(05-09-2019 02:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:51 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:33 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  I think the biggest difference between me and Lad/93 is that I remember 1955 - real discrimination. I see so much difference now.

I agree that things have gotten much better since 1955. There is still quite a ways to go before we can sit on our laurels and claim equality, though.

Quote:Sure, some people still will discriminate. Individually. Small businesses. So how are you going to enforce your views on them?

Proportionality is a false benchmark. I used to run a company with 100% hispanic employees. No blacks. No Asians. No whites. But I did not hire on the basis of race or ethnicity. I just needed bilingual people, and in those areas where my offices were, there were very few white/black/asian people who were bilingual. Sorry about that. I hired the best people available.

But then I see black-owned businesses bragging about how they hire only black employees. Is that OK?

That is an interesting question. Certainly, there would be massive public outcry if a white-owned business bragged about only hiring white people.

So why am I OK with a double standard? I guess you might look at this as as a reasonable "reparation". The rate of black unemployment is so much higher than white unemployment and systemic racism certainly accounts for a fair amount of this discrepancy. Systemic injustice over hundreds of years have also led to a giant gap in black wealth. If this plays a small part in closing the racial wealth gap then I am comfortable with it.

And your response points out the critical, stark, and unblemished difference between progressivism and libertarianism, or for that matter conservatism.

Progressivism is built and premised upon 'equality of outcome'. That is why it is so easy and prevalent for progressives to have the underlying and constant chant of 'things are still the same to Loving v. Virginia' days.

Furthermore this paradigm of government-directed and mandated 'equality of outcome' fits hand in glove with the predilection of progressive philosophy. That is, the idea that government *must* be used as the hammer to dictate, regulate, and ensure socially-acceptable (goodthink) outcomes.

I mean look at it -- this 'equality of outcome' outlook that serves as the basis or your definition of equality has you supporting 'reparations' vis a vis governmental decree or force of law.

But there is a huge and fundamental difference between 'equality of outcome' and 'equality of opportunity'. In your paradigm, you apparently support government interaction or intervention to your vision of redistributionist policies to enable such outcome based equality.

I do not believe I advocated for government intervention regarding black businesses. I just said I wouldn't my panties in a wad if a black-owned business decided that they were only going to hire black people

Isn't allowing black businesses to only hire black all the while making it illegal for white businesses to only hire white government intervention? Enabling any legal distinction between the two is most assuredly government intervention.

I mean, you did even somewhat equate the practice to 'reparations', in fact.

Or are you just clueless as to that government intervention is required to get there?

(05-09-2019 11:05 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  Hambone... I really don't disagree with what you say here.

That's why my entire quote reads as follows:

"I probably should have said unacceptable in my opinion. How are you going to represent constituents that have interracial marriages with that viewpoint? But I'll concede you that point, plenty of politicians hold beliefs that seem anathemic to one group or another. "

I think my comment goes much deeper than yours. Not that you're disagreeing, nor was I intending to disagree with you... merely providing what I consider to be more context. It's impossible for people to not come into any situation with a perspective that can't possibly represent everyone. There is a difference between say, not agreeing with gay marriage from a religious perspective... and deciding that it's the state's duty to stop it/make it difficult.

(05-09-2019 12:43 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

The bolded seems in direct conflict. I agree that we can impose restrictions on actions. By definition, that's not a thought crime. What we're talking about is deciding that the views of a devout Christian baker who is personally against gay marriage, who treats a gay customer buying bread identically to a straight one... should somehow not be allowed to vote to not offer spousal benefits to 'domestic partners'. (I don't support that, I'm just trying to describe a situation).

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

The term 'equally qualified' is always a tough one. People are never identical... so it depends on how you define 'qualified'. I had a female friend of my son's who got a full ride to UT because she was a white, non-Asian female computer programmer. I met a kid who was a 2 handicap and was paying his way to LSU while his sister was an 18 and had a full ride offer from there, plus a dozen other schools.

I think there are a number of things that contribute to racial disparities that go beyond racism.
Certain cultures really promote science and becoming a doctor while others promote business. Certain cultures promote their culture while others seek other forms of validation. The variations are almost endless. I'm not drawing a value judgement on these relative to each other, but it can matter to a company and make a difference at the margin.

(05-09-2019 02:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 02:23 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  In that viewpoint, the explicit restrictions on 'opportunity' to a huge extent have been buried under. And the challenges still on the table are within the realm of addressable. But, if one were to believe the progressive chorus, one would have to believe that today's society (where any school is open, and level of education is open, and therefor any position in society is open) is no better than the antebellum plantation society.

Really? Do you actually think that progressives believe that things are no better currently than the antebellum South?

I suggest 'read' and respond to what I 'wrote'. Good fking god. I dont have a clue what the progressive chorus believes. I suspect that they know and realize their rhetoric doesnt equal the situation.

But the rhetoric many times actually even invokes those institutions, and/or the institutions of the deep South prior to 1965. But I guess that would be shocking for you to know.

But again, that is pretty much indicative of the second theological stance of modern progressivism --- the absolute, unbridled, and continuous usage of deep identity politics.

Quote: Jeez... are you talking to those three progressive neighbors of yours again?

At least my progressive neighbors arent nearly the smarmy asshat personality you seem to go into from time to time, thank god.

(05-09-2019 02:53 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 01:31 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  How does this account for the pitiful number of black CEO's of Fortune 500 companies? Or holding executive positions in general in most industries? How about when two equally qualified candidates apply for a home loan and the black candidate is much less likely to get the loan approved? Is this also all in their heads?

The term 'equally qualified' is always a tough one. People are never identical... so it depends on how you define 'qualified'.

The usage of the term 'equally qualified' is always the bastion of the person whom the decision did not go their way. This pertains to the progressive victim-mongers as well as the conservative cousins.

As to the first two exemplars, the CEO and upper management, I do note that the poster did not attempt to fall to the knee-jerk 'equally qualified' argument.

In that case, 93 is making a picture perfect 'equality of outcome' argument and attempting to generate the base level outrage typically associated with progressive identity politics.

Can you point to any structural restrictions that does not allow an equally qualified African American from obtaining those positions? If not, all you are doing is the chant of the 88 year old wacko who keeps muttering under their breath that 'the SYSTEM wouldnt let me do that'.

Hate to tell you, there is *no* impediment from anyone of any race or ethnicity from obtaining the top spot in any organization (excepting the obvious ones like the American Nazi Party and the NAACP, Rachael Dolezeal taught us that).

Again, the picture perfect example of inequality of outcome being the determinative factor in some minds.

(05-09-2019 02:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Really? Do you actually think that progressives believe that things are no better currently than the antebellum South?

I hope I attributed this correctly....

I've certainly heard progressives compare illegal immigrant detention centers to Nazi death camps (and similar)

(05-09-2019 02:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Really? Do you actually think that progressives believe that things are no better currently than the antebellum South?

When Joe Biden says, "They're going to put you back in chains," either he believes that or he's lying.

I think he's lying, just like most (if not all) other "progressives."

(05-09-2019 02:33 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Really? Do you actually think that progressives believe that things are no better currently than the antebellum South?

When Joe Biden says, "They're going to put you back in chains," either he believes that or he's lying.

I think he's lying, just like most (if not all) other "progressives."

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?
I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.
Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 11:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Come now. surely you have heard many among your candidates talk about nominating a POC or balancing the ticket with a POC. Which is the party that obsesses over "diversity"?
I guess you will just have to show me the college that black kids cannot get into, and the restaurant where black people cannot eat,and the job that says "No blacks need apply", and the "colored restrooms", and all those other manifestations of inequality. I remember those. I don't see them any more. Tell me that last time you saw a black person denied service.
Of course, there are individuals who may not be the most welcoming, for example this guy, but you cannot cleanse the minds of everybody, not without some pretty good re-education camps.

So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

That is proof positive of 'insidious discrimination'?

I guess if that is the standard, there is massive discrimination against men; especially in enforcing murder statutes.

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.
Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

They win those cases because we have laws. That's exactly my point. We can address discrimination in legal and regulatory contexts with laws and rules. But we can't regulate what is in the hearts and minds of men and women--unless you want to go the Thought Police route. We are actually pretty much doing that with Political Correctness. But there are limits to how far that can go.

(05-09-2019 06:02 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.
Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

They win those cases because we have laws. That's exactly my point. We can address discrimination in legal and regulatory contexts with laws and rules. But we can't regulate what is in the hearts and minds of men and women--unless you want to go the Thought Police route. We are actually pretty much doing that with Political Correctness. But there are limits to how far that can go.

There's definitely a limit to how far we can go, but my point is that it doesn't stop at addressing enshrined discrimination - it goes further. Our laws currently protect others from acts of discrimination, regardless of whether they are part of an organizations rules or an area's laws.

And because of that, that fact that we do not have Jim Crow laws any more, does not itself mean that discrimination does not occur.

(05-09-2019 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

That is proof positive of 'insidious discrimination'?

I guess if that is the standard, there is massive discrimination against men; especially in enforcing murder statutes.

There is discrimination/bias against men in custody cases.

(05-09-2019 08:16 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

That is proof positive of 'insidious discrimination'?

I guess if that is the standard, there is massive discrimination against men; especially in enforcing murder statutes.

There is discrimination/bias against men in custody cases.

So let's take children away from women who have more than they need and give them to men who have been unlucky.

Oh, wait a minute, that progressive principle only applies to money.

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 04:48 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  So you’re saying that the only kind of discrimination we need to worry about is the kind enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules?

I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

I guess you are trying to say the police are racist. This is where the proportionality test fails. Step one is to prove to me that black, white, Asian, and other people commit crimes exactly in proportion to their share of the population.

But there is a simple solution. Just limit police hiring to blacks. Once the entire force is black, no discrimination! Crime rates will go down, since not so many blacks will be arrested on bogus charges by racist white cops.

So why do these Democratic administrations in places like Chicago and Baltimore insist on hiring racist white cops?

(05-09-2019 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 11:00 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  I think what he is saying is that discrimination enshrined in law or institutionalized in an organization’s rules is the only kind of discrimination that we can deal with through laws and organizational rules. Unless you want to institute the Thought Police.

Changing the rest has to come through long-term change in the hearts and minds of men and women. Thankfully, I think we are progressing in that direction, but we can't and won't get there instantaneously.

There's fai
Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

That is proof positive of 'insidious discrimination'?

I guess if that is the standard, there is massive discrimination against men; especially in enforcing murder statutes.

I haven't read much of the thread, reacting to the question "So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days?" Bias in arrest/conviction rates is well documented - A-A 6X's more likely to be incarcerated than whites, Hisp. 3X's.

Does that amount to "insidious discrimination"? I wouldn't characterize it that way. Social problem that we should take action on? Yep.

And further, is there racial bias tangled up with the economics of retaining private counsel, etc, etc, etc. - I don't have a study at hand that "proves" intentional racial discrimination.

But we do have those "insidious" disparate outcomes which we collectively tolerate.

But that's not really the question y'all are debating.

(05-10-2019 09:14 AM)ausowl Wrote:  I haven't read much of the thread, reacting to the question "So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days?" Bias in arrest/conviction rates is well documented - A-A 6X's more likely to be incarcerated than whites, Hisp. 3X's.
Does that amount to "insidious discrimination"? I wouldn't characterize it that way. Social problem that we should take action on? Yep.
And further, is there racial bias tangled up with the economics of retaining private counsel, etc, etc, etc. - I don't have a study at hand that "proves" intentional racial discrimination.
But we do have those "insidious" disparate outcomes which we collectively tolerate.
But that's not really the question y'all are debating.

Is it "insidious discrimination"? Like you, I think not.

Is it a problem that should be addressed? Yes.

But I think that assuming it is due to "insidious discrimination" inhibits our ability to deal with the true root causes.

For one thing, I know A-As tend to be far overrepresented among those imprisoned for drug violations. Legalization and/or decriminalization of certain drugs would get rid of that, to at least reduce it.

For another, how do the numbers break down by type of crime and by economic status? I think there are certain behaviors, many of them criminal, learned to survive an upbringing in the "hood" that don't permeate suburbia. Stealing to eat when you are starving feels more acceptable than does stealing things you can afford to buy. How do they impact the numbers?

If one segment of society is trained to respect police and follow their instructions, and another segment is trained to fear police and question their integrity, when you put them in encounters with police where one or both fear their life is threatened, which group is going to fare better?

It's a problem that needs to be addressed. I don't think assuming that pervasive and insidious discrimination is the cause is accurate, and it is more likely to be counterproductive in dealing wit the real issues.

(05-10-2019 09:14 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's fai
Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

That is proof positive of 'insidious discrimination'?

I guess if that is the standard, there is massive discrimination against men; especially in enforcing murder statutes.

I haven't read much of the thread, reacting to the question "So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days?" Bias in arrest/conviction rates is well documented - A-A 6X's more likely to be incarcerated than whites, Hisp. 3X's.

Does that amount to "insidious discrimination"? I wouldn't characterize it that way. Social problem that we should take action on? Yep.

And further, is there racial bias tangled up with the economics of retaining private counsel, etc, etc, etc. - I don't have a study at hand that "proves" intentional racial discrimination.

But we do have those "insidious" disparate outcomes which we collectively tolerate.

But that's not really the question y'all are debating.

I think the reason for disparity in sentencing is simple - economic ability to retain good counsel. Smollett fared pretty well, with his high dollar lawyers.

The arrest rates are what I was getting at when i said first I must be shown that crimes are committed proportionally to the demographics. I think that once again goes back to economics, and there is no denying that as a whole, blacks are poorer than whites. I lock my car doors when I go to parts of town where people are "economically disadvantaged". Nothing to do with race.

But it also goes back, as Owl69 has mentioned, to attitudes toward law and law enforcement. That is 100% on the black community. If their kids are taught that the police are racists out to kill them, and that blacks on the force are race traitors, that's their fault. BLM is doing a good job of perpetuating these attitudes with their campaign against police brutality.

(05-10-2019 09:14 AM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:57 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 05:51 PM)ausowl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:22 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(05-09-2019 12:11 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  There's fai
Your comment doesn't seem to conform with our legal system. Aren't there cases won all of the time for, say, hiring discrimination, not because the company had discriminatory rules written, but because they were discriminatory in how they actually handled hiring?

Someone can't just get out of a discrimination lawsuit by saying, "Well, in our handbook it says we won't discriminate based on a persons race." So, yes, we have laws that deal with the concept of "Thought Policing" as you put it, because we look at more than just the laws and organizational rules - we look at how people act. And we do that, because we can see that there are other types of insidious racism besides those codified in law or organizational rules.

Hypothetically, could a falafel shop legally have a written policy of serving Jews, but always turn away Jewish people whenever they wanted to order a falafel? Their organizational rule says that they serve Jews, but they don't do that in practice.

So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days? None in hiring, per above, none in service, per above. if this is such a problem these days, where is it?

Spend some time in a criminal court.

That is proof positive of 'insidious discrimination'?

I guess if that is the standard, there is massive discrimination against men; especially in enforcing murder statutes.

I haven't read much of the thread, reacting to the question "So what kind of discrimination do black people face these days?" Bias in arrest/conviction rates is well documented - A-A 6X's more likely to be incarcerated than whites, Hisp. 3X's.

I would say you are arguing a cause that doesnt have a basis. There *are* disparate rates of incarceration/conviction, no doubt. Yet, you labeled it ipso facto as 'bias' being evident in those rates.

Quote:But we do have those "insidious" disparate outcomes which we collectively tolerate.

But that's not really the question y'all are debating.

And again an example of 'equality of outcome' as the measuring stick which proof of bias or discrimination is stacked.

And, again another stick in the pile of the major fundamental differences between progressive philosophy and the philosophies of conservative and/or libertarian thought.

The only important issue is a 'substantive outcome' result of equality, and the concept of whether the underlying procedure comports with an idea of a fair procedure is seemingly irrelevant. I think the fight between 'substantive outcome equality' and 'procedural equality' will be a very long conflict.

Look I think the arrest/incarceration rates for Latinos and African American's are shockingly high compared to Asian or Caucasian. But instead of pointing straight to race or ethnicity as 'the answer to life, the universe, and everything' there is probably a *lot* more lurking under that hood.

Volunteer to help with a class at Reagan or LBJ and you might discover some.

(05-09-2019 09:01 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 06:04 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(05-08-2019 05:03 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Getting back to Sims, notice his objection is to the "white women"?

Racist. I am sure that has been noted in the mountains of disapproval coming from the left.

Don't hold your breath for mountains of disapproval. The only place that this ridiculous story is likely maintaining any level of interest is the Rice Parliament.

I didnt realize TheFederalist.com was part of the Rice Parliament.

National Review article on Mr Sims

Nor did I realize the Wash Po is now part of the Rice Parliament. At this rate this back of the building mudpit in a sleepy water portion of a not so well known posting site will control the Internet en toto in a week or so.

Link to the site formerly known as the Washington Post but was conquered by the Rice Parliament by stealth and subterfuge

I wonder why the Rice Parliament keeps up the paywall to the site that was formerly the Washinton Post, but a look behind the Rice Parliament paywall

Apparently the Rice Parliament has quite the readership in Philly.

Hundreds of Rice Parliament readers demonstrate in Philly