to items I haven't brought up or discussed.
I've never said that it was just the right who rejected change - in fact part of the reason I believe the issues are more structural is that change hasn't really depended on what political party has been in office.
You've clearly supported the position of local leaders in Portland who lean hard left, against Federal officials whom have been (rightly or wrongly) assigned to Trump/the right.
I think the problem is that we're talking about these people and you've chocen to defend their positions... so you're being asked to actually defend their position and not merely some relatively minor portion of it. It's not as if we're asking you to defend their position on abortion. The issues are very closely related. It's as if you want to distance the actions of Federal officials from the decisions of local politicians and local citizens that lead to it. Just as in the 'randomly picking people up off the streets' discussion... if that was really what was happening... it would be an obvious travesty... but when you add the other facts in, it is not nearly the travesty that it was originally purported to be.
Quote:I haven't argued that "defunding the police is clearly the solution," but rather provided backup about what it actually means, and where it has seen mixed results (Camden, which I think you're misunderstanding if you don't think Camden defunded its police department and clearly replaced it).I understood it perfectly. I've probably explained it to people on the right better than many from the left. You said Camden did it and its been a mixed bag. That supports the idea that 'defund the police' isn't likely to be the solution... unless the replacement is vastly different from what Camden did.
Quote:I guess I fail to see the point of whether or not an idea is new, what makes you seem so caught up on ideas being new or not new? Is it just so you can point to the other side, since you feel like your side is being attacked?
If so, then you keep missing my point about these issues being structural in nature. Drug decriminalization is a perfect example - let's focus on weed. Liberals overwhelmingly support weed legalization, yet we don't actually see politicians moving on that proposal on a national level. I'm not sure why, but it's a good example of why the politics of a population isn't always reflected by the politicians who represent them (which gets to a comment I had earlier about your labeling of Minneapolis as progressive).
I'm pretty sure you brought up the idea of 'new'. I was responding to it. I think I said... 'as to your comment about new'....
The only reason it matters to me is as I've said numerous times... what makes so many people (on the left) think that it will work 'this' time such that it's okay to bully people (call them racists or similar) who dare to question it? It MIGHT be different if it were something that had never been tried before and someone wanted to pilot it. That's specifically what I suggested we try... which again, you could have joined me. 'Defund the police' is a political talking point, it is not a plan. Smart people usually prefer the latter over the former, which is what we all expect when we come to a Rice forum. I'm not saying YOU've called anyone racist, but you've certainly expressed dismay that we don't simply agree with it.
The enforcement of drug violations against US citizens is almost exclusively the responsibility of local politicians. You don't need national support and that's my point. Claiming we do (which is what most people do) is a way of deflecting blame from local politicians.... or from accepting that 'what happens in California' (its the best example) is PRIMARILY the result of the ideas of one party. I'm sure there is a state that is as just as 'owned' by Republicans, and they bear the primary burden for their decisions.
I understand that you want to say that it is systemic because it happens under every political watch, but it could just as easily mean that it doesn't exist... or that it does but there is nothing that can be done about the 'inherent' problem... because we can't even describe, much less demonstrate another system where the problem doesn't exist. Poverty breeds desperation. Desperation breeds crime. Crime breeds increased enforcement. Increased enforcement breeds higher enforcement success against people in poverty. It may be just that simple. What about that 'system' would you change, that isn't under the control of one party in many places? Minneapolis could have easily decided to decriminalize some drugs or to simply decrease enforcement of those crimes... or find alternative punishment. They could have engaged in education or support measures to limit poverty. They could have done all sorts of things. Why didn't they? Same reason as above, IMO. It's easy to point fingers and claim the other side is the cause... it's much harder to solve issues. I've said this numerous times, and directed it at both parties.
I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
My contention is that the reason you don't see action on drug decriminalization, despite the overwhelming support from the left... is that the support doesn't really exist. Oh a lot of them say it, but apparently they don't want the consequences of the actual decision.
As I said before, the distinction of them being 'progressive' in Minneapolis is meaningless. All I intended to demonstrate is that they weren't centrists or a mixed bag who happened to lean slightly left during that election... but they were actually 'truly' Democrats.
If you're saying that they vote for people who don't actually represent them... I'd agree with you... but in Minneapolis where this tragedy occured, they're voting for Democrats that don't represent them... not Republicans. Hennipin County went 63 to 28 for Hillary... and while I don't have the county numbers for the caucuses, Hillary was a DISTANT second choice for them statewide among Democrats... and Hennipin County (which leans strongly left) is 35% of the entire voting base for the state.... and the state split like 48-46. Again, the only reason this matters is because it demonstrates that the policing problem in Minneapolis wasn't a failure of local politicians to overcome a strong republican opposition in the city/county. It MAY have been DINOs, but they were still elected by people from the left.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 07-24-2020 07:37 AM
I am in awe of the Silence of the Lefties to this:
Quote:'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 07-24-2020 08:25 AM
(07-24-2020 07:37 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: I am in awe of the Silence of the Lefties to this:
Quote:'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
I expected it like I expect the sunrise or the tides. It is the very definition of a lefty to avoid answering questions that might expose cracks in the foundations of their beliefs.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 07-24-2020 08:33 AM
(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - RiceLad15 - 07-24-2020 09:13 AM
(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 07-24-2020 09:14 AM
(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
yeah, YOU would. But it is true. and your laughter does not refute it.
Start with explaining how poverty is NOT the problem.
Then explain why more jobs for more people doesn't help.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - RiceLad15 - 07-24-2020 09:37 AM
(07-24-2020 09:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
yeah, YOU would. But it is true. and your laughter does not refute it.
Start with explaining how poverty is NOT the problem.
Then explain why more jobs for more people doesn't help.
I laughed at the absurd statement, which makes the absurd implication that any replacement to Trump wouldn't also be trying to increase employment opportunities.
Trump is not the only person in politics who care about trying to increase employment so that people are provided the opportunity support themselves in a dignified manner.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 07-24-2020 09:58 AM
(07-24-2020 09:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
yeah, YOU would. But it is true. and your laughter does not refute it.
Start with explaining how poverty is NOT the problem.
Then explain why more jobs for more people doesn't help.
I laughed at the absurd statement, which makes the absurd implication that any replacement to Trump wouldn't also be trying to increase employment opportunities.
Funny how you go batshit mad when one makes an implication from your statement (i.e. yesterday with me) then turn right around and pull the exact same **** you complain about there here. Lolz.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 07-24-2020 09:59 AM
(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 07-24-2020 10:00 AM
(07-24-2020 09:37 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:14 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
yeah, YOU would. But it is true. and your laughter does not refute it.
Start with explaining how poverty is NOT the problem.
Then explain why more jobs for more people doesn't help.
I laughed at the absurd statement, which makes the absurd implication that any replacement to Trump wouldn't also be trying to increase employment opportunities.
Trump is not the only person in politics who care about trying to increase employment so that people are provided the opportunity support themselves in a dignified manner.
Oh, My, you thought I said that only Trump would be trying to increase employment opportunities? did I say that, or is it just something you heard inside your head?
HOW they try that is of major significance.
Trump has a proven track record of increasing employment, specifically black employment. The Dems want to repeal all the methods used to create this - lower taxes, less regulation. Instead they want to fetter business. the Dem response to unemployment is not to let business expand, but to send extra money from taxpayers to the unemployed, to ease their suffering while on the dole.
so it is a clear difference in both goals and methods. One big difference is Trump has done it before - the Dems just talk. Biden, in six terms as a senator and two as a VP, did nothing. As a candidate, he has proposed nothing.
So you support the hot air over the proven results - let me question why?
MLK believed that increasing employment in black people was one part of the road to equality. Isn't that why we have Affirmative Action? Trump has done that. Get rid of Trump!!
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Rice93 - 07-24-2020 10:34 AM
(07-24-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
Will check in here because you keep asking this.
Would be helpful to provide some specific examples as opposed to asking such a general question that leaves a ton open to interpretation.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Owl 69/70/75 - 07-24-2020 10:34 AM
(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
There are two ways to decrease income and wealth inequality:
1) Make rich people poorer, or
2) Make poor people richer.
Socialists/communists (and democrats) prefer the first. The problem with that one is that the rich don't want to become poorer. So the ones who can get out, and the ones that are left get taxed into poverty with everyone else save for a very few elites. Democrats need a victim class for their politics to work. "Keep 'em dumb, keep 'em poor, keep 'em dependent on handouts, and you'll keep 'em voting democrat," doesn't work if they make some money and start voting republican.
Capitalism favors the second. The problem I see is that our form of capitalism has become so infested with socialism that it's not working. Republicans used to be the party of Main Street, but since the neocons too over, they've been the party of war and anti-abortion. I want somebody who favors economic growth and a strong military that doesn't mess around in everybody else's business.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - RiceLad15 - 07-24-2020 10:35 AM
(07-24-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
My understanding of systemic racism is close to that, but not quite it. More specifically, it's when an organization has normal practices that lead to discrimination or disadvantages due to one's race (this could also be extended to other protected classes).
I think your use of the term "inequality" is a bit problematic (and frankly, an obvious bit of bait - see Google and the interview with Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan) - that's a bit amorphous of a term to try and use for a broad definition of structural racism. The key is the discrimination and disadvantages issue - just because racial inequities exist, doesn't mean those inequities are due to a racist practice or rule. But when we do see these inequities, we should look at how they came about and whether structural racism played a role.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - Owl 69/70/75 - 07-24-2020 10:36 AM
(07-24-2020 10:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote: Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:Will check in here because you keep asking this.
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
Would be helpful to provide some specific examples as opposed to asking such a general question that leaves a ton open to interpretation.
That kind of evasion sort of sounds like, "I know the answer but I don't want to admit it."
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 07-24-2020 10:38 AM
(07-24-2020 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
My understanding of systemic racism is close to that, but not quite it. More specifically, it's when an organization has normal practices that lead to discrimination or disadvantages due to one's race (this could also be extended to other protected classes).
I think your use of the term "inequality" is a bit problematic (and frankly, an obvious bit of bait - see Google and the interview with Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan) - that's a bit amorphous of a term to try and use for a broad definition of structural racism. The key is the discrimination and disadvantages issue - just because racial inequities exist, doesn't mean those inequities are due to a racist practice or rule. But when we do see these inequities, we should look at how they came about and whether structural racism played a role.
So an organization that would give preference to one race over another would be systemically racist?
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 07-24-2020 10:40 AM
(07-24-2020 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
My understanding of systemic racism is close to that, but not quite it. More specifically, it's when an organization has normal practices that lead to discrimination or disadvantages due to one's race (this could also be extended to other protected classes).
I think your use of the term "inequality" is a bit problematic (and frankly, an obvious bit of bait - see Google and the interview with Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan) - that's a bit amorphous of a term to try and use for a broad definition of structural racism. The key is the discrimination and disadvantages issue - just because racial inequities exist, doesn't mean those inequities are due to a racist practice or rule. But when we do see these inequities, we should look at how they came about and whether structural racism played a role.
So it is more of a Potter Stewart determination of "I know it when I see it, but I cant describe it". Sounds like oodles of fun there.
Kind of par for progressive thought in general, mind you.
How does 'any societal structure that results in a racial disadvantage', to use your own proffered words?
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - tanqtonic - 07-24-2020 10:47 AM
(07-24-2020 10:34 AM)Rice93 Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:(07-23-2020 04:34 PM)Hambone10 Wrote: I submit that the problem isn't police or law enforcement or our legal system. It is therefore not unconscious bias nor systemic racism. I believe the problems that can potentially be addressed are primarily related to poverty. This is why the idea of socialism and utopia exists. The reason socialism always fails (outside of some trade-offs) is that human nature gets in the way. That's not the system. It's thousands of years of evolution.
Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
Will check in here because you keep asking this.
Would be helpful to provide some specific examples as opposed to asking such a general question that leaves a ton open to interpretation.
Im not the one that uses this term as a description. I am asking those who actually wield this word as the Sword of Doom to denote it.
Would be helpful to have the people that wield this term actually give it some substance, as opposed to 'why dont you give me an example and I will tell you.' If you cannot denote what the term means, seems kind of stupid to use it.
I dont know what it means, I keep seeing you two use it. I would like you to state what it is. Maybe that is too tall of an order.
RE: Response to the killing of George Floyd - OptimisticOwl - 07-24-2020 10:47 AM
(07-24-2020 10:40 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(07-24-2020 10:35 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:59 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:(07-24-2020 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:(07-24-2020 08:33 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote: Exactly. And who was fighting poverty by increasing employment opportunities for all American, black and white? The guy they want out of there.
I actually laughed out loud at this post.
Well here is one that shouldnt provoke laughter:
'As to 'systemic' racism, do you believe that form of 'racism' to mean any societal structure that results in a racial inequality?'
My understanding of systemic racism is close to that, but not quite it. More specifically, it's when an organization has normal practices that lead to discrimination or disadvantages due to one's race (this could also be extended to other protected classes).
I think your use of the term "inequality" is a bit problematic (and frankly, an obvious bit of bait - see Google and the interview with Ben Shapiro and Joe Rogan) - that's a bit amorphous of a term to try and use for a broad definition of structural racism. The key is the discrimination and disadvantages issue - just because racial inequities exist, doesn't mean those inequities are due to a racist practice or rule. But when we do see these inequities, we should look at how they came about and whether structural racism played a role.
So it is more of a Potter Stewart determination of "I know it when I see it, but I cant describe it". Sounds like oodles of fun there.
Kind of par for progressive thought in general, mind you.
How does 'any societal structure that results in a racial disadvantage', to use your own proffered words?
Sounds like the NBA.