appleswan wrote:
1) Difference in living standards between the average black family and the average white family. Naturally this is going to affect life outcomes and chances. Ignore people who talk about single mothers - they are just trying to blame women for societial problems.
I feel like you're wrong here, this is definitely blaming the men who abandoned their families not the mothers who stayed and did what they could.
Just answer the question wrote:
appleswan wrote:
1) Difference in living standards between the average black family and the average white family. Naturally this is going to affect life outcomes and chances. Ignore people who talk about single mothers - they are just trying to blame women for societial problems.
I feel like you're wrong here, this is definitely blaming the men who abandoned their families not the mothers who stayed and did what they could.
I feel a lot of people (but by no means all) making the argument about absent fathers have an axe to grind with women's liberation. The vibe of this argument for me is "women should choose better partners", "women need a man", "women use govt to raise their kids" etc.
It seems women take at least some criticism unfairly, when yes you're right it should be men who abandoned their families who criticism should be directed at.
You misunderstood Apple. The woman is not be blamed for anything here. Its the absence of the father that can and has lead their offspring to paths of drugs and crimes(the data is clear on this). Our country (and much of the world) is frustrated, angered, and scared due to Covid19 and this cop murdering Mr. Floyd was a tipping point.
"Good intentions only :)" sounds like equally ridiculous "no offense, but..."
I think you sound like a troll, so try this: put some shoe polish on, turn on some hip hop, and go drive around. You won't.
Yeah you're correct and I agree.
I just think misogynistic people will over-emphasize the importance of absent fathers and imply a woman needs a man to raise law-abiding citizens.
There are more compelling reasons for me than just single parenthood.
GoodIntentions;-) wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/03/us/minneapolis-police-use-of-force.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=Homepage
This is incredibly disingenuous, but I suppose I'm not surprised given the source. Putting this headline and graphic out there merely serves to spread a false narrative that police are going around and indiscriminately assaulting black people. It's so sad and dangerous, and this type of lazy "reporting" is one of the causes of the current hysteria.
reer wrote:
GoodIntentions;-) wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/03/us/minneapolis-police-use-of-force.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=HomepageThis is incredibly disingenuous, but I suppose I'm not surprised given the source. Putting this headline and graphic out there merely serves to spread a false narrative that police are going around and indiscriminately assaulting black people. It's so sad and dangerous, and this type of lazy "reporting" is one of the causes of the current hysteria.
Care to point out any part of the article that you don’t agree with in particular? The New York Times is about as good of a media resource as you’re gonna get, unless you’re brainwashed from Trump Tweets and Fox News. What part of the article is false narrative?
reer wrote:
GoodIntentions;-) wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/03/us/minneapolis-police-use-of-force.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=HomepageThis is incredibly disingenuous, but I suppose I'm not surprised given the source. Putting this headline and graphic out there merely serves to spread a false narrative that police are going around and indiscriminately assaulting black people. It's so sad and dangerous, and this type of lazy "reporting" is one of the causes of the current hysteria.
YES, police are going around assaulting black people. It’s happening all over this country. I’m on several private chat groups, most are majority(vast) black. A few days ago a person asked everyone to post about your experiences with police. 95% have a a bad experience with police. These are mainly college educated men and women....that says a lot. The question asked yesterday was “How old were you when a police officer first pulled a gun on you?” I know many white people think we are making this up but we are not. Some of the answers were 12, 13 and 14 years old. For me it was 19. There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt police treat blacks more harshly than whites. That’s a fact!
As an Asian-American, I kind of agree with the first poster. Though it isn’t within the realm of control of the individuals themselves, cultural tendencies are conducive to this certain image of “success.” We’re largely taught conformist and un-assertive attitudes, and thus generally follow guidelines and pre-destined paths. It’s the same with Black people, except a lot of it is opposite. Many of them don’t put an emphasis or value on academics because of social stigma that they aren’t “smart enough,” which is clearly not true.
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:
put all the blame on whitey wrote:
If we are such racists, and that is what keeps blacks in poverty etc., how come we only discriminate against blacks and not Asians?
Because I’m sure it can’t be because Asians value strong families, education, working hard, obeying the law, etc. They must be thriving only because whitey allows it.
As an Asian American, I am so sick and tired of this "model minority" stereotype. Just because many of us are "thriving" as you put it, that does not mean we are not discriminated.
As an Asian-American, I kind of agree with the first poster. Though it isn’t within the realm of control of the individuals themselves, cultural tendencies are conducive to this certain image of “success.” We’re largely taught conformist and un-assertive attitudes, and thus generally follow guidelines and pre-destined paths. It’s the same with Black people, except a lot of it is opposite. Many of them don’t put an emphasis or value on academics because of social stigma that they aren’t “smart enough,” which is clearly not true.
Look most of the players in NFL and NBA; now look at the owners. Latter need to fully turn over ownership to former. Just Do It. Full disclosure: I run and don’t follow either sport, never will.
GoodIntentions;-) wrote:
Care to point out any part of the article that you don’t agree with in particular? The New York Times is about as good of a media resource as you’re gonna get, unless you’re brainwashed from Trump Tweets and Fox News. What part of the article is false narrative?
I imagine the poster would want the NY Times to include what percent of violent crimes are committed by blacks. If the percentage of times they are violently apprehended matches the percentage of times they are involved in violent crime, then the NY Times is creating fake news.
Take a look at the following from a WSJ artilcle:
WSJ wrote:
In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population...
The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. T... A police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer....
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.
A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects.
reer wrote:
GoodIntentions;-) wrote:
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/06/03/us/minneapolis-police-use-of-force.html?action=click&module=Spotlight&pgtype=HomepageThis is incredibly disingenuous, but I suppose I'm not surprised given the source. Putting this headline and graphic out there merely serves to spread a false narrative that police are going around and indiscriminately assaulting black people. It's so sad and dangerous, and this type of lazy "reporting" is one of the causes of the current hysteria.
"Given the source"??
This is not a false narrative; these are facts. Do a little honest digging if you feel the need to confirm what the New York Times -- the nation's most renowned newspaper -- reports.
not using my normal handle on this one wrote:
GoodIntentions;-) wrote:
Care to point out any part of the article that you don’t agree with in particular? The New York Times is about as good of a media resource as you’re gonna get, unless you’re brainwashed from Trump Tweets and Fox News. What part of the article is false narrative?
I imagine the poster would want the NY Times to include what percent of violent crimes are committed by blacks. If the percentage of times they are violently apprehended matches the percentage of times they are involved in violent crime, then the NY Times is creating fake news.
Yeah that's basically it. Since GI asked nicely without calling me a racist (quite an accomplishment in these times!) I'll try to briefly answer about the NYT article:
- First, somewhat purposely, I didn't read the article initially. I based my takeaways on the headline and graphic, which is important because this is the message that most people are going to receive -- either they just skim headlines/graphics, or they go into the article with a preconceived conclusion already presented to them (i.e. cops indiscriminately kill black people).
- First 8 paragraphs present a lot of misleading numbers trying to compare overall population mix with use of force mix
- It takes until the 9th paragraph for even a whisper of there being a correlation between use-of-force and other metrics (income, education, unemployment) -- but still no mention of who commits crimes, so I guess maybe we should believe that police indiscriminately target blacks as well as the poor, the uneducated, and the unemployed.
- Eventually they get to some other incidents involving black men and police "who either never faced charges or were acquitted." No commentary on why that might have been the case. I guess we're led to believe it was some conspiracy to let the officers go free, not that there was no wrongdoing in the first place.
- In one of the incidents they made sure to point out that the victim yelled "Please don't shoot me". Not sure what this supposed to add to the story without further explanation, other than creating an image of someone on their knees, hands clasped before them begging for their life. For all we know the victim was charging at the officer with a raised axe while yelling "please don't shoot me" -- I'm exaggerating, of course, but you can see why a quote in isolation could be misleading.
- Again with the media quoting the number of complaints against police, without any context or points of comparison. We're just supposed to hear a number and assume that it's super high and indicative of a systemic issue, as opposed to "course of business" where any criminal could lob in a complaint regardless of its veracity.
- Finally, towards the very end of the article, there's a fleeting recognition that maybe (brace yourselves) there's a correlation between who commits crimes and who's on the receiving end of force by police. But as soon as they state this they flip back to trying to discredit any such conclusion with vague statements about how they think blacks might still be systemically discriminated against.
This was very interesting to go through in detail -- thanks, GI, for prompting me to do so. I guess the key takeaway for all of us is that the NYT article sets out with a conclusion already in mind and builds a story around that, rather than providing objective points of view and comprehensive data to let readers interpret. Maybe that's fine, I guess, depending on your view of the media, but it's important that people recognize it.
The Burghh wrote:
reer wrote:
This is incredibly disingenuous, but I suppose I'm not surprised given the source. Putting this headline and graphic out there merely serves to spread a false narrative that police are going around and indiscriminately assaulting black people. It's so sad and dangerous, and this type of lazy "reporting" is one of the causes of the current hysteria.
YES, police are going around assaulting black people. It’s happening all over this country. I’m on several private chat groups, most are majority(vast) black. A few days ago a person asked everyone to post about your experiences with police. 95% have a a bad experience with police. These are mainly college educated men and women....that says a lot. The question asked yesterday was “How old were you when a police officer first pulled a gun on you?” I know many white people think we are making this up but we are not. Some of the answers were 12, 13 and 14 years old. For me it was 19. There is ABSOLUTELY no doubt police treat blacks more harshly than whites. That’s a fact!
So having a "bad experience" and being "assaulted" seem like big differences? Are you white trash? How do you know for a fact what it is like to be looked at as white trash in the mid-west?
not using my normal handle on this one wrote:
GoodIntentions;-) wrote:
Care to point out any part of the article that you don’t agree with in particular? The New York Times is about as good of a media resource as you’re gonna get, unless you’re brainwashed from Trump Tweets and Fox News. What part of the article is false narrative?
I imagine the poster would want the NY Times to include what percent of violent crimes are committed by blacks. If the percentage of times they are violently apprehended matches the percentage of times they are involved in violent crime, then the NY Times is creating fake news.
Take a look at the following from a WSJ artilcle:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883https://www.pnas.org/content/116/32/15877WSJ wrote:
In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population...
The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. T... A police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer....
The latest in a series of studies undercutting the claim of systemic police bias was published in August 2019 in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. The researchers found that the more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that a member of that group will be fatally shot by a police officer. There is “no significant evidence of antiblack disparity in the likelihood of being fatally shot by police,” they concluded.
A 2015 Justice Department analysis of the Philadelphia Police Department found that white police officers were less likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot unarmed black suspects.
Note this guys is "not using his normal handle". All he is doing is presenting researched statistics. Statistics that have been consistent over recent history (far prior to 2015. Yet there's shame in him presenting it. The cyber-bullying on the left is off the charts. You can see it on this thread. Newsflash, you want to have an "honest" conversation? Well, statistics are an important data point, and they do not support the narrative (and by "do not support" I mean not even in the ball park) that AA's are targeted for their skin color. Another newsflash, this will not go away as an issue, regardless of ANYTHING. Racism plays big as political currency and one party can't keep that chip in their pocket.
Victimized is in the eye of the... wrote:
So having a "bad experience" and being "assaulted" seem like big differences? Are you white trash? How do you know for a fact what it is like to be looked at as white trash in the mid-west?
In the past, the existence of so-called white trash threatened the existence of racial hierarchy. Racists thought the fact they existed undermined their arguments about white superiority.
If you are described as white trash you should stand alongside BLM because you know invalid accusations of crime and aggression applied to African-Americans can actually be applied to any group considered "undesirable". You know the harm being look down at can cause.
They do not stand in opposition, you must recognize the similar experience? When someone accuses you of white privilege they're not calling you privileged - they're just saying the white element is not holding you back. It's not to say you can't suffer descrimination because of your economic status or where you live etc.
appleswan wrote:
Victimized is in the eye of the... wrote:
So having a "bad experience" and being "assaulted" seem like big differences? Are you white trash? How do you know for a fact what it is like to be looked at as white trash in the mid-west?
In the past, the existence of so-called white trash threatened the existence of racial hierarchy. Racists thought the fact they existed undermined their arguments about white superiority.
If you are described as white trash you should stand alongside BLM because you know invalid accusations of crime and aggression applied to African-Americans can actually be applied to any group considered "undesirable". You know the harm being look down at can cause.
They do not stand in opposition, you must recognize the similar experience? When someone accuses you of white privilege they're not calling you privileged - they're just saying the white element is not holding you back. It's not to say you can't suffer descrimination because of your economic status or where you live etc.
Lots of kids from the trailer park moved on and did better for themselves, many did not. It was pretty simple, work hard, keep your nose clean and better options are available.
I don’t see “off the charts cyber bullying” in this thread, snowflake.
A little too complex for a track and field forum so I am not going to present evidence of black oppression, you can't make the blind (or those who don't want to) see. Just wanted to ask you to consider: quoting black incarceration rates, do you really think racism in the legal system is limited to law enforcement? Judges have to rely on evidence police present, so even if they are not racist, their decisions are influenced by racists. If this isn't being discussed now I suspect it is because blacks see the first priority is to get police to stop killing them.
You can either believe that blacks, more than any other race, are genetically predisposed toward crime (though I don't know how genes, who are unfamiliar with human constructs such as legalities which change when you cross an imaginary line like a border) OR a country since before its inception enslaved others for free labor and wealth, contrary to its constitution, which led to a civil war, not that resolved issues, a 100 years later a Civil Rights act had to be passed but 100% of the populace of this country has not been impacted by this cultural brainwashing.