Miscellaneous And Off Topic Subjects

[THE_WIZARD_]

.....

[Hannibal]

I'm sure people on the right, if polled, would have a wildly distorted view of illegal immigrant crime

An interesting comment. Data on this is very scarce.

[iam416]

I can go even further, Strangelove. In order to actually talk about solutions you need to accurately define the problem. If the problem is "systemic racism" then you need to define the system and the way in which that system is racist. It's not feasible to simply talk about "systemic racism" in some sort of ethereal sense because that doesn't define the problem. And, frankly, the more general the argument the easier it is to say -- hey, we have a shitload of laws prohibiting racism.

So,(1) define the problem. Define the System. Define the Racism. Prove up the connection. Propose a Solution.

Second, I'm fully open to the notion that there isn't actual systemic racism presently but that the effects of previous systemic racism, e.g., in housing (there, define the system (housing); define the racism (redlining and such) still linger. In that case what I also want to know is this: (1) is there a correction under way? (2) if so, what is the rate of that correction; and (3) is the rate of the correction sufficient to cure the problem in a timely fashion without massive governement intervention?

Third, in terms of proveing up the connection, it's not merely enough to say disparate impact (IMO). YMMV, but I want to see something more. I want to see actual racist policies that produced the results (housing is a good example). I don't think that STEM is racist because AAs are grossly underrepresented (and Asians grossly overrepresented).

So, e.g., if the system is, say, Universities -- there is utterly nothing racist or residually racist about that system. If the system is housing, then there is, at present, nothing racist about that system (IMO), but that residual effects are potentially such that remedies may be in order. Now, my guess is that the rate of correction is significant, but whether it's significant enough is certainly up for debate.

The foregoing is the way I view claims of "systemic racism." It is, IMO, a rational, fact-based analysis that is completely and totally at odds with Progressives and The Left and The Media who openly push a false narrative.

[iam416]

An interesting comment. Data on this is very scarce.

Correct. But, I feel fairly certain folks on the Right would overestimate the numbers.

[Hannibal]

So Talent, let me make sure that I understand this....

You do not think that the three Georgia men had a legitimate cause to detain Arbury? So it was just a coincidence that they happened to try and detain a man who stars in two police bodycam videos and is the subject of multiple police reports in which he was caught casing a property or stealing and then using "jogging" as his cover story? And it also just happened to be the guy who is caught on a neighborhood surveillance video multiple times -- video that was installed in response to robberies in the area? And it was a guy running through the neighborhood but wasn't actually wearing jogging clothes and didn't live in the neighborhood?

You really think this?

[Hannibal]

If "systemic racism' is racial discrimination that is encouraged and reinforced by major institutions like the media, government academia, and corporate America, then it absolutely exists. There is widespread systemic racism against white people. College admission standards are different for white people than for black people. Corporations disproportionately target the hiring of non-whites at the expense of whites. The media demonizes white people by lying about interracial crime. Corporations and billionaires donate billions of dollars to violent hate groups like Black Lives Matter. The justice system treats the shooting of white men and women by police completely different than it treats the shooting of black men and women by police. By any intellectually honest definition of "systemic racism" there is systemic racism against white people in Western society.

[CGVT]

Ah, yes... the poor persecuted white man.

[THE_WIZARD_]

CGVT's white guilt on full display...

[Hannibal]

I can go even further, Strangelove. In order to actually talk about solutions you need to accurately define the problem. If the problem is "systemic racism" then you need to define the system and the way in which that system is racist. It's not feasible to simply talk about "systemic racism" in some sort of ethereal sense because that doesn't define the problem. And, frankly, the more general the argument the easier it is to say -- hey, we have a shitload of laws prohibiting racism.

So,(1) define the problem. Define the System. Define the Racism. Prove up the connection. Propose a Solution.

Second, I'm fully open to the notion that there isn't actual systemic racism presently but that the effects of previous systemic racism, e.g., in housing (there, define the system (housing); define the racism (redlining and such) still linger. In that case what I also want to know is this: (1) is there a correction under way? (2) if so, what is the rate of that correction; and (3) is the rate of the correction sufficient to cure the problem in a timely fashion without massive governement intervention?

Third, in terms of proveing up the connection, it's not merely enough to say disparate impact (IMO). YMMV, but I want to see something more. I want to see actual racist policies that produced the results (housing is a good example). I don't think that STEM is racist because AAs are grossly underrepresented (and Asians grossly overrepresented).

So, e.g., if the system is, say, Universities -- there is utterly nothing racist or residually racist about that system. If the system is housing, then there is, at present, nothing racist about that system (IMO), but that residual effects are potentially such that remedies may be in order. Now, my guess is that the rate of correction is significant, but whether it's significant enough is certainly up for debate.

The foregoing is the way I view claims of "systemic racism." It is, IMO, a rational, fact-based analysis that is completely and totally at odds with Progressives and The Left and The Media who openly push a false narrative.

Dude, you're wasting your time. You will absolutely never get an intellectually honest answer from somebody like DSL on these questions, because any intellectually honest answer necessarily delves into the self-imposed problems that black communities face and the 50 years of mitigation efforts that have already been tried since the beginning of the Civil Rights movement. I constantly get called "racist" for bringing these up. Those arguments are not allowed.

[Mike]

So,(1) define the problem. Define the System. Define the Racism. Prove up the connection. Propose a Solution.

I would offer when defining the system, i.e. a specific state or city's policies and procedures and the laws from which they are derived, it should be noted who built that system. Like the Berkeley history professor mentioned in the anonymous letter, Minneapolis has been governed solely by the Democratic party for over 5 decades. Similar situations exist in Chicago, Detroit, etc. Police departments' policies and procedures are a function of city government. Period. So I think it's pretty rich that cities with entrenched liberal governments for decades (looking at you Portland, Seattle, Minneapolis, etc.) prattle on about "systemic" racism. Well, who built that system for your city?

I predict that as things continue to deteriorate, more people and businesses will move out of these troubled cities which will further exacerbate their problems due to a dwindling tax base and fewer jobs. Everyone around here is readily aware of Detroit's transformation after the '67 riots. If certain cities choose to address issues with policing they way the most ardent progressives would like, we'll see a huge migration out of those cities.

[Dr. Strangelove]

I haven't changed my mind. What I'm responding to is the assertion that white people getting pulled over just means a ticket and black people getting pulled voer means they might die. That's unmitigated race-baiting bullshit.

I don't give a flying fuck about some one-off Georgia nonsense. That's not policy. That's anecdotal. Like, btw, George Floyd's tragic death. Policy is the overall picture, which, as I noted, your people have a wildly distorted view of. And hey, here's an olive brach -- I'm sure people on the right, if polled, would have a wildly distorted view of illegal immigrant crime. But I can acknowledge that. I can acknowledge the narratives of fear create fear without regard to facts. It's crystal fucking clear why your people so grossly overestimate police shootings (and Covid dangers). But, man, that might mean you'd have to start listening to my "The Media" screed and you can't bring yourself to do that.

A little introspection would go a long way, Strangelove.

Well, in my defense, I don't believe I've said a word in the past 24 hours asserting the cops let white people do anything they want and black people get a bullet or anything resembling that. I've just talked about the George Floyd case, Daniel Shaver, and the Arberry case since it was brought up.

But you are right, the number of unarmed black people being killed by cops is much exaggerated in the minds of the public. I don't disagree with that. If we want to run through the list of things Progs or Cons have blown up into "omnipresent' threats we're going to be here a long time.

I'm not qualified to give you an educated, honest answer on the systematic racism stuff. I don't know any statistics about access to loans, credit lines, accumulated wealth, and all that stuff you'd want to know to prove the system is the problem. You are probably more in the right than Prog orthodoxy is because you are based more on fact than feelings. But I think it's also hard to get people to listen to facts if you have contempt for their feelings and act like they're illegitimate. Maybe that's a lesson for me too the next time I mock the white grievance culture Hannibal is immersed in but whatever. I've no problem admitting I think black people, based on historical mistreatment, are entitled to more leeway to bitch about their situation. And I can admit it's probably got as much or more to do with feelings than facts.

[Mike]

Corporations and billionaires donate billions of dollars to violent hate groups like Black Lives Matter.

But if you donate $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund, you will promptly be fired from your job.

[Hannibal]

"white grievance culture" = presentation of facts that prove widespread and institutional discrimination against or demonization of white people that directly counter the narrative sold by the mainstream media and bought hook, line, and sinker by the Left.

[Dr. Strangelove]

In general I think the problems with policing have less to do with racial animus (though there's some of that and it's probably worse among longtime veterans) and more to do with how officers see their chief role as a cop: punishing criminals or protecting the innocent? Every cop falls on a scale where they lean more one way or the other. Most of the bad cops probably lean heavily on the PUNISH side of things but that's JMO.

[Dr. Strangelove]

But if you donate $25 to Kyle Rittenhouse's legal defense fund, you will promptly be fired from your job.

This is a real example of "cancel culture"

What's NOT cancel culture?

A school board voting to change Nathan Bedford Forrest High School to MLK High

Mattel changing the packaging on Mr. Potato Head

A celebrity who goes on tv and vigorously defends Rittenhouse and then gets serious blowback. Public figures should always expect criticism over anything they say.