Support NeoGAF

[Nintendo Switch]

I blame the authoritarian left and the backlash to their methods for the fall of race relations. The below graph is well known...

Traditional liberals fall into what the chart labels Libertarian Left. The people that call themselves Libertarians fall into the Libertarian Right quadrant. The GOP fall into the Authoritarian Right and unfortunately, the Authoritarian Left (the people engaging in thought policing, doxxing and attacking freedom of speech on campuses) have switched to hijacking the Liberal moniker though they do not share their principles or values.

Liberals need to kick them out and reclaim the label before their name gets even more dragged through the mud by the authoritarian Left that do not value freedom of expression, the right to privacy or freedom of thought. Empathy towards even those we disagree with is the only path towards changing minds and making progress.

So you blame the left for the fall of race relations because "twitter/doxxing/muhfreespeech"...and completely ignore all the rightwing policies of the past several decades that have led to the obliteration of upwards mobility for the low and middle class?

The thread title was specifically, why did race relations regress so much in the past decade. As in, why are race relations worse today than they were in 2010.

For 50 years our society has steadily and progressively become less racist but something switched a decade ago that led to the trend going backwards and the op is asking why.

The biggest factor in that is that rise of internet bubbles. The authoritarian right had already sheltered itself into bubbles since open racism was no longer culturally tolerated.

However it was the authoritarian left that hijacked the liberal moniker and engaged in thought policing and doxxing and closed discussion (even though freedom of expression and freedom of thought are integral to real liberalism) that pushed liberal circles into authoritarian left wing thought bubbles that drove centrists out as was done all over the internet including this site. this created the backlash to the left in general that contributed to the decline of progressive thought and race relations.

Racism slowly dies when open discussion between people of different backgrounds and ideologies thrives. Racism thrives when freedoms dies and thought bubbles are formed.

When someone espouses biased statements, engage them in open dialogue,educate them as to why they are wrong. Prove them wrong. Don’t take the shortcut of harassing them, banning them from the discussion outright, or doxxing them and then pat yourself on the back as if you achieved a win against racism. You didn’t, just the opposite.

 

[Sàmban]

I blame the authoritarian left and the backlash to their methods for the fall of race relations. The below graph is well known...

Traditional liberals fall into what the chart labels Libertarian Left. The people that call themselves Libertarians fall into the Libertarian Right quadrant. The GOP fall into the Authoritarian Right and unfortunately, the Authoritarian Left (the people engaging in thought policing, doxxing and attacking freedom of speech on campuses) have switched to hijacking the Liberal moniker though they do not share their principles or values.

Liberals need to kick them out and reclaim the label before their name gets even more dragged through the mud by the authoritarian Left that do not value freedom of expression, the right to privacy or freedom of thought. Empathy towards even those we disagree with is the only path towards changing minds and making progress.

So you blame the left for the fall of race relations because "twitter/doxxing/muhfreespeech"...and completely ignore all the rightwing policies of the past several decades that have led to the obliteration of upwards mobility for the low and middle class?

 

[Vicetrailia]

So you blame the left for the fall of race relations because "twitter/doxxing/muhfreespeech"...and completely ignore all the rightwing policies of the past several decades that have led to the obliteration of upwards mobility for the low and middle class?

Any thing to not acknowledge and talk about racism. Facts don't matter, only their pov. Nothing to change the worldview. It's all good black people, relax. If anything, you're fucking up.

 

[Super Mario]

post: 253170171, member: 49946"]Super Mario, you are wrong about Trayvon and Crutcher, especially because Tray was followed just because he was black, and Crutcher was shot with both hands up out of fear of the big scary black man.

The nationalreview is not a credible source. Find someone else.

But let's see what the The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice has to summize about their own research:

This isn't even the worst of it, as their motive is pillaging black people for profit.[/QUOTE]

You mean the DOJ investigation, led by Eric Holder that said black people were less often police officers and more often arrested, in relation to their representation of the area? Can you prove racism there? How about a view of the other side.

https://nypost.com/2015/03/09/ferguson-fake-out-justice-departments-bogus-report/

Addressing the nation from Selma, Ala., on Saturday, President Obama said that while racism may be “no longer endemic,” as it was 50 years ago, his Justice Department’s report on Ferguson shows that the “nation’s racial history still casts its long shadow upon us.”

Sorry: The Justice report doesn’t prove disparate treatment, let alone discrimination.

In fact, it looks more like something ginned up to distract from the embarrassing fact that Justice (in another report released the same day) wound up fully validating the findings of the Ferguson grand jury.

Racism is serious, and those engaging in it should be shamed — but we should have real evidence before accusing others of it. And every one of the Justice report’s main claims of evidence of discrimination falls short.

Starting with the primary numerical claim. The report notes on Page 4: “Ferguson’s law-enforcement practices overwhelmingly impact African-Americans.

“Data collected by the Ferguson Police Department from 2012 to 2014 shows that African-Americans account for 85 percent of vehicle stops, 90 percent of citations, and 93 percent of arrests made by FPD officers, despite comprising only 67 percent of Ferguson’s population.”

Those statistics don’t prove racism, because blacks don’t commit traffic offenses at the same rate as other population groups.

The Bureau of Justice Statistics’ 2011 Police-Public Contact Survey indicates that, nationwide, blacks were 31 percent more likely than whites to be pulled over for a traffic stop.

Ferguson is a black-majority town. If its blacks were pulled over at the same rate as blacks nationally, they’d account for 87.5 percent of traffic stops.

In other words, the numbers actually suggest that Ferguson police may be slightly less likely to pull over black drivers than are their national counterparts. They certainly don’t show that Ferguson is a hotbed of racism.

Critics may assert that that “31 percent more likely” figure simply shows that racism is endemic to police forces nationwide.

Hmm: The survey also reveals that men are 42 percent more likely than women to be pulled over for traffic stops. Should we conclude that police are biased against men, or that men drive more recklessly?

In fact, blacks die in car accidents at a rate about twice their share of car owners.

A 2006 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration study found that black drivers who were killed in accidents have the highest rate of past convictions for speeding and for other moving violations. This suggests that there are a lot of unsafe black drivers, not racism.

The Justice report on Ferguson continues, “African-Americans are at least 50 percent more likely to have their cases lead to an arrest warrant, and accounted for 92 percent of cases in which an arrest warrant was issued by the Ferguson Municipal Court in 2013.”

Again, this pretends that a mere difference is evidence of discrimination.

But the report’s statistic doesn’t even look at whether people pay their fine or appear in court — something that makes a big difference in whether to issue a warrant.

Could it be that blacks are more likely to face particularly serious charges?

Since Justice has gone through the case files, it could easily have answered the questions. Perhaps it didn’t like the answers. (Unfortunately, no national data are available for comparison.)

Another major complaint in the Justice report: “Most strikingly, the court issues municipal arrest warrants not on the basis of public-safety needs, but rather as a routine response to missed court appearances and required fine payments.”

If you think that this is unique to Ferguson, try not paying your next speeding ticket.

As for the anecdotal evidence Justice offers to bring home this complaint, well, here’s an anecdote from Washington, DC — a town with a black mayor and black-majority city council.

Megan Johnson, a black DC woman, recently failed to pay 10 parking tickets within the allotted 30 days. The city doubled her fines from $500 to $1,000, then booted, towed and sold her car — and charged her $700 for towing and impounding it.

DC sold the car at auction for $500 and won’t even credit that amount to what she owes. It’s now attaching her tax refunds.

Justice’s Ferguson anecdotes no more prove racism than Megan Johnson’s experience proves the DC government is racist.

Finally, for “direct evidence of racial bias,” the report describes seven emails from Ferguson police officers from 2008 to 2011 that Justice describes as offensive to blacks, women, Muslims, President Obama and his wife, and possibly people of mixed race.

But this begs some big questions: Did only one or two of the 53 officers send the emails? Did the objectionable emails end in 2011 because those officers no longer worked for the department or were told to stop?

The Justice Department’s report reads as a prosecutor’s brief, not an unbiased attempt to get at the truth, with evidence carefully selected and portrayed in the strongest possible light.

I'm interested to see how quickly this gets swept under the rug since it doesn't fit the narrative. Do we change the subject? Attack the source?

I appreciate your sources and I would like to counter with my own.

Terrence Crutchers- https://www.cnn.com/2016/09/20/us/oklahoma-tulsa-police-shooting/index.html

It shows the Crutchers scene from multiple angles of simultaneous footage. His behavior was strange and non-compliant. However this is where experience and training become paramount. It's been an incredibly common issue. The officer made a poor judgement decision as does happen, there is no question about this. What needs to be addressed is the amount of training policy which is used. For instance, using deadly force, even accidentally should not be a first response. Taser and non-lethal equipment should be the first defense unless a lethal weapon is drawn. If you set the precedent that any act of non-compliance justifies an officer to fire potentially lethal equipment it harms the general populace.

Well for one, you don't know what kind of training they received. There were multiple officers there, and only one shot. One who was clearly distraught. Tasers do not always work. Even if it is a matter of training, it goes back to the original point. Not racism.

Michael Brown - I will not debate the merits of whether Michael Brown should have been shot as the officer must act in self defense. However what I take issue with is the police having no means to defend themselves beyond a gun itself. Officers should always carry both a lethal and non-lethal form of defense and policy should be to use non-lethal means first against unarmed assailants. Again, this is a policy issue.

You do realize evidence showed that Michael Brown was at point blank range with the officer, fighting with the officer. At that point, when a large man is attacking you, attempting to get your gun, tazing it out of the question. Not racism.

Trayvon Martin - Your statement says that Trayvon Obviously attacked Zimmerman. What we do know. Zimmerman was told he was not needed to follow Martin. Zimmerman continued. An altercation ensued to which Zimmerman was forced to use his gun to deadly result. I believe the charge should have been manslaughter as the incidence was a result of Zimmerman's negligence and irresponsibility while in possession of a firearm. As to the evidence of Martin attacking, https://www.cnn.com/2013/02/25/justice/florida-zimmerman-5-things/index.html

"When they do, they'll delve into mounds of evidence, key elements of which emerged well after the initial hubbub erupted.

For example, did Martin handle the gun he was ultimately shot with? No, according to test results made public last May, which showed evidence of Zimmerman's hands on the firearm, but not those of the teenager he killed. And an analysis showed that scrapings from underneath the teenager's fingernails did not contain any of Zimmerman's DNA, as may rub off in a prolonged struggle."

This one could be the closest thing we have to racism in these examples, but still far off the mark. Was it the racist police who killed him? Nope, a Hispanic citizen. Regardless, of your race, it has been proven many times that your appearance defines you. Do you believe Zimmerman would have thought Trayvon looked suspicious if he was wearing a suit? The article you posted even reminds us of how much the media stirs up racial controversy. How many times was it mentioned that Zimmerman mentioned he "looked black". That's a reasonable response to a question when asked. Fake editing was added to stir up racial tensions.

In the end, this is a story about someone who watched the neighborhood, that was having problems with breakins, thought they saw something, pursued when he shouldn't have, got attacked, and defended himself. Listen to the phone call with an open-mind and tell me it's the racist national event you think it was.

Ferguson: - The crime statistics are irrelevant to the treatment of individuals. Having elevated crime in a specific area is not license to use possible excessive force in a specific are. It is unconstitutional to do so. Communities can be policed while staying within the bounds of the law. In Michael Brown's case I do not fault the officer personally, but I question the policies. As I stated, this should be reviewed.

So, in a discussion as to why relations have not improved, is it unreasonable to ever question the individual? Is the individual never at fault? Wouldn't that be a strong component of improving race relations? How unreasonable is it to not rob a store then attack an officer?

As to the body camera, the body camera is not necessary for the citizens protection as it is for the institution of police officers. It is a protection mechanism for officers and should be used as such. No officer should be against empirical evidence which shows their evidence. I so no reason to be concerned of the police cameras as its purpose should be to invoke trust more so than catching wrong doing.

I agree, it protects the officer more than the citizen. The point of the cameras is bringing it all back together. We always demand answers, change, action. The cameras have gone completely against the narrative that it was one of the biggest missing links in policing. If anything, it has taken steam away from the whole movement. The most recent police encounters are providing evidence supporting the police actions. Now what?

 

[VAL0R]

I voted twice against Obama and believe he was a terrible president and leader. However, I did have great hope (during his first term at any rate) that he would do something great for race relations, but he really did nothing. Nothing of substance anyway. Arguably race relations are worse after his presidency. As our first "black" racially mixed president he could have done so much. What a complete shame and waste of what could have been his legacy.

He could have been a healer like Dr. King and spoke often words about how we should strive for a society where "little black boys and black girls will he able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." He could have, I don't know, given us an annual national holiday of racial harmony and led by example where on that day we perform acts of love for people of another race because we are all, as Dr. King put it "God's children." Or something. Anything. He was just divisive instead. What a disappointment he was.

 

[MonkeyKing]

I voted twice against Obama and believe he was a terrible president and leader. However, I did have great hope (during his first term at any rate) that he would do something great for race relations, but he really did nothing. Nothing of substance anyway. Arguably race relations are worse after his presidency. As our first "black" racially mixed president he could have done so much. What a complete shame and waste of what could have been his legacy.

He could have been a healer like Dr. King and spoke often words about how we should strive for a society where "little black boys and black girls will he able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." He could have, I don't know, given us an annual national holiday of racial harmony and led by example where on that day we perform acts of love for people of another race because we are all, as Dr. King put it "God's children." Or something. Anything. He was just divisive instead. What a disappointment he was.

It didn't help when the political opposition characterized him as a fraud, a Kenyan national with a phony birth certificate. Do you think THAT helped the national discourse? That he was somehow both a Muslim and a socialist?

We've tolerated extremist rhetoric and positions, so as a result, we have extremist politics.

 

[ilfait]

Racial issues are complex, but it sure doesn't help that racism over the past couple of decades has been continually, and usually unreasonably, redefined to include a wide range of words, thoughts, art, and concepts that, if they had been proposed all at once as being racist in the 80s or 90s, the vast majority of anti-racist, pro-equality North Americans would have dismissed the idea as totally ridiculous and irrational.

But the insanity of present-day PC culture wasn't presented to us all at once; it was presented gradually, sometimes packaged alongside reasonable ideas. Often these kinds of changes in society are for the better, and are genuine progress, but sometimes they're very wrong. The modern PC movement has gone very wrong.

People who grew up pre-2000s have the luxury (or the curse) of witnessing the full scale of the transition and the contrast between then and now, but for the younger generation what once would have been seen as so obviously absurd has become almost commonplace. When everything's "racist" and "sexist", perception of the world and how we interact with it can become pretty dire for everyone. There are so many actions and reactions today to imagined enemies and slights that needlessly make our lives worse in so many obvious and subtle ways, while distracting people from real, serious problems, that should be, or even need to be, resolved.

 

[TheMikado]

post: 253170171, member: 49946"]Super Mario, you are wrong about Trayvon and Crutcher, especially because Tray was followed just because he was black, and Crutcher was shot with both hands up out of fear of the big scary black man.

The nationalreview is not a credible source. Find someone else.

But let's see what the The Civil Rights Division of the United States Department of Justice has to summize about their own research:

This isn't even the worst of it, as their motive is pillaging black people for profit.

You mean the DOJ investigation, led by Eric Holder that said black people were less often police officers and more often arrested, in relation to their representation of the area? Can you prove racism there? How about a view of the other side.

https://nypost.com/2015/03/09/ferguson-fake-out-justice-departments-bogus-report/



I'm interested to see how quickly this gets swept under the rug since it doesn't fit the narrative. Do we change the subject? Attack the source?





Well for one, you don't know what kind of training they received. There were multiple officers there, and only one shot. One who was clearly distraught. Tasers do not always work. Even if it is a matter of training, it goes back to the original point. Not racism.



You do realize evidence showed that Michael Brown was at point blank range with the officer, fighting with the officer. At that point, when a large man is attacking you, attempting to get your gun, tazing it out of the question. Not racism.



This one could be the closest thing we have to racism in these examples, but still far off the mark. Was it the racist police who killed him? Nope, a Hispanic citizen. Regardless, of your race, it has been proven many times that your appearance defines you. Do you believe Zimmerman would have thought Trayvon looked suspicious if he was wearing a suit? The article you posted even reminds us of how much the media stirs up racial controversy. How many times was it mentioned that Zimmerman mentioned he "looked black". That's a reasonable response to a question when asked. Fake editing was added to stir up racial tensions.

In the end, this is a story about someone who watched the neighborhood, that was having problems with breakins, thought they saw something, pursued when he shouldn't have, got attacked, and defended himself. Listen to the phone call with an open-mind and tell me it's the racist national event you think it was.



So, in a discussion as to why relations have not improved, is it unreasonable to ever question the individual? Is the individual never at fault? Wouldn't that be a strong component of improving race relations? How unreasonable is it to not rob a store then attack an officer?



I agree, it protects the officer more than the citizen. The point of the cameras is bringing it all back together. We always demand answers, change, action. The cameras have gone completely against the narrative that it was one of the biggest missing links in policing. If anything, it has taken steam away from the whole movement. The most recent police encounters are providing evidence supporting the police actions. Now what?

First I will tackle your claim of black people and driver safety as per the US department of transportation. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/809956

Drunk driving continues to play a major role in the motor vehicle traffic crash experience across race, ethnic, age and gender divides. Data showed that the percentage of fatally injured drivers who were drinking was highest for Native Americans (57%) and Hispanics or Latinos (47%). This trend appeared to be independent of such socioeconomic influences as education levels or the proportion of female-to-male drivers in the population of drivers killed. Fatally injured Native American and Hispanic drivers, followed by African American drivers, were less likely to hold valid licenses than White or Asian and Pacific Islander drivers. Moreover, these Native American drivers were more likely to have had prior driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions and license suspensions, but African American drivers were the most likely to have had speeding convictions and convictions for other moving violations.

By your own presented evidence of higher propensity to vehicular accidents and prior moving violations Hispanics and Native Americans, not African Americans should lead in stops and arrests. Your statistical claims are faulty from the start as your claim does not reflect the actual statistics.

Now as to your claim on Terrence Crutchers:
You emphasized the point. One officer of several SHOT him. You can read this exchange to understand the context of the situation.

Police stated that Crutcher kept reaching into his pocket, refused to show his hands, walked towards his vehicle despite being told to stop, and then angled towards and reached into his vehicle.[11][12][13] Critics have disputed this saying that the driver's side window was up when Crutcher was shot.[14] Turnbough tased Crutcher, and Shelby shot him.[5] Shortly before the shooting, officers in the helicopter conversed with each other: "This guy's still walking and isn't following commands." "It's time for a taser, I think." "I've got a feeling that's about to happen." "That looks like a bad dude, too, could be on something."[4][5][7] Approximately two minutes after the shot, an officer checked Crutcher's pockets, and approximately 45 seconds later, someone crouched to offer aid.[7] Police said Crutcher died in the hospital later that day.[1][5] Tulsa police chief Chuck Jordan said no weapon was recovered from Crutcher's body or vehicle.[15]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Terence_Crutcher

Every indication from police observing and on the scene indicates that the procedure should have been to utilize a taser first at this point. The question of whether the officer properly followed procedure and policy is clearly open when so many of her peers specifically stated and used tasers.
AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.

Michael Brown: In correct TASER brand tasers are specifically designed for BOTH stun gun and taser functions. If they 1) did not have a taser. They should. 2) if they do they should invest in dual function which are not much more than normal tasers or firearms. There is no excuse to use deadly force weapons on an unarmed man when these tools are at your disposal. It is the job of the justice system, not the police system to perform executions. Subduing should be priority and investments should be made into this aspect if police are expected to handle such a multitude of situations without the proper tools at there disposal.
So again, to recap. Two weapons as police disposal. 1) non-lethal. 2) lethal. Non lethal should always take priority and be used against unarmed suspects.
Investment and training should be made to support this system.
AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.

Zimmerman: The constitution protects against executions for simply "looking" a certain way. I'm not even sure where you are going with this one but I never made this about race, I clearly stated why Zimmerman was at fault regardless of race.
AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.

As for as individual responsibility: I agree, but we are taking about constitutional rights which is the right to due process and trial. Killing a suspect removes and violates those right granted to us through law. It is not for the officer to decide fault, but for the courts to determine. Their responsibility as an officer is to subdue and protect to the best of their ability. I made it clear I do not blame officers for their personal decisions even if done in poor judgment. I made it clear that the system and policy should reflect that lethal force on unarmed suspects is a LAST RESORT. The individuals act as individuals, but the system must act as blind justice. Whether the individual committed a crime has no barring on removal of the right to trial. In fact no such law exists in the US.
AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.

On police cameras. As I stated it is for establishing trust in communities. The ability of a police department to consistently and thoroughly show proper procedures through evidence is important. That is the "now what". You want to know how to fix it and it is about establishing trust in mutual respect in all communities across the board. Why would you ask "now what" when the intention is rebuilding relationships which includes consistently showing proper procedure and innocence. Why would you take issue with evidence showing police officers consistently and routinely performing their duties within the law and policy?

 

[TheMikado]

I voted twice against Obama and believe he was a terrible president and leader. However, I did have great hope (during his first term at any rate) that he would do something great for race relations, but he really did nothing. Nothing of substance anyway. Arguably race relations are worse after his presidency. As our first "black" racially mixed president he could have done so much. What a complete shame and waste of what could have been his legacy.

He could have been a healer like Dr. King and spoke often words about how we should strive for a society where "little black boys and black girls will he able to join hands with little white boys and white girls as sisters and brothers." He could have, I don't know, given us an annual national holiday of racial harmony and led by example where on that day we perform acts of love for people of another race because we are all, as Dr. King put it "God's children." Or something. Anything. He was just divisive instead. What a disappointment he was.

1) it appears you are re-imagining history. Dr. King was not thought of as a healer. He was considered a troublemaker and race-baiter by many of his peers of the time. I don't remember the last time I saw someone beaten or imprisoned specifically because they respected him.

2) Are you familiar with any of King's other speeches? For someone you hold in such high regard and state Obama should have striven to be like I am surprised by this sentiment. If you were offended by Obama's statements on race I can only conclude that you know very little of the Dr. King you claim to hold in high regard. Obama's speeches have been far far far more unifying and less divisive by comparison across the board.

3) One of the primary criticisms of Obama was many felt he did not do enough for the black community. And to be honest he spent much of his presidency rightly attempting to be a president to all Americans and purposely avoided being the "black president". The very thing you are asking for is one of the very things he would be criticized for as to making race and issue.

4) So what exactly did you want from Obama which would not have many others who didn't vote for him claim that he was race-baiting, or making race and issue, or any number of other claims. What could Obama have done differently in your eyes which would have helped race relations, BUT without the added baggage of the claim of him making race and issue. It seems that him even acknowledging there are different races is a claim that he makes race and issue.

 

[generaldane]

1) it appears you are re-imagining history. Dr. King was not thought of as a healer. He was considered a troublemaker and race-baiter by many of his peers of the time. I don't remember the last time I saw someone beaten or imprisoned specifically because they respected him.

2) Are you familiar with any of King's other speeches? For someone you hold in such high regard and state Obama should have striven to be like I am surprised by this sentiment. If you were offended by Obama's statements on race I can only conclude that you know very little of the Dr. King you claim to hold in high regard. Obama's speeches have been far far far more unifying and less divisive by comparison across the board.

3) One of the primary criticisms of Obama was many felt he did not do enough for the black community. And to be honest he spent much of his presidency rightly attempting to be a president to all Americans and purposely avoided being the "black president". The very thing you are asking for is one of the very things he would be criticized for as to making race and issue.

4) So what exactly did you want from Obama which would not have many others who didn't vote for him claim that he was race-baiting, or making race and issue, or any number of other claims. What could Obama have done differently in your eyes which would have helped race relations, BUT without the added baggage of the claim of him making race and issue. It seems that him even acknowledging there are different races is a claim that he makes race and issue.

No joke as a non American black man this is the complaint I heard the most about Obama from my black friends when I was in the US, so to see him being called as race baiter by folks here is rather amusing to me.

 

[VAL0R]

1) it appears you are re-imagining history. Dr. King was not thought of as a healer. He was considered a troublemaker and race-baiter by many of his peers of the time. I don't remember the last time I saw someone beaten or imprisoned specifically because they respected him.

It goes without saying that I am referring to how Dr. King is viewed today and I think you knew that, so your reference to how his peers may have viewed him is irrelevant. Hasn't history judged him as a great racial healer, a unifier or races? Do you disagree with this assessment? If not, there is nothing to argue about on this point.

 

[Sàmban]

I'm interested to see how quickly this gets swept under the rug since it doesn't fit the narrative. Do we change the subject? Attack the source?

A critique of your New York Post "source." This is really tiring having to point this shit out all the time, but I am going to engage you in good faith.

1. The New York Post is already not a very reliable source of information. Therefore, an opinion piece from them should certainly be a red flag to anyone. I'm not saying this to discredit your source. It is what it is. Here is what mediabiasfactcheck has to say about them: "This source can swing very far to the right, but does occasionally provide a balanced account. Not a very credible source overall." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/. Again, it is not the fact that they are conservative that is the problem. Rather, it is the fact that they tend to distort facts to suit their agenda. You'll see what I mean below.

2. The author is full of shit and is making stuff up or manipulating data for his agenda. But rather than just say it (so you don't acuse me of attacking the source or being biased), I'll show you how: For example, he correctly states that the DOJ report stated that blacks accounted for 85% of traffic stops. Then, he goes on to say that if blacks were pulled over at the same rate as they are nationwide, it should be 87.5% or so. He then concludes that it turns out that Ferguson is actually performing below the national average so this they can't be the hotbed of racism that they are. I don't know where he got 87.5% from. The 2011 report he is using says that the black drivers that were pulled over were 12.8% of the driving population (9.8% were whites) OR 12.6% of all stopped drivers (69.3% were whites). I checked it myself and you can too here: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf. He also says that blacks were 31% more likely than whites to be pulled over. It doesn't actually say that in the data, and he is bullshitting. Since 12.8% of blacks were pulled over and 9.8% of whites were, taking 12.8 and dividing by 9.8 gives you 1.3061 which can be rounded to 1.31. This is where he gets "31% more likely," except the study states that this difference was not statistically significant (meaning the difference is likely due to sampling chance) so you CANT say that, and also you can't even do that because the percentages are only looking at a fraction of the driving population (they don't add up to 100%).

He also states that because men are 42% more likely to be stopped (he uses the same garbage math and it's either 42% or 43% depending on which percentages you use), we can't say that cops are biased against men, so, therefore, we can't say that cops are biased against race just because there is a difference. This might have been a legitimate argument if the differences between sexes were as legitimate as the differences between races. Men are generally more aggressive than women. Black people are not. In fact, "race" is a completely social construct with very little bearing in actual biology. It's like arguing that 8pm causes the sun to set.


But you know what, I didn't even have to do all that. All I had to do was google the author's name (John R Lott Jr) to know that he is a fraud and he has done shit like this before. But apparently, you can't even do that. Why the hell should anyone take what you say seriously? I'm waiting for your response to this, as you just assumed that "dem libruls" will sweep this under the rug for some reason.

 

[TheMikado]

It goes without saying that I am referring to how Dr. King is viewed today and I think you knew that, so your reference to how his peers may have viewed him is irrelevant. Hasn't history judged him as a great racial healer, a unifier or races? Do you disagree with this assessment? If not, there is nothing to argue about on this point.

Of course and your explanation is exactly my point. The idea of Obama’s being viewed by his contemporaries is equally invalid when and if his criticisms today result in a better tomorrow for all Americans. My point is when history looks back on this time period you could find yourself as similar the the individuals who railed against Dr. King and just as you said of those past opinions some opinions now even found in this very thread could be found to be equally irrelevant in the future.

 

[MonkeyKing]

It goes without saying that I am referring to how Dr. King is viewed today and I think you knew that, so your reference to how his peers may have viewed him is irrelevant. Hasn't history judged him as a great racial healer, a unifier or races? Do you disagree with this assessment? If not, there is nothing to argue about on this point.

As we are neither healed nor unified, the answer is obviously no. I think there is a general impression of Dr. King as a "great Black man", note the qualifier. I don't think people really put much thought into who he was, what he was fighting for or against.

 

[Vicetrailia]

You mean the DOJ investigation, led by Eric Holder that said black people were less often police officers and more often arrested, in relation to their representation of the area? Can you prove racism there? How about a view of the other side.

https://nypost.com/2015/03/09/ferguson-fake-out-justice-departments-bogus-report/

I'm interested to see how quickly this gets swept under the rug since it doesn't fit the narrative. Do we change the subject? Attack the source?
?

This article did not even address the statistics that I posted. This is a face value counter argument, including 2006 data from the highway whatever that's not even useful what so ever. This isnt even an analysis or breakdown of the DOJ report. It merely cherry picks a very small amount of information. Your article mentions warrants and fines, but doesn't even dive into any of the information pertaining to the income and for profit policing conflictions. The for profit policing is the system having a strong affect against the poor. The part that is about race is whom the police target to get into the system.

So in short, find a better source.

 

[krazen]

As we are neither healed nor unified, the answer is obviously no. I think there is a general impression of Dr. King as a "great Black man", note the qualifier. I don't think people really put much thought into who he was, what he was fighting for or against.

I mean the remixing of Dr. King where he wasn’t an activist and how it was just southern segregationalists against civil rights is part of the issue where people like BANGS can say everything was economic.

In the years leading up to his assassination, the preacher and civil rights activist was less popular than ever. A 1966 Gallup poll found that almost two-thirds of Americans had an unfavorable opinion of Dr. King and a third had a positive opinion, a 26 point unfavorable rate increase from 1963.

http://www.newsweek.com/martin-luther-king-jr-was-not-always-popular-back-day-780387

Its why my fav pop media example of racism was on an episode of Mad Men. Betty (the wife) and her black maid arw watching the nighly news showing civil rights protestors are getting attacked and Betty turns to the maid and says (paraphrased) “Maybe its not the right time for your people to get their rights?”. She wasnt “racist” as a character but the sheer indifference to the plight of the minorities along with the ‘Ugh, this might ruin my travel plans’ indifference sums up much of the sentiment in this thread.

For a country built on rebellion America prides itself in control, order and rule of law no matter what, even if the cause is unjustified (which sums up its military engagements since WWII)

 

[Nightstick10]

I think you are conflating institutional racism with prejudices. Prejudice will never be extinguished, however education and activism are protections against the re-emergence of institutional discrimination. The "dragon" of racism and prejudice will never be extinguished so long as humanity lives, this is the nature of the beast. Thoughts that the "dragon" has been slain allows the institutional prejudices to seep in, the dragon has merely had its teeth removed and by all measures it has worked across the board this is truth. . .

While I agree with you on this, I think you might be making the mistake of thinking that it is safe to rebuild because the dragon has been slain. I think we still need to put out its fires. It's just that some are trying to put out fires with swords.

Good counter-metaphors and it looks like we don't really disagree all that much on this point. I can see how monumentally stupid it would be to just say hey guys look we have de jure equality relax and then everybody relaxes and then in 7 or 17 years or 40 years or whatever, all of the hard-worn advances that took decades to achieve are surreptitiously reversed because we did not at the very least send out routine patrols to make sure nobody is trying to revive the dragon. That approach re: sleeping dragons didn't work out so well for the world of Fire Emblem Awakening (or most all Fire Emblems for that matter.) I do think the dragon of prejudice will never be eradicated and I do question the wisdom of disproportionately apportioning our individual time and efforts in attempting to slay something that cannot be slain; on the other hand, but I realize people are capable of multi-tasking and it is paramount that any attempt to re-institutionalize prejudice is better off being nipped in the bud because that shit can take a century to reverse if history is any precedent.

You did not diminish my points one bit. The recency and existence of them diminishes yours (nothing to see here young people), and thats just a single drop in the ocean. Equality of Opportunity is not secured if people are losing opportunity just because of their gender or race. You gotta think about what you are saying.

My point was that the barriers that used to target and/or disproportionately impact minorities in previous generations past have been removed for your micro-generation. YOUR micro-generation of white people are, by any measurable metric, the least racist demographic cohort that America has ever seen. I sincerely hope you realize and appreciate this fact and take advantage of it. I am not saying you are wrong to feel how you feel, I am not saying everything is perfect, I am not interested in debating the merits line by line of the results of every BLM-related investigation. I do not deny that blacks, much more than most, suffered the most from racism in t he United States, and I fully acknowledge that every minority group in the United States, including mine, owes a debt to a generation of black people who had the courage and bravery enough to set into motion a movement that resulted in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. You have the great fortune to grow up during a most anomalous time period in this country's history. These windows do not last forever (20-30 years in the case of the end of the Civil War.) You have an obligation and a duty to future generations of blacks to be a living, breathing, walking road-map to success.

 

[Nintendo Switch]

When someone espouses biased statements, engage them in open dialogue,educate them as to why they are wrong. Prove them wrong. Don’t take the shortcut of harassing them, banning them from the discussion outright, or doxxing them and then pat yourself on the back as if you achieved a win against racism. You didn’t, just the opposite.

So you blame the left for the fall of race relations because "twitter/doxxing/muhfreespeech"...and completely ignore all the rightwing policies of the past several decades that have led to the obliteration of upwards mobility for the low and middle class?

The thread title was specifically, why did race relations regress so much in the past decade. As in, why are race relations worse today than they were in 2010.

For 50 years our society has steadily and progressively become less racist but something switched a decade ago that led to the trend going backwards and the op is asking why.

The biggest factor in that is that rise of internet bubbles. The authoritarian right had already sheltered itself into bubbles since open racism was no longer culturally tolerated.

However it was the authoritarian left that hijacked the liberal moniker and engaged in thought policing and doxxing and closed discussion (even though freedom of expression and freedom of thought are integral to real liberalism) that pushed liberal circles into authoritarian left wing thought bubbles that drove centrists out as was done all over the internet including this site. this created the backlash to the left in general that contributed to the decline of progressive thought and race relations.

Racism slowly dies when open discussion between people of different backgrounds and ideologies thrives. Racism thrives when freedoms dies and thought bubbles are formed.

 

[Nightstick10]

It goes without saying that I am referring to how Dr. King is viewed today and I think you knew that, so your reference to how his peers may have viewed him is irrelevant. Hasn't history judged him as a great racial healer, a unifier or races? Do you disagree with this assessment? If not, there is nothing to argue about on this point.

This argument strand is specious. Washington fought tooth and nail to prevent MLK day from being a holiday. Growing up in a conservative part of the country in the 80s and 90s, MLK was never covered or even really referenced in our history classes. He has always been used as a foil for the Malcolm X/Black Panther type of black activist ("Bobby why aren't you eating your carrots when Milton is. Don't you want to be a good kid like Milton?")

So you blame the left for the fall of race relations because "twitter/doxxing/muhfreespeech"...and completely ignore all the rightwing policies of the past several decades that have led to the obliteration of upwards mobility for the low and middle class?

Without quibbling over which side's policies are responsible for the obliteration of upwards mobility (full disclosure: in my opinion, both parties are equally responsible), we really need to make the overturning of federal mandatory minimum sentencing and three-strikes laws for non-violent felonies the next political goal.

 

[Vicetrailia]

Good counter-metaphors and it looks like we don't really disagree all that much on this point. I can see how monumentally stupid it would be to just say hey guys look we have de jure equality relax and then everybody relaxes and then in 7 or 17 years or 40 years or whatever, all of the hard-worn advances that took decades to achieve are surreptitiously reversed because we did not at the very least send out routine patrols to make sure nobody is trying to revive the dragon. That approach re: sleeping dragons didn't work out so well for the world of Fire Emblem Awakening (or most all Fire Emblems for that matter.) I do think the dragon of prejudice will never be eradicated and I do question the wisdom of disproportionately apportioning our individual time and efforts in attempting to slay something that cannot be slain; on the other hand, but I realize people are capable of multi-tasking and it is paramount that any attempt to re-institutionalize prejudice is better off being nipped in the bud because that shit can take a century to reverse if history is any precedent.



My point was that the barriers that used to target and/or disproportionately impact minorities in previous generations past have been removed for your micro-generation. YOUR micro-generation of white people are, by any measurable metric, the least racist demographic cohort that America has ever seen. I sincerely hope you realize and appreciate this fact and take advantage of it. I am not saying you are wrong to feel how you feel, I am not saying everything is perfect, I am not interested in debating the merits line by line of the results of every BLM-related investigation. I do not deny that blacks, much more than most, suffered the most from racism in t he United States, and I fully acknowledge that every minority group in the United States, including mine, owes a debt to a generation of black people who had the courage and bravery enough to set into motion a movement that resulted in the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. You have the great fortune to grow up during a most anomalous time period in this country's history. These windows do not last forever (20-30 years in the case of the end of the Civil War.) You have an obligation and a duty to future generations of blacks to be a living, breathing, walking road-map to success.

I agree, just wanted to acknowledge this post.

 

[TheGraykid]

Your list of examples illustrates my point that the dragon is slain.

Felon disenfranchisement is not something that applies only to one race of felons. Ferguson shined a light on how much police transparency has improved since the days cops could beat the shit out of the Rodney Kings of the world with impunity and be acquitted, causing mass riots. Compare and contrast with the much more transparent investigation of potential police brutality in Ferguson, the nuanced reactions when people realized it was not simply an indiscriminate shooting, and the peaceful demonstration by a coalition of all colors in Los Angeles, a city a mere generation removed from the 92 Riots. Your microgeneration might not realize the gravity of how you saw amazing things happen when NYPD's "stop-and-frisk" was deemed UNCONSTITUTIONAL, removing a source of racial friction since the late 60s. Shelby County is another signpost for how far things have come when the very idea of a polltax seems so unrealistic that the Court ruled the way it did. By every objective metric, police brutality versus black and brown communities has improved to an extent unimaginable in the 80s and 90s. More than anything, Charlottesville showed how anemic modern white supremacy groups are, as not only were they absolutely dwarfed by counter protestors, they were universally denounced by the local communities.

De jure equality and equality of opportunity has been secured all across the board; what else is there to secure? Short of thoughtcrime legislation, enforced quotas, etc. what more can we reasonably ask for?

I completely disagree.

Things getting better does not mean that things are completely fixed.

In countries like the UK and USA Black people on average are still poorer than the average white person, have more debt, make less money. They have worse access to education, and the education they do have is worse than the average white person. They are way more likely to go to jail than the average white person. Equality does not exist, and that's not because of some evil cabal of white people are planning to keep the black man down, it's deeper than that, it's written into the core fabric of our society. Years of deliberate racial sabotage have left a mark that might not ever be repaired, at least whilst so many people pretend it didn't happen or act as though it's all made up for now.

This is all just me talking in a wider sense, this isn't even me talking about my personal perspective, this isn't me talking about how horrible it is to be a black person on the internet. Shit wears on me man. How so many twitch chats, YouTube comments, Facebook comments, twitter replies, reddit comments, steam forums are just filled with racist bile. So much of it is people saying hateful shit about me and people who look like me. This isn't just "trolling" to me, this is my life and my reality. I've been called a nigger while walking around in Central London so this isn't a joke to me. So often in this thread I've seen people say that somehow the youth are being brainwashed into thinking that racism is still a huge problem today, If you think that I have a simple question for you. Do you use the Internet?

 

[Sàmban]

When someone espouses biased statements, engage them in open dialogue,educate them as to why they are wrong. Prove them wrong. Don’t take the shortcut of harassing them, banning them from the discussion outright, or doxxing them and then pat yourself on the back as if you achieved a win against racism. You didn’t, just the opposite.



The thread title was specifically, why did race relations regress so much in the past decade. As in, why are race relations worse today than they were in 2010.

For 50 years our society has steadily and progressively become less racist but something switched a decade ago that led to the trend going backwards and the op is asking why.

The biggest factor in that is that rise of internet bubbles. The authoritarian right had already sheltered itself into bubbles since open racism was no longer culturally tolerated.

However it was the authoritarian left that hijacked the liberal moniker and engaged in thought policing and doxxing and closed discussion (even though freedom of expression and freedom of thought are integral to real liberalism) that pushed liberal circles into authoritarian left wing thought bubbles that drove centrists out as was done all over the internet including this site. this created the backlash to the left in general that contributed to the decline of progressive thought and race relations.

Racism slowly dies when open discussion between people of different backgrounds and ideologies thrives. Racism thrives when freedoms dies and thought bubbles are formed.

I really, really don't think this is happening because a bunch of liberals shitposted on twitter. I think we are just starting to see the effects of massive income inequality and the process started decades ago. In short, I think everyone is stagnating or getting worse economically, which causes black people to suffer disproportionately due to years of racism and generational wealth destruction. People are refusing to acknowledge and deal with this problem, so instead they look for scapegoats. Black people fight back because their shit is getting fucked up. White people fight back because they don't want to stop living a lie. There you go. Race relations in a nutshell.

 

[Super Mario]

First I will tackle your claim of black people and driver safety as per the US department of transportation. https://crashstats.nhtsa.dot.gov/Api/Public/ViewPublication/809956

Drunk driving continues to play a major role in the motor vehicle traffic crash experience across race, ethnic, age and gender divides. Data showed that the percentage of fatally injured drivers who were drinking was highest for Native Americans (57%) and Hispanics or Latinos (47%). This trend appeared to be independent of such socioeconomic influences as education levels or the proportion of female-to-male drivers in the population of drivers killed. Fatally injured Native American and Hispanic drivers, followed by African American drivers, were less likely to hold valid licenses than White or Asian and Pacific Islander drivers. Moreover, these Native American drivers were more likely to have had prior driving while intoxicated (DWI) convictions and license suspensions, but African American drivers were the most likely to have had speeding convictions and convictions for other moving violations.

By your own presented evidence of higher propensity to vehicular accidents and prior moving violations Hispanics and Native Americans, not African Americans should lead in stops and arrests. Your statistical claims are faulty from the start as your claim does not reflect the actual statistics.

What are you even trying to prove here? The DOJ "study" said that black people were pulled over more than white people. One of the many proving points of racism, right? Ferguson is a heavily black community. Black people are the majority there. So a national study of Native American and Hispanics drinking more is completely irrelevant here. To make it simple for you. Ferguson has more black people. Black people have a higher rate of accidents vs white. Therefore everything, including your "evidence" shows that the DOJ study is telling a false narrative.

Now as to your claim on Terrence Crutchers:

You emphasized the point. One officer of several SHOT him. You can read this exchange to understand the context of the situation.



Police stated that Crutcher kept reaching into his pocket, refused to show his hands, walked towards his vehicle despite being told to stop, and then angled towards and reached into his vehicle.[11][12][13] Critics have disputed this saying that the driver's side window was up when Crutcher was shot.[14] Turnbough tased Crutcher, and Shelby shot him.[5] Shortly before the shooting, officers in the helicopter conversed with each other: "This guy's still walking and isn't following commands." "It's time for a taser, I think." "I've got a feeling that's about to happen." "That looks like a bad dude, too, could be on something."[4][5][7] Approximately two minutes after the shot, an officer checked Crutcher's pockets, and approximately 45 seconds later, someone crouched to offer aid.[7] Police said Crutcher died in the hospital later that day.[1][5] Tulsa police chief Chuck Jordan said no weapon was recovered from Crutcher's body or vehicle.[15]. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shooting_of_Terence_Crutcher

Again, not really sure of your point. The officers could clearly tell something was not right with him. He was on PCP. He ignored commands. Do I wish death upon him? No. Is it systematic oppression? No.

Every indication from police observing and on the scene indicates that the procedure should have been to utilize a taser first at this point. The question of whether the officer properly followed procedure and policy is clearly open when so many of her peers specifically stated and used tasers.

AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.



Michael Brown: In correct TASER brand tasers are specifically designed for BOTH stun gun and taser functions. If they 1) did not have a taser. They should. 2) if they do they should invest in dual function which are not much more than normal tasers or firearms. There is no excuse to use deadly force weapons on an unarmed man when these tools are at your disposal. It is the job of the justice system, not the police system to perform executions. Subduing should be priority and investments should be made into this aspect if police are expected to handle such a multitude of situations without the proper tools at there disposal.

So again, to recap. Two weapons as police disposal. 1) non-lethal. 2) lethal. Non lethal should always take priority and be used against unarmed suspects.

Investment and training should be made to support this system.

AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.

Zimmerman: The constitution protects against executions for simply "looking" a certain way. I'm not even sure where you are going with this one but I never made this about race, I clearly stated why Zimmerman was at fault regardless of race.

AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.

As for as individual responsibility: I agree, but we are taking about constitutional rights which is the right to due process and trial. Killing a suspect removes and violates those right granted to us through law. It is not for the officer to decide fault, but for the courts to determine. Their responsibility as an officer is to subdue and protect to the best of their ability. I made it clear I do not blame officers for their personal decisions even if done in poor judgment. I made it clear that the system and policy should reflect that lethal force on unarmed suspects is a LAST RESORT. The individuals act as individuals, but the system must act as blind justice. Whether the individual committed a crime has no barring on removal of the right to trial. In fact no such law exists in the US.

AT NO POINT DID I STATE RACISM. THAT IS YOUR OWN INSECURITY YOU ARE PROJECTING.

My own insecurities? Why would these stories even be brought up in a race relations discussion if it wasn't about racism. Do you think these were the only questionable deaths of Americans in the past 5 years, or is there a hidden motive somewhere that hand-selected these? If you ask black people how they are being oppressed, will you hear these stories? You can now pretend it's all about police process, training, etc until you are blue in the face. The only reason that is done, is because the racism narratives have been proven to be a farce.

On police cameras. As I stated it is for establishing trust in communities. The ability of a police department to consistently and thoroughly show proper procedures through evidence is important. That is the "now what". You want to know how to fix it and it is about establishing trust in mutual respect in all communities across the board. Why would you ask "now what" when the intention is rebuilding relationships which includes consistently showing proper procedure and innocence. Why would you take issue with evidence showing police officers consistently and routinely performing their duties within the law and policy?

I will hold you to those statements. Now that we have cameras, black people can now have a different view of the police. Problem solved, right?

Now let me reel you back into the real world. This fixes nothing. You can talk in circles on how great it is we now have more footage. The black community still hates the police. Race relations won't improve in the slightest. The damage from this whole movement has made it far worse. The biggest differences we are seeing from police activity is they would rather not even get involved anymore. How is that working out in your "oppressed" cities?

 

[krazen]

What are you even trying to prove here? The DOJ "study" said that black people were pulled over more than white people. One of the many proving points of racism, right? Ferguson is a heavily black community. Black people are the majority there. So a national study of Native American and Hispanics drinking more is completely irrelevant here. To make it simple for you. Ferguson has more black people. Black people have a higher rate of accidents vs white. Therefore everything, including your "evidence" shows that the DOJ study is telling a false narrative.

I will hold you to those statements. Now that we have cameras, black people can now have a different view of the police. Problem solved, right?

Now let me reel you back into the real world. This fixes nothing. You can talk in circles on how great it is we now have more footage. The black community still hates the police. Race relations won't improve in the slightest. The damage from this whole movement has made it far worse. The biggest differences we are seeing from police activity is they would rather not even get involved anymore. How is that working out in your "oppressed" cities?

Three points. DOJ report wasnt about more blacks get pulled over, but the disproportionate amount. Here is the information from a right leaning site and a quote.

https://www.redstate.com/leon_h_wolf/2015/03/15/many-conservatives-blowing-it-ferguson-doj-report/

Despite being searched at higher rates, African Americans are 26% less likely to have contraband found on them than whites: 24% of searches of African Americans resulted in a contraband finding, whereas 30% of searches of whites resulted in a contraband finding....

....FPD reported 11,610 vehicle stops between October 2012 and October 2014. African Americans accounted for 85%, or 9,875, of those stops, despite making up only 67% of the population. White individuals made up 15%, or 1,735, of stops during that period, despite representing 29% of the population. These differences indicate that FPD traffic stop practices may disparately impact black drivers.39 Even setting aside the question of whether there are racial disparities in FPD’s traffic stop practices, however, the data collected during those stops reliably shows statistically significant racial disparities in the outcomes people receive after being stopped.

The problem with video cameras is that the court of public opinion isnt, well, the court. I am sure Mario you’ve seen footage that is disturbing or do you believe all the high profile cases are simply BLM/media hyping it up?

Ultimately in front of a jury its hard to prosecute a cop; there’s an inherent bias that since its a noble profession they must be given the benefit of the doubt. There’s a belief that anyone within 21 feet can beat a gun, that following a cops orders no matter how obtuse (like the white guy killed in that Arizona hotel shooting) must be done or the officer must assume an attack is imminent and react with lethal force.

I also find the ‘they dont want to do their jobs cause people mad, cities burning’ a laughable idea and shows you unfortunately how much power police unions/departments have. You get the same tax payer dollars and great pensions, do your fucking job. I wish I had the luxury of half assing a job because suddenly people are being mean to me. (Cause the number of cop deaths were the lowest in 2017, so this ‘War on cops’ is a well, cop-out to them being heavy handed)

 

[VAL0R]

I asked: "Hasn't history judged [Dr. King] as a great racial healer, a unifier or races?" You respond:

As we are neither healed nor unified, the answer is obviously no.

This is silly. A man can't be judged as a racial healer and unifier unless there is perfect (or something like it?) global racial harmony? Can I call Mother Theresa a "comforter of the poor?" On your logic, no I can't, because there are/were poor that are/were not comforted. Can I call a man who dedicates his life to peace, a peacemaker? No, because there is not world peace. C'mon, you're just being argumentative.

 

[Vicetrailia]

The biggest differences we are seeing from police activity is they would rather not even get involved anymore. How is that working out in your "oppressed" cities?

Those sentences may represent Ferguson at a point in time, but it doesn't represent policing all over the U.S. In fact, it is the opposite. A lot of research and proposals are being done as mayors in cities push for reforms. The Obama admin made a big difference commissioning money for research and approving DOJ programs, but things are going their own way now.

It didn't help that sessions ended stuff like the collaborative reform initiative to prop up more violent crime initiatives, war on drugs style.

 

[Paasei]

Social media makes it far worse than it is in reality. You won't hear me say that there aren't (big) issues to fix, but it's not as bad.

 

[TheMikado]

What are you even trying to prove here? The DOJ "study" said that black people were pulled over more than white people. One of the many proving points of racism, right? Ferguson is a heavily black community. Black people are the majority there. So a national study of Native American and Hispanics drinking more is completely irrelevant here. To make it simple for you. Ferguson has more black people. Black people have a higher rate of accidents vs white. Therefore everything, including your "evidence" shows that the DOJ study is telling a false narrative.





Again, not really sure of your point. The officers could clearly tell something was not right with him. He was on PCP. He ignored commands. Do I wish death upon him? No. Is it systematic oppression? No.


My own insecurities? Why would these stories even be brought up in a race relations discussion if it wasn't about racism. Do you think these were the only questionable deaths of Americans in the past 5 years, or is there a hidden motive somewhere that hand-selected these? If you ask black people how they are being oppressed, will you hear these stories? You can now pretend it's all about police process, training, etc until you are blue in the face. The only reason that is done, is because the racism narratives have been proven to be a farce.


I will hold you to those statements. Now that we have cameras, black people can now have a different view of the police. Problem solved, right?

Now let me reel you back into the real world. This fixes nothing. You can talk in circles on how great it is we now have more footage. The black community still hates the police. Race relations won't improve in the slightest. The damage from this whole movement has made it far worse. The biggest differences we are seeing from police activity is they would rather not even get involved anymore. How is that working out in your "oppressed" cities?

I will take this step by step because I understand mathematics and logic is extremely difficult for some people.

YOUR claim is that: Black people being pulled over more is reflective of and proportionate to their driving record and incidence.
EVIDENCE shows that this is NOT proportionate. If it were Hispanic and native american would be HIGHER than those of black rates. YOUR own logic failed.... Again YOUR OWN LOGIC is not supported by the evidence.
Black people would have lower rates of being pulled over against hispanics and native americans. AGAIN YOUR LOGIC FAILED.

Again where in the world did I day Crutchers death was systematic oppression?? I's so confused by your insecurities and hang-ups. I never said anything of that nature. I presented facts. The FACT is that other officers present believed using non-lethal force was the correct method and one used lethal force. Whatever the reason was, it suggests this was not the best course of action. That's the point.

Yes insecurities. You are talking about racism and oppression when I haven't used a single word of that. I've debunked any claims you have, I even thanked you for your sources but you crumbled in the face of intellectual debate and engagement. After your few talked points were debunked and crumbled you fled to claiming I claimed racism and oppression were to blame. Neither of which I said. The only logical conclusion is that you have insecurities surrounding these topics.

"Now let me reel you back into the real world. This fixes nothing. You can talk in circles on how great it is we now have more footage. The black community still hates the police. Race relations won't improve in the slightest. The damage from this whole movement has made it far worse. The biggest differences we are seeing from police activity is they would rather not even get involved anymore. How is that working out in your "oppressed" cities?"

As far as the police cameras what are you talking about? It is well documented that police camera improve trust relations in communities. You are claiming nothing has changes when trust relationships have actually increased. When I get a chance I will post the research which shows that. The camera is about trust, period. Unless you have a magic time machine to tell us how effective they will be in the future you literally are anti intellectual and anti fact based in your claims. The camera programs are still in their infancy and you are still wrong by every single justifiable measure. Relations and opinions of the police have improved. You are completely devoid of being able to discuss issues on and intellectual level when you cannot speak in facts and statistics. Again, American confidence in the police has rebounded as reforms have taken place. I challenge you, challenge you to find contrary findings.

 

[mckmas8808]

Recent globalization trends have their merits by strengthening interdependent relationships between countries and building bridges between cultures, but it also came at the terrible cost of a new type of ruthless competition. The rivalry for wealthy but ever more limited resources coupled with the economic dictate of profit has lead to enormous delocalization effects. Production, services and workplaces are outsourced to countries with minimal worker costs, simply because businesses strive for maximal profit and globalization made it easy enough to do so.

Simple production jobs and tradecrafts are usually the easiest to outsource, which means that many young people see no future in these jobs while too many are flocking to academia in hopes of a steady and comfortable income. Unemployment rates are on the rise further increasing rivalry between citizens for jobs, social status and a secured livelihood. From this perspective, people don't see themselves as part of society anymore, instead fellow citizens are considered as rivals and competitors for a very limited number of desirable jobs and livelihoods.

Since humans are, by their very notion, social beings and simply because it's easier to make demands as an interest-group rather than an single individual, civil tensions and rivaling behavior develop around the lines of easily identifiable characteristics (gender, skin-tone, ethnicity, political label etc...). Moral positions, individual preferences and world views are complicated and not inherently visible or identifiable, but appearances are obvious. Hence why many people prefer to group themselves together along these superficial outward characteristics and why we see tensions rise between people of different genders, skin-colors and superficial political labels. It's partly the reason why, diversity of thought is conflated with diversity of skin-color and/or gender.

The very notion of privilege is a dangerous one because it only serves to catalyze the struggle and rivalry between these groups. If somebody is privileged, it's alright to hate him and to ostracize him from your group, further strengthening group affiliation. If you take a look at group interaction on social media, it's becoming very evident that the interactions and exchange of ideas are quickly dwindling and that these groups become more and more polarized. The notion of privilege is tightly coupled to feelings of social envy and jealousy towards anybody who might ever so slightly have it easier.

Social envy is a dangerous and hateful drug and has (among other factors of course) lead to terrible tragedy in human history:

• the rise of totalitarian communist regimes (envy against the rich upper-class that holds the means of production)
• the atrocities of the Holocaust under a nationalist-socialist dictatorship (the privilege of Jews)
• racism, xenophobia and the general hate against immigrants (they took our jobs!)
• the increasing hate of white people and their perceived privilege (intersectionality and the progressive stack)
• misandry and misogyny (glass ceiling, radical feminism, gender inequality)

In essence, I basically accuse the political and ideological radicalists to only increase civic tensions not because they are inherently evil but because they subconsciously consider society to be a zero-sum game. Moral crusades and social media witch-hunts are merely a pretext to the struggle for social status. People want other people fired, because they either want to occupy these positions themselves or seek to open job-opportunities for their respective in-group. It's not some big conspiracy, but merely the symptom of insecure times of economical crisis and an uncertain future. In healthier times, struggling for something, despite all odds, should not be considered a burden, but an accomplishment. These values unfortunately, are brushed aside by the narcissist and egocentric mindset fostered on social-media.

Very smart post, but your post make it seem as if actual real issues with race, gender, sexuality, etc don't actually exist and that it's just us all fighting for limited resources. And you told on yourself my completely dismissing certain privileges that some in the West have over others.

For instance, I'm a black Christian male in America. Me being a man gives me certain privileges that women, in general, don't get. And me being a Christian also gives me slight advantages over being lets say a Muslim for instance. We don't have to act like these issues don't exist. You literally put Racism against black people in America and the hate the Jews got in Germany in the same box as this "increase" hate of white people in America and western countries today. That's INSANE!!!

 

[Jon Neu]

I really, really don't think this is happening because a bunch of liberals shitposted on twitter. I think we are just starting to see the effects of massive income inequality and the process started decades ago. In short, I think everyone is stagnating or getting worse economically, which causes black people to suffer disproportionately due to years of racism and generational wealth destruction. People are refusing to acknowledge and deal with this problem, so instead they look for scapegoats. Black people fight back because their shit is getting fucked up. White people fight back because they don't want to stop living a lie. There you go. Race relations in a nutshell.

I think the actual lie resides in the idea that black people are having their "shit fucked up" and it's not their fault.

And white people are simply tired of hearing that everything bad that happens to any non white people it's white people fault. Specially when "white" societies are by far the best societies in the world.

That's race relations in a nutshell.

 

[TheMikado]

I asked: "Hasn't history judged [Dr. King] as a great racial healer, a unifier or races?" You respond:



This is silly. A man can't be judged as a racial healer and unifier unless there is perfect (or something like it?) global racial harmony? Can I call Mother Theresa a "comforter of the poor?" On your logic, no I can't, because there are/were poor that are/were not comforted. Can I call a man who dedicates his life to peace, a peacemaker? No, because there is not world peace. C'mon, you're just being argumentative.

I would say the only thing sillier is stating Obama should have been more of a unifier than the man who 2/3 of the country had a negative opinion of.
If you think that MLK was a "great unifier" what metric are you using?

 

[NickFire]

Personally, I do not buy into the allegation that they have deteriorated. In my small little part of the world, I see far more positive friendships and relationships between people of differing races than I ever saw as a child. And I do not know anyone within my social circles who I am convinced hates someone else because of their race. I am certain that there are still people who are abject racists at their core, but for relations to deteriorate that would mean, in my kind, there are more of them than there were 10 years ago. And I do not believe that is the case based on my experiences. Rather, I think those people just get more attention than they ever did before.

 

[mckmas8808]

Personally, I do not buy into the allegation that they have deteriorated. In my small little part of the world, I see far more positive friendships and relationships between people of differing races than I ever saw as a child. And I do not know anyone within my social circles who I am convinced hates someone else because of their race. I am certain that there are still people who are abject racists at their core, but for relations to deteriorate that would mean, in my kind, there are more of them than there were 10 years ago. And I do not believe that is the case based on my experiences. Rather, I think those people just get more attention than they ever did before.

This is probably closer to the truth than what the OP has us talking about.

 

[Sàmban]

A critique of your New York Post "source." This is really tiring having to point this shit out all the time, but I am going to engage you in good faith.

1. The New York Post is already not a very reliable source of information. Therefore, an opinion piece from them should certainly be a red flag to anyone. I'm not saying this to discredit your source. It is what it is. Here is what mediabiasfactcheck has to say about them: "This source can swing very far to the right, but does occasionally provide a balanced account. Not a very credible source overall." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/new-york-post/. Again, it is not the fact that they are conservative that is the problem. Rather, it is the fact that they tend to distort facts to suit their agenda. You'll see what I mean below.

2. The author is full of shit and is making stuff up or manipulating data for his agenda. But rather than just say it (so you don't acuse me of attacking the source or being biased), I'll show you how: For example, he correctly states that the DOJ report stated that blacks accounted for 85% of traffic stops. Then, he goes on to say that if blacks were pulled over at the same rate as they are nationwide, it should be 87.5% or so. He then concludes that it turns out that Ferguson is actually performing below the national average so this they can't be the hotbed of racism that they are. I don't know where he got 87.5% from. The 2011 report he is using says that the black drivers that were pulled over were 12.8% of the driving population (9.8% were whites) OR 12.6% of all stopped drivers (69.3% were whites). I checked it myself and you can too here: https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf. He also says that blacks were 31% more likely than whites to be pulled over. It doesn't actually say that in the data, and he is bullshitting. Since 12.8% of blacks were pulled over and 9.8% of whites were, taking 12.8 and dividing by 9.8 gives you 1.3061 which can be rounded to 1.31. This is where he gets "31% more likely," except the study states that this difference was not statistically significant (meaning the difference is likely due to sampling chance) so you CANT say that, and also you can't even do that because the percentages are only looking at a fraction of the driving population (they don't add up to 100%).

He also states that because men are 42% more likely to be stopped (he uses the same garbage math and it's either 42% or 43% depending on which percentages you use), we can't say that cops are biased against men, so, therefore, we can't say that cops are biased against race just because there is a difference. This might have been a legitimate argument if the differences between sexes were as legitimate as the differences between races. Men are generally more aggressive than women. Black people are not. In fact, "race" is a completely social construct with very little bearing in actual biology. It's like arguing that 8pm causes the sun to set.


But you know what, I didn't even have to do all that. All I had to do was google the author's name (John R Lott Jr) to know that he is a fraud and he has done shit like this before. But apparently, you can't even do that. Why the hell should anyone take what you say seriously? I'm waiting for your response to this, as you just assumed that "dem libruls" will sweep this under the rug for some reason.

Super Mario , just a reminder that I'd love to hear your thoughts on the inconsistencies I pointed out in your "source" above. To summarize, data from the 2011 report that your "source" linked showed that out of the eligible driving population, 12.8% of stopped were black and 9.8% were white. This difference was not statistically significant (i.e. was likely due to sampling chance). And out of all the people stopped, 69.3% where white and 12.6% were black (this matches the racial split of the US fairly well at 61% white and 13% black). Data from the DOJ report showed that blacks were getting pulled over at a rate of 85% while making up only about 65-67% of the total population.

This suggests that the DOJ is right in saying that blacks are being disproportionately pulled over. Again, looking at the data from your own "source," both blacks and whites get pulled over at a rate of about 10-13% nationwide even though whites account for about 61% of the US population. Even though Ferguson is majority black, they are still getting pulled over at a rate of 85% which is well above the national average.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, your source used garbage arguments, manipulated statistics and/or outright lied to prop-up the idea that the DOJ was trying to push an agenda. If the DOJ report was indeed faulty, I guarantee you that there'd be more people than some right-wing fraud questioning the data. Your source is garbage. Your author is garbage.

Let this post be a testament to new gaf, and to all those who say "dem libruls" of old gaf didn't want to debate conservatives on hot-topic issues like race. I'll be happy to be proven wrong on this specific issue with some actual evidence and/or good sources and I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong.

I'm going to start a counter for the number of days you have ignored this comment: 1

I think the actual lie resides in the idea that black people are having their "shit fucked up" and it's not their fault.

And white people are simply tired of hearing that everything bad that happens to any non white people it's white people fault. Specially when "white" societies are by far the best societies in the world.

That's race relations in a nutshell.

Alright, this seems like obvious bait, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I disagree with this, and I seriously hope your opinions have some substance, however controversial, instead of braindead racist bullshit.

In your opinion, what is it that black people are doing/have done that makes their current situation their fault?

Also, why do you think "white" societies are by far the best in the world?

 

[Red Crayon Aristocrat]

As far as I can tell in the present day the trouble all started with the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012 and it's been a downward spiral ever since.

Race relations have never been perfect in America but things were certainly better around 20 years ago.

I have no idea how to make the situation better sadly, it's an overall very upsetting thing.

 

[mckmas8808]

As far as I can tell in the present day the trouble all started with the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012 and it's been a downward spiral ever since.

Race relations have never been perfect in America but things were certainly better around 20 years ago.

I have no idea how to make the situation better sadly, it's an overall very upsetting thing.

This is the thing I honestly don't understand about some people. And I mean no disrespect to you personally but there's no way you are black. It was like 24 years ago we had the Rodney King riots in L.A. and 22 years ago we had the O.J. Simpson verdict which clearly the two main races in this country disagreed with. Is it possible you just had your head in the sand?

 

[TheMikado]

This is the thing I honestly don't understand about some people. And I mean no disrespect to you personally but there's no way you are black. It was like 24 years ago we had the Rodney King riots in L.A. and 22 years ago we had the O.J. Simpson verdict which clearly the two main races in this country disagreed with. Is it possible you just had your head in the sand?

This a critique, I think your point would have been fine using the examples without the added “there’s no way you are black” it unnecessarily links information with race and create and false racial difference that doesn’t exist. I’d argue using race in this manner is partially a reason race has become an”ideology” issue.

Being black or white has no effect on a persons capacity for information or thought. And while it make give different perspectives these perspectives are never homogeneous along racial lines and should not be alluded to being that. Doing so only serves to increase discourse rather than understanding.

 

[Super Mario]

Super Mario , just a reminder that I'd love to hear your thoughts on the inconsistencies I pointed out in your "source" above. To summarize, data from the 2011 report that your "source" linked showed that out of the eligible driving population, 12.8% of stopped were black and 9.8% were white. This difference was not statistically significant (i.e. was likely due to sampling chance). And out of all the people stopped, 69.3% where white and 12.6% were black (this matches the racial split of the US fairly well at 61% white and 13% black). Data from the DOJ report showed that blacks were getting pulled over at a rate of 85% while making up only about 65-67% of the total population.

This suggests that the DOJ is right in saying that blacks are being disproportionately pulled over. Again, looking at the data from your own "source," both blacks and whites get pulled over at a rate of about 10-13% nationwide even though whites account for about 61% of the US population. Even though Ferguson is majority black, they are still getting pulled over at a rate of 85% which is well above the national average.

As I pointed out in my earlier post, your source used garbage arguments, manipulated statistics and/or outright lied to prop-up the idea that the DOJ was trying to push an agenda. If the DOJ report was indeed faulty, I guarantee you that there'd be more people than some right-wing fraud questioning the data. Your source is garbage. Your author is garbage.

Let this post be a testament to new gaf, and to all those who say "dem libruls" of old gaf didn't want to debate conservatives on hot-topic issues like race. I'll be happy to be proven wrong on this specific issue with some actual evidence and/or good sources and I'll happily eat crow if I'm wrong.

I'm going to start a counter for the number of days you have ignored this comment: 1

So the racial bias in Ferguson, can be attributed to more black people being pulled over, even when it happens nation-wide. How convenient when men can be pulled over more than women, and we can easily write it off with "men deserve it". When black people are pulled over more, it's obviously racism. There can be no other explanation. Seeing nothing wrong with making those kinds of statements is the whole problem

How in the world could more black people be pulled over vs white people? We completely ignore statistics like:

In 2013, the FBI has black criminals carrying out 38 per cent of murders, compared to 31.1 per cent for whites. The offender’s race was “unknown” in 29.1 per cent of cases.

What about violent crime more generally? FBI arrest rates are one way into this. Over the last three years of data – 2011 to 2013 – 38.5 per cent of people arrested for murder, manslaughter, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were black.

https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Waiting for the usual "this source sucks". Data proves time and time again that black people fare off worse in nearly every measurable category. Whether it is graduation rates, two-parent households, poverty, etc, all things that lead to crime, let alone the crime.

To you, it would make more sense if traffic stops were equal to each person's racial representation. Rudimentary lessons like in this case, cause and effect, go out the window every time we discuss race. There is no other explanation why there are more police stops for black people other than racism, right? So the police have backed off a bit because they were told they were being racist. What was the result? More crime.

If we agree on nothing else, I believe all wish for a better life for the people of Ferguson. If you don't believe its people can't be the largest driving force behind that, then there is something seriously wrong.

 

[Cybrwzrd]

So the racial bias in Ferguson, can be attributed to more black people being pulled over, even when it happens nation-wide. How convenient when men can be pulled over more than women, and we can easily write it off with "men deserve it". When black people are pulled over more, it's obviously racism. There can be no other explanation. Seeing nothing wrong with making those kinds of statements is the whole problem

How in the world could more black people be pulled over vs white people? We completely ignore statistics like:



https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Waiting for the usual "this source sucks". Data proves time and time again that black people fare off worse in nearly every measurable category. Whether it is graduation rates, two-parent households, poverty, etc, all things that lead to crime, let alone the crime.

To you, it would make more sense if traffic stops were equal to each person's racial representation. Rudimentary lessons like in this case, cause and effect, go out the window every time we discuss race. There is no other explanation why there are more police stops for black people other than racism, right? So the police have backed off a bit because they were told they were being racist. What was the result? More crime.

If we agree on nothing else, I believe all wish for a better life for the people of Ferguson. If you don't believe its people can't be the largest driving force behind that, then there is something seriously wrong.

Those statistics get handwoven away by the unusual suspects frequently. What will usually happen is, someone will come in and throw in the red herring that white people do more drugs, but black people get arrested for drugs more often. This keeps the focus away from violent crime rates and allows the argument to be derailed immediately.

 

[mckmas8808]

This a critique, I think your point would have been fine using the examples without the added “there’s no way you are black” it unnecessarily links information with race and create and false racial difference that doesn’t exist. I’d argue using race in this manner is partially a reason race has become an”ideology” issue.

Being black or white has no effect on a persons capacity for information or thought. And while it make give different perspectives these perspectives are never homogeneous along racial lines and should not be alluded to being that. Doing so only serves to increase discourse rather than understanding.

You are right, but it because very upsetting when you talk to so many white people that say things like that. Some honestly think that trust between white and black people started after the Trayvon Martin killing, which leads to BLM groups and how they blame them for all of this. As if this non-trust hasn't been going on for centuries.

So the racial bias in Ferguson, can be attributed to more black people being pulled over, even when it happens nation-wide. How convenient when men can be pulled over more than women, and we can easily write it off with "men deserve it". When black people are pulled over more, it's obviously racism. There can be no other explanation. Seeing nothing wrong with making those kinds of statements is the whole problem

How in the world could more black people be pulled over vs white people? We completely ignore statistics like:



https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Waiting for the usual "this source sucks". Data proves time and time again that black people fare off worse in nearly every measurable category. Whether it is graduation rates, two-parent households, poverty, etc, all things that lead to crime, let alone the crime.

To you, it would make more sense if traffic stops were equal to each person's racial representation. Rudimentary lessons like in this case, cause and effect, go out the window every time we discuss race. There is no other explanation why there are more police stops for black people other than racism, right? So the police have backed off a bit because they were told they were being racist. What was the result? More crime.

If we agree on nothing else, I believe all wish for a better life for the people of Ferguson. If you don't believe its people can't be the largest driving force behind that, then there is something seriously wrong.

As a black guy this opinion of yours really sucks. So because black people commit higher violent crimes in one area means that they should randomly pull over me and my family because we fit the "look"? How the heck does that make sense? I'm considered suspicious due to my skin color or nose shape?

Sounds like that's creating a feed back loop that our society will never fix. Why trust the police when they are thinking you could be guilty of something before you actually do something wrong? And white people get a pass because they aren't arrested for violent crimes as much. You can't honestly see how that could create problems down the line? If the police think like this could white people be getting away with crimes due to the police being less suspicious of them?

 

[TheMikado]

So the racial bias in Ferguson, can be attributed to more black people being pulled over, even when it happens nation-wide. How convenient when men can be pulled over more than women, and we can easily write it off with "men deserve it". When black people are pulled over more, it's obviously racism. There can be no other explanation. Seeing nothing wrong with making those kinds of statements is the whole problem

How in the world could more black people be pulled over vs white people? We completely ignore statistics like:



https://www.channel4.com/news/factcheck/factcheck-black-americans-commit-crime

Waiting for the usual "this source sucks". Data proves time and time again that black people fare off worse in nearly every measurable category. Whether it is graduation rates, two-parent households, poverty, etc, all things that lead to crime, let alone the crime.

To you, it would make more sense if traffic stops were equal to each person's racial representation. Rudimentary lessons like in this case, cause and effect, go out the window every time we discuss race. There is no other explanation why there are more police stops for black people other than racism, right? So the police have backed off a bit because they were told they were being racist. What was the result? More crime.

If we agree on nothing else, I believe all wish for a better life for the people of Ferguson. If you don't believe its people can't be the largest driving force behind that, then there is something seriously wrong.

I suggest challenging me in debates. I will not even use the crutch of "this source sucks" but will simply counter with evidence straight from research sources as I have been.

First we will start with your premise. Higher rates of traffic stops correlate to higher traffic violations. And your secondary premise that higher crimes committed would correlate to higher incarceration rates. Let's first agree that this is your premise. Now let's dissect this premise.

Below is the FBI website which tracks crime rates: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
Crime rate racial break down: White= 68.9 Black= 28.3 Native American = 1.6 Asian = 1.2 Other = 0.1
Here is the incarceration rate: White= 58.9 Black = 38.0 Native American = 2.2 Asian = 1.5

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

As can be seen from the above on Asian and Native Americans have incarceration rates somewhat proportional to their respective crime rates. In fact White Americans are the only racial group shown to have a lower representation of the prison population than the percent of crimes committed.
Further, tying this to you vehicular stops which I debunked earlier, We already established that Native American and Hispanics have higher rates of traffic incidents and are stopped less.
Further we have double the rate of motor vehicle thefts by whites than blacks, Motor Vehicle Theft: White 66.7 /Black 30.5 This the stolen vehicle defense isn't even supported statistically.

The statistical evidence does not support the claim of black americans having such high traffic stop rates or incarcerations and one again I challenge you to debate on the evidence and statistics. I am more than willing to engage you on this front so that we can discuss the "rudimentary lesson" of data, research, and statistics unless you have run out of evidence or simply sheer fear of truth and facts.

 

[FStubbs]

As far as I can tell in the present day the trouble all started with the Trayvon Martin shooting in 2012 and it's been a downward spiral ever since.

Race relations have never been perfect in America but things were certainly better around 20 years ago.

I have no idea how to make the situation better sadly, it's an overall very upsetting thing.

No, they were terrible 20 years ago too and never have been good. 20 years ago you had "negative peace". What you have now is the freedom for oppressed minorities to speak up more about their oppression in ways they could not 20 years ago. If anything, despite the Trump faction and the alt-right, things are better right now.

In a way, the Trayvon Martin shooting itself shows things are better now - if it had happened 20 years ago nobody ever would've known about it. But even before that you had things like Katrina or the Tea Party show you what the true state of affairs are.

I mean, one side says "stop shooting us" and the other side says "no, you're delusional, we aren't shooting you, but if you don't shut up we'll really start shooting you." Where's the middle ground?

 

[FStubbs]

I suggest challenging me in debates. I will not even use the crutch of "this source sucks" but will simply counter with evidence straight from research sources as I have been.

First we will start with your premise. Higher rates of traffic stops correlate to higher traffic violations. And your secondary premise that higher crimes committed would correlate to higher incarceration rates. Let's first agree that this is your premise. Now let's dissect this premise.

Below is the FBI website which tracks crime rates: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43
Crime rate racial break down: White= 68.9 Black= 28.3 Native American = 1.6 Asian = 1.2 Other = 0.1
Here is the incarceration rate: White= 58.9 Black = 38.0 Native American = 2.2 Asian = 1.5

https://www.bop.gov/about/statistics/statistics_inmate_race.jsp

As can be seen from the above on Asian and Native Americans have incarceration rates somewhat proportional to their respective crime rates. In fact White Americans are the only racial group shown to have a lower representation of the prison population than the percent of crimes committed.
Further, tying this to you vehicular stops which I debunked earlier, We already established that Native American and Hispanics have higher rates of traffic incidents and are stopped less.
Further we have double the rate of motor vehicle thefts by whites than blacks, Motor Vehicle Theft: White 66.7 /Black 30.5 This the stolen vehicle defense isn't even supported statistically.

The statistical evidence does not support the claim of black americans having such high traffic stop rates or incarcerations and one again I challenge you to debate on the evidence and statistics. I am more than willing to engage you on this front so that we can discuss the "rudimentary lesson" of data, research, and statistics unless you have run out of evidence or simply sheer fear of truth and facts.

Have any stats on relative rates of policing? How heavily each race is policed? Without that those stats aren't worth as much as you hope they are - since your goal is to prove racism is just black people being delusional.

 

[Nightstick10]

First we will start with your premise. Higher rates of traffic stops correlate to higher traffic violations. And your secondary premise that higher crimes committed would correlate to higher incarceration rates. Let's first agree that this is your premise.

I am not necessarily jumping in on his side but I think his secondary premise is more accurately transcribed as "more violent crimes committed would correlate to higher incarceration rates."

 

[TheMikado]

Have any stats on relative rates of policing? How heavily each race is policed? Without that those stats aren't worth as much as you hope they are - since your goal is to prove racism is just black people being delusional.

So a couple of points, it seems you reacted before reading which really serves no purpose nor are you attempting to actually engage in discussion with facts or substance. Further you are asking for non quantitative facts such as how "heavily" a race is policed. Which the closest thing to evidence I posted was earlier in this thread regarding race and traffic stops. If your goal is to prove that racism is not black people just being delusional then your post does nothing of worth by showing you to be anti-fact and failing to do the proper research or reading. Basically, comments such as these make it more difficult to take other comments you may make in earnest if you simply react and comment without any valid information or contributions.

 

[mckmas8808]

Have any stats on relative rates of policing? How heavily each race is policed? Without that those stats aren't worth as much as you hope they are - since your goal is to prove racism is just black people being delusional.

Wouldn't someone just give you the "stop and frisk" stats from NYC to show you what you are looking for?

 

[TheMikado]

I am not necessarily jumping in on his side but I think his secondary premise is more accurately transcribed as "more violent crimes committed would correlate to higher incarceration rates."

Thank you for the counter argument because it makes our actual arguments sharper. Continuing with the FBI link which I listed earlier.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

I will list in order the percentage of crime in order from worse offenses to least. I am only listing violent crimes as proposed:

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter White: 45.3 Black 52.3
Rape White: 66.2 Black 31.2
Robbery White : 41.9 Black 56.4
Aggravated assault White: 62.9 Black 33.9
Burglary White 67.5 Black: 30.4
Larceny-theft White 68.3 Black: 28.7
Motor vehicle theft White 66.7 Black: 30.5
Arson White 74.1 Black: 23.0
Total Violent crime White 58.4 Black: 38.7
Total Property crime White 68.2 Black: 29.0
Other assaults White 65.1 Black: 32.2

By every measure with the exception of murder/manslaughter white the number of violent crimes committed by white people fair outstrips the number of violent crimes by black people. Crimes by white people are nearly twice as many as those by black people and shows the incarceration rate by any of these measures is not proportional.

 

[Fnord]

This is such a strange deflection considering nobody has said this.

Also, holy wow at bangs getting taken to school on the last page and a half. Bravo.

They got worse because racist white people lost they damn minds at the idea of being represented by a black man and took it out on other people of color, which then prompted those people of color to speak up more loudly about things that have been going on in this society since before Obama was even born. It's not like we're talking quantum physics here.

And then...

 

[Fnord]

Still brilliant:

 

[Nightstick10]

Thank you for the counter argument because it makes our actual arguments sharper. Continuing with the FBI link which I listed earlier.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

I will list in order the percentage of crime in order from worse offenses to least. I am only listing violent crimes as proposed:

Murder and nonnegligent manslaughter White: 45.3 Black 52.3
Rape White: 66.2 Black 31.2
Robbery White : 41.9 Black 56.4
Aggravated assault White: 62.9 Black 33.9
Burglary White 67.5 Black: 30.4
Larceny-theft White 68.3 Black: 28.7
Motor vehicle theft White 66.7 Black: 30.5
Arson White 74.1 Black: 23.0
Total Violent crime White 58.4 Black: 38.7
Total Property crime White 68.2 Black: 29.0
Other assaults White 65.1 Black: 32.2

By every measure with the exception of murder/manslaughter white the number of violent crimes committed by white people fair outstrips the number of violent crimes by black people. Crimes by white people are nearly twice as many as those by black people and shows the incarceration rate by any of these measures is not proportional.

Again, I don't want to argue in his stead because he is your foil on this strand and not I but things like larceny, theft, burglary, etc., aren't violent crimes, those are property crimes.