PDA

View Full Version : Racism and Systematic Racism: Safety vs MMC



Adelaide
06-05-2020, 11:01 AM
Safety has challenged MMC to a one-on-one debate on the topic of racism and systematic racism

This is now opened.

MMC
06-05-2020, 11:07 AM
There is no Sytemic or Instutionalized Racism by Cops against Blacks.


Criminal Behavior, Not Racism ... - The Larry Elder Show (https://www.larryelder.com/column/criminal-behavior-not-racism-explains-racial-disparities-in-crime-stats/)

https://www.larryelder.com/column/criminal-behavior-not-racism-explains-racial...
Jun 28, 2018 · By Larry Elder |Posted: Jun 28, 2018 A new study on racial disparities in police conduct found that differences in offending by suspects, not racism, explains officers’ responses.


A new study on racial disparities in police conduct found that differences in offending by suspects, not racism, explains officers’ responses.


In the study “Is There Evidence of Racial Disparity in Police Use of Deadly Force?” professors from Michigan State and Arizona State universities analyzed officer-involved fatal shootings in 2015 and 2016. The report’s abstract says: “We benchmark two years of fatal shooting data on 2016 crime rate estimates. When adjusting for crime, we find no systematic evidence of anti-black disparities in fatal shootings, fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, or fatal shootings involving misidentification of harmless objects… Exposure to police given crime rate differences likely accounts for the higher per capita rate of fatal police shootings for blacks, at least when analyzing all shootings. For unarmed shootings or misidentification shootings, data are too uncertain to be conclusive.”


Two recent studies found cops more reluctant to use deadly force against blacks, including one by a black Harvard economist. Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr. concluded: “On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.”

Safety
06-05-2020, 12:16 PM
Yet in your report...
"Given population proportions, odds were 3.7 times higher for Blacks to be fatally shot while holding/reaching for a harmless object. Even adjusting for violent crime rates, (nonsignificant) anti-Black disparity was observed."

Then we have this...

"Instead, it highlights the difficulty of eliminating errors under conditions of uncertainty when stereotypes may bias the decision-making process."

Any systemic racism, even from stereotypes, is not acceptable in a agency that is tasked in protecting all citizens. Let me put it in a different scenerio...Let's say your flight to Michigan is operated by a company that has a 3.7% higher chance of having a pilot that is a "bad apple" vs another company, would you accept those odds?

MMC
06-05-2020, 12:40 PM
Yet in your report...
"Given population proportions, odds were 3.7 times higher for Blacks to be fatally shot while holding/reaching for a harmless object. Even adjusting for violent crime rates, (nonsignificant) anti-Black disparity was observed."

Then we have this...

"Instead, it highlights the difficulty of eliminating errors under conditions of uncertainty when stereotypes may bias the decision-making process."

Any systemic racism, even from stereotypes, is not acceptable in a agency that is tasked in protecting all citizens. Let me put it in a different scenerio...Let's say your flight to Michigan is operated by a company that has a 3.7% higher chance of having a pilot that is a "bad apple" vs another company, would you accept those odds?

And yet we have this. Which gets down to the real stats. By race.


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.


There’s also the National Crime Victimization Survey, which questions victims of crimes, whether or not the criminal was captured, as to the race and ethnicity of the suspect. It turns out that the race of the arrested matches the percentage given by victims. So unless victims are lying about the race of their assailant, unconcerned about whether he gets caught, blacks are not being “overarrested.”


A reasonable discussion about blacks and police practices cannot take place without acknowledging the disproportion amount of crime committed by blacks. According to the Department of Justice’s “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009,” in the country’s 75 largest counties, blacks committed 62 percent of robberies, 45 percent of assaults and accounted for 57 percent of murder defendants.
The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents, such as car accidents. The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young black men is homicide, usually committed by another young black man, not a cop.

The courageous Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald, who writes extensively about police practice, asked: “Who is killing these black victims? Not whites, and not the police, but other blacks. In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous. … Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.”.....snip~


https://www.larryelder.com/column/cr...n-crime-stats/ (https://www.larryelder.com/column/criminal-behavior-not-racism-explains-racial-disparities-in-crime-stats/)



Mac Donald: There Is No Systemic Racism in Police Depts (https://www.dennisprager.com/mac-donald-there-is-no-systemic-racism-in-police-depts/)

Thu, Jun 4, 2020
All evidence (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883) supports her thesis. No evidence supports the Left.


Then more stats that validates there is no systemic racism by police against blacks.


New Police Shooting Stats Show Law Enforcement Is Not the ... (https://www.newsmax.com/bernardkerik/police-shootings-crime-statistics/2019/01/22/id/899297/)https://www.newsmax.com/bernardkerik/police-shootings-crime-statistics/2019/01/22/id/...[/URL]
Jan 22, 2019 · So, here’s the 2018 breakdown of the 995 people shot and killed by the police. 403 were white, 210 were black, 148 were Hispanic, 38 were classified as other, and 199 were classified as unknown. Out of that 995, 47 were unarmed — 23 were white, 17 were black, 5 were Hispanic, and 2 …



[URL="https://blackcommunitynews.com/larry-elder-the-george-floyd-riots-wheres-black-lives-matter-when-you-need-them/"]Larry Elder: The George Floyd Riots — Where’s Black Lives ... (https://www.bing.com/search?q=black+unarmed+men+killed+in+2019&form=PRHPR1&src=IE11TR&pc=EUPP_HRTS#)https://blackcommunitynews.com/larry-elder-the-george-floyd-riots-wheres-black-lives...
1 day ago · Last year, according to the Washington Post, the police killed nine unarmed blacks. They killed 19 unarmed whites. In recent years, about 50 cops have been shot and killed annually in the line of duty. So, more cops are killed each year than are unarmed black suspects

Safety
06-05-2020, 01:49 PM
And yet we have this. Which gets down to the real stats. By race.


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.


There’s also the National Crime Victimization Survey, which questions victims of crimes, whether or not the criminal was captured, as to the race and ethnicity of the suspect. It turns out that the race of the arrested matches the percentage given by victims. So unless victims are lying about the race of their assailant, unconcerned about whether he gets caught, blacks are not being “overarrested.”


A reasonable discussion about blacks and police practices cannot take place without acknowledging the disproportion amount of crime committed by blacks. According to the Department of Justice’s “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009,” in the country’s 75 largest counties, blacks committed 62 percent of robberies, 45 percent of assaults and accounted for 57 percent of murder defendants.
The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young white men is accidents, such as car accidents. The No. 1 cause of preventable death for young black men is homicide, usually committed by another young black man, not a cop.

The courageous Manhattan Institute’s Heather Mac Donald, who writes extensively about police practice, asked: “Who is killing these black victims? Not whites, and not the police, but other blacks. In 2016, the police fatally shot 233 blacks, the vast majority armed and dangerous. … Contrary to the Black Lives Matter narrative, the police have much more to fear from black males than black males have to fear from the police. In 2015, a police officer was 18.5 times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male was to be killed by a police officer.”.....snip~


https://www.larryelder.com/column/cr...n-crime-stats/ (https://www.larryelder.com/column/criminal-behavior-not-racism-explains-racial-disparities-in-crime-stats/)



Mac Donald: There Is No Systemic Racism in Police Depts (https://www.dennisprager.com/mac-donald-there-is-no-systemic-racism-in-police-depts/)

Thu, Jun 4, 2020
All evidence (https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-myth-of-systemic-police-racism-11591119883) supports her thesis. No evidence supports the Left.


Then more stats that validates there is no systemic racism by police against blacks.


New Police Shooting Stats Show Law Enforcement Is Not the ... (https://www.newsmax.com/bernardkerik/police-shootings-crime-statistics/2019/01/22/id/899297/)https://www.newsmax.com/bernardkerik/police-shootings-crime-statistics/2019/01/22/id/...[/URL]
Jan 22, 2019 · So, here’s the 2018 breakdown of the 995 people shot and killed by the police. 403 were white, 210 were black, 148 were Hispanic, 38 were classified as other, and 199 were classified as unknown. Out of that 995, 47 were unarmed — 23 were white, 17 were black, 5 were Hispanic, and 2 …



Larry Elder: The George Floyd Riots — Where’s Black Lives ... (https://www.bing.com/search?q=black+unarmed+men+killed+in+2019&form=PRHPR1&src=IE11TR&pc=EUPP_HRTS#)https://blackcommunitynews.com/larry-elder-the-george-floyd-riots-wheres-black-lives...
1 day ago · Last year, according to the Washington Post, the police killed nine unarmed blacks. They killed 19 unarmed whites. In recent years, about 50 cops have been shot and killed annually in the line of duty. So, more cops are killed each year than are unarmed black suspects

If what you are alluding to is true, then why is "stop and frisk" considered racist? I mean, when Bloomberg was in the race, so many on the right berated him for having a "racist" policy. You can't argue that the disparity in a police encounter is not based on race, then have a police policy that is considered to be racist. Even the judge that rejected New York's stop and frisk policy said..."“Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites,” she wrote."(Goldstein)

Goldstein, Joesph. NYTIMES. 2013. Judge Rejects New Your's Stop-and-Frisk Policy. [url]https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html (https://www.bing.com/search?q=Larry%20elder%20only%209%20blaks%20killed %20in%202019%20vs%2019%20whites&qs=n&form=QBRE&sp=-1&pq=larry%20elder%20only%209%20blaks%20killed%20in% 202019%20vs%2019%20whites&sc=0-52&sk=&cvid=3EEF5E1E153B4C53BA2061CA1DCB4728#)

Please use your words.

MMC
06-05-2020, 01:59 PM
Oh and btw Safety. Roland G Fryer Jr. is a Leftist. His study backs what Thomas Sowell says about Systemic or Institutionalization Racism by Cop against Blacks. Same with Larry Elder and MacDonald.



He and student researchers spent about 3,000 hours assembling detailed data from police reports in Houston; Austin, Tex.; Dallas; Los Angeles; Orlando, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; and four other counties in Florida.
They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack? One goal was to determine if police officers were quicker to fire at black suspects.


In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.


But police shootings are only part of the picture. What about situations in which an officer might be expected to fire, but doesn’t?
To answer this, Mr. Fryer focused on one city, Houston. The Police Department there let the researchers look at reports not only for shootings but also for arrests when lethal force might have been justified. Mr. Fryer defined this group to include encounters with suspects the police subsequently charged with serious offenses like attempting to murder an officer, or evading or resisting arrest. He also considered suspects shocked with Tasers.


Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.


“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr. (http://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/home), the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard.....snip~

MMC
06-05-2020, 02:19 PM
If what you are alluding to is true, then why is "stop and frisk" considered racist? I mean, when Bloomberg was in the race, so many on the right berated him for having a "racist" policy. You can't argue that the disparity in a police encounter is not based on race, then have a police policy that is considered to be racist. Even the judge that rejected New York's stop and frisk policy said..."“Blacks are likely targeted for stops based on a lesser degree of objectively founded suspicion than whites,” she wrote."(Goldstein)

Goldstein, Joesph. NYTIMES. 2013. Judge Rejects New Your's Stop-and-Frisk Policy. https://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/nyregion/stop-and-frisk-practice-violated-rights-judge-rules.html

Please use your words.

Because Stop and Frisk was treated as a moral question rather than an evidence based question. With stop and frisk in New York. Those protesting the practice pointed out that most of the people that are targeted are Black and Latino. It was a funny objection to make. Considering most of New York City is Black and Latino. Which then they used the argument of the practice and basing it on if it was randomly applied. Yet the practice wasn't randomly applied. Rather it was applied in High Crime areas which in New York tend to be disproportionately Black and Latino. Where I have already given you the stats on crime rates by races.

Safety
06-05-2020, 03:17 PM
Because Stop and Frisk was treated as a moral question rather than an evidence based question. With stop and frisk in New York. Those protesting the practice pointed out that most of the people that are targeted are Black and Latino. It was a funny objection to make. Considering most of New York City is Black and Latino. Which then they used the argument of the practice and basing it on if it was randomly applied. Yet the practice wasn't randomly applied. Rather it was applied in High Crime areas which in New York tend to be disproportionately Black and Latino. Where I have already given you the stats on crime rates by races.

But it being a moral question only strengthens the argument that the police are exhibiting systemic racism. Plus, I don't think your assertion about the demographics of NYC is accurate, according to the 2010 census, Whites made up 44.6%, Blacks 27%, and Hispanics 28.6%. (USC) However, moving on...in this study, it determined that..."The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more." (Ross) which puts it at odds with your original source. So, at this moment we have conflicting data sets in regards to the question of if there is systemic racism in the police, but based upon the additional sources I provided, it proves that systemic racism exists in police procedures.

United States Census. 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data NYC. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/planning-level/nyc-population/census2010/t_sf1_dp_nyc.pdf
Ross, Cody T. PLOS ONE. 2015. A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

Safety
06-05-2020, 03:19 PM
Oh and btw Safety. Roland G Fryer Jr. is a Leftist. His study backs what Thomas Sowell says about Systemic or Institutionalization Racism by Cop against Blacks. Same with Larry Elder and MacDonald.



He and student researchers spent about 3,000 hours assembling detailed data from police reports in Houston; Austin, Tex.; Dallas; Los Angeles; Orlando, Fla.; Jacksonville, Fla.; and four other counties in Florida.
They examined 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015, coding police narratives to answer questions such as: How old was the suspect? How many police officers were at the scene? Were they mostly white? Was the officer at the scene for a robbery, violent activity, a traffic stop or something else? Was it nighttime? Did the officer shoot after being attacked or before a possible attack? One goal was to determine if police officers were quicker to fire at black suspects.


In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.


But police shootings are only part of the picture. What about situations in which an officer might be expected to fire, but doesn’t?
To answer this, Mr. Fryer focused on one city, Houston. The Police Department there let the researchers look at reports not only for shootings but also for arrests when lethal force might have been justified. Mr. Fryer defined this group to include encounters with suspects the police subsequently charged with serious offenses like attempting to murder an officer, or evading or resisting arrest. He also considered suspects shocked with Tasers.


Mr. Fryer found that in such situations, officers in Houston were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black. This estimate was not precise, and firmer conclusions would require more data. But in various models controlling for different factors and using different definitions of tense situations, Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites.


“It is the most surprising result of my career,” said Roland G. Fryer Jr. (http://scholar.harvard.edu/fryer/home), the author of the study and a professor of economics at Harvard.....snip~

I'm not interested in any appeals to authority, or other fallacies.

MMC
06-05-2020, 03:34 PM
But it being a moral question only strengthens the argument that the police are exhibiting systemic racism. Plus, I don't think your assertion about the demographics of NYC is accurate, according to the 2010 census, Whites made up 44.6%, Blacks 27%, and Hispanics 28.6%. (USC) However, moving on...in this study, it determined that..."The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more." (Ross) which puts it at odds with your original source. So, at this moment we have conflicting data sets in regards to the question of if there is systemic racism in the police, but based upon the additional sources I provided, it proves that systemic racism exists in police procedures.

United States Census. 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data NYC. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/planning-level/nyc-population/census2010/t_sf1_dp_nyc.pdf
Ross, Cody T. PLOS ONE. 2015. A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854

No it doesn't. It validates that criminal behavior not racism explains Racial disparities in Crime Stats. Oh and then there is more stats that debunk Cody Ross.

Murder Rates by Race (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian Crime ... (https://ways-to-die.com/murder-rates-race/)

https://ways-to-die.com/murder-rates-race
As mentioned already, black-on-black murder is more common than black-on-white, but this is also applicable with other races. Whites and hispanics are considerably more likely to kill members of their own race than to kill members of opposing races, suggesting that warnings of impending race wars are as unfounded as we all hoped.



Black vs. White Crime Statistics - White Privilege Isn't ... (https://whiteprivilegeisntreal.org/black-vs-white-crime-statistics/)

https://whiteprivilegeisntreal.org/black-vs-white-crime-statistics · Translate this page (http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-US&dl=en&lp=KO_EN&a=https%3a%2f%2fwhiteprivilegeisntreal.org%2fblack-vs-white-crime-statistics%2f)
Black vs White Crime Statistics Conclusion It’s an uncomfortable truth but blacks commit crimes at nearly three times the rate that whites do. Blacks commit 36% of the violent crime in the US even though they are only 13% of the population.



Criminal Behavior, Not Racism, Explains ‘Racial Disparities’ in Crime Stats


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.



A reasonable discussion about blacks and police practices cannot take place without acknowledging the disproportion amount of crime committed by blacks. According to the Department of Justice’s “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009,” in the country’s 75 largest counties, blacks committed 62 percent of robberies, 45 percent of assaults and accounted for 57 percent of murder defendants.....snip~


Based on these stats there is no Systemic racism by Cops on Blacks.


Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites......snip~

MMC
06-05-2020, 03:35 PM
I'm not interested in any appeals to authority, or other fallacies.

Of course you aren't interested in the truth. That isn't surprising.

Safety
06-05-2020, 04:48 PM
No it doesn't. It validates that criminal behavior not racism explains Racial disparities in Crime Stats. Oh and then there is more stats that debunk Cody Ross.

Murder Rates by Race (Black, White, Hispanic, Asian Crime ... (https://ways-to-die.com/murder-rates-race/)

https://ways-to-die.com/murder-rates-race
As mentioned already, black-on-black murder is more common than black-on-white, but this is also applicable with other races. Whites and hispanics are considerably more likely to kill members of their own race than to kill members of opposing races, suggesting that warnings of impending race wars are as unfounded as we all hoped.



Black vs. White Crime Statistics - White Privilege Isn't ... (https://whiteprivilegeisntreal.org/black-vs-white-crime-statistics/)

https://whiteprivilegeisntreal.org/black-vs-white-crime-statistics · Translate this page (http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?ref=SERP&br=ro&mkt=en-US&dl=en&lp=KO_EN&a=https%3a%2f%2fwhiteprivilegeisntreal.org%2fblack-vs-white-crime-statistics%2f)
Black vs White Crime Statistics Conclusion It’s an uncomfortable truth but blacks commit crimes at nearly three times the rate that whites do. Blacks commit 36% of the violent crime in the US even though they are only 13% of the population.



Criminal Behavior, Not Racism, Explains ‘Racial Disparities’ in Crime Stats


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.



A reasonable discussion about blacks and police practices cannot take place without acknowledging the disproportion amount of crime committed by blacks. According to the Department of Justice’s “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009,” in the country’s 75 largest counties, blacks committed 62 percent of robberies, 45 percent of assaults and accounted for 57 percent of murder defendants.....snip~


Based on these stats there is no Systemic racism by Cops on Blacks.


Mr. Fryer found that blacks were either less likely to be shot or there was no difference between blacks and whites......snip~

Actually, yes it does. It is a common misinterpretation to use the term "systemic racism" as it meaning that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of our criminal justice system was built, honed, and firmly established during the Jim Crow era, an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede was rife with racism. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order, meaning it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today isn't surprising.

So let's recap...

I mentioned "stop and frisk" which has been deemed racist...a police policy.

Then there's this study....https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf, it found that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be searched once they have been pulled over. About 2 percent of white motorists were searched, vs. 6 percent of black drivers and 7 percent of Latinos. And White drivers were both ticketed and searched at lower rates than black and Hispanic drivers.

There are many more I can reference, but it is not needed because your argument is predicated upon the fallacy that because blacks have a higher “rate” of crime, it correlates to the police interacting with them more, but that isn’t the case as I have shown in numerous case studies. I haven’t even started to argue the systemic racism present once an arrest has been made.

Safety
06-05-2020, 04:49 PM
Of course you aren't interested in the truth. That isn't surprising.

The truth is why I’m here. Let’s have more of it and less about your personal inventory of me.

MMC
06-05-2020, 05:52 PM
Actually, yes it does. It is a common misinterpretation to use the term "systemic racism" as it meaning that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them. When you consider that much of our criminal justice system was built, honed, and firmly established during the Jim Crow era, an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede was rife with racism. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order, meaning it kept black people in their place. For much of the early 20th century, in some parts of the country, that was its primary function. That it might retain some of those proclivities today isn't surprising.

So let's recap...

I mentioned "stop and frisk" which has been deemed racist...a police policy.

Then there's this study....https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf, it found that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be searched once they have been pulled over. About 2 percent of white motorists were searched, vs. 6 percent of black drivers and 7 percent of Latinos. And White drivers were both ticketed and searched at lower rates than black and Hispanic drivers.

There are many more I can reference, but it is not needed because your argument is predicated upon the fallacy that because blacks have a higher “rate” of crime, it correlates to the police interacting with them more, but that isn’t the case as I have shown in numerous case studies. I haven’t even started to argue the systemic racism present once an arrest has been made.

Actually no it doesn't. You brought up Stop and Frisk. The Problem with that is 2 words. Per Capita. Which was not a Nationwide Policy. Therefore cannot be Deemed as Systemic Racism.


Stats: Systemic Police Racism Is a Myth.....


It’s not just about George Floyd, we’re told. It’s the system.


The way we police America is irretrievably broken. More to the point, it’s racist. African-Americans experience law enforcement differently than other races do — especially white people.....snip~


There is no fallacy that blacks have a higher crime rate. That is just a fact. They do.


“A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.”


For starters, she looks at the number of people fatally shot by police officers (https://www.westernjournal.com/first-study-kind/). In 2019, that was 1,004. Most of these people “were armed or otherwise dangerous,” Mac Donald said.


“African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015,” she wrote.


“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.”



Yes, but what about unarmed individuals?


“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. The Post defines ‘unarmed’ broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase,” Mac Donald wrote.


“In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, 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.”



But surely science bears out that there’s some evidence of systemic differences (https://www.westernjournal.com/new-study-busts-narrative-of-police-systemic-racism/) in use of force against black suspects, right?


“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,” Mac Donald wrote. “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.


Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.”


You don’t have to look too far: “Most states’ police forces killed black people at a higher rate per capita than white people, with Illinois, New York and Washington D.C. carrying some of the largest discrepancies by state. D.C., with a black population of nearly 50 percent, had 88 percent of all police killings be against black Americans — a discrepancy of over 38 percentage points. Rhode Island had the largest discrepancy of 44 points, albeit with a much smaller sample size of four police killings in 2019 — two of them being African American.”



How the police came to interact with these individuals mattered not at all. For this statistic to be as meaningful as the study’s author seems to want it to be, we would have to assume that police officers were allowed to shoot, at random, whoever they wanted. Then, yes, we would have a racism problem as serious as the title implies.


We’d also have a much more serious problem in that police were randomly shooting people.....snip~


https://www.westernjournal.com/stats-systemic-police-racism-myth/


There are many more I can reference, but it is not needed because your argument is predicated upon the fallacy that because blacks have a higher “rate” of crime, it correlates to the police interacting with them more, but that isn’t the case as I have shown in numerous case studies.....snip~


Yes that is a fact that has to be taken into account for. Black crime with 13% of the population. So again it is not a fallacy. As there isn't much difference when it comes to contact with the police. For whites.


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on.
Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference......snip~



When you consider that much of our criminal justice system was built, honed, and firmly established during the Jim Crow era, an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede was rife with racism. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order, meaning it kept black people in their place......snip~


Nice try.....but Police reforms changed the modern criminal justice system.


Some of the reforms. Community Policing, Appoint Independent Prosecutors, Set Up civilian Complaint review boards, New Ordinances, New Laws, Organizational reform, Police taking classes on Conflict resolution, De-escalation, Diversity of Officers and in 2010, Focus on treatment of minorities.


Oh and I haven't even brought up juveniles. So I have plenty more to counter any data you bring up.


Btw Concerning Motorists.


To show that the police are stopping to many members of a group, you need to know, at a minimum, the rate of lawbreaking among that group—the so-called violator benchmark. Only if the rate of stops or arrests greatly exceeds the rate of criminal behavior should our suspicions be raised.


White motorists are 49% more likely than African American motorists to have contraband discovered during a consent search by law enforcement, and 56% more likely when compared to Latinos.

MMC
06-05-2020, 05:57 PM
The truth is why I’m here. Let’s have more of it and less about your personal inventory of me.

Yes lets have more of it. Like with Populations in NYC. Wherein Hispanics were counted as white.Which your source was missing.


I have to break for now. Get some sleep and go to work. Will continue on when I get back this morning.

Safety
06-05-2020, 09:04 PM
Actually no it doesn't. You brought up Stop and Frisk. The Problem with that is 2 words. Per Capita. Which was not a Nationwide Policy. Therefore cannot be Deemed as Systemic Racism.


Stats: Systemic Police Racism Is a Myth.....


It’s not just about George Floyd, we’re told. It’s the system.


The way we police America is irretrievably broken. More to the point, it’s racist. African-Americans experience law enforcement differently than other races do — especially white people.....snip~


There is no fallacy that blacks have a higher crime rate. That is just a fact. They do.


“A solid body of evidence finds no structural bias in the criminal-justice system with regard to arrests, prosecution or sentencing. Crime and suspect behavior, not race, determine most police actions.”


For starters, she looks at the number of people fatally shot by police officers (https://www.westernjournal.com/first-study-kind/). In 2019, that was 1,004. Most of these people “were armed or otherwise dangerous,” Mac Donald said.


“African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015,” she wrote.


“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.”



Yes, but what about unarmed individuals?


“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. The Post defines ‘unarmed’ broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase,” Mac Donald wrote.


“In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, 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.”



But surely science bears out that there’s some evidence of systemic differences (https://www.westernjournal.com/new-study-busts-narrative-of-police-systemic-racism/) in use of force against black suspects, right?


“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,” Mac Donald wrote. “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.


Research by Harvard economist Roland G. Fryer Jr. also found no evidence of racial discrimination in shootings. Any evidence to the contrary fails to take into account crime rates and civilian behavior before and during interactions with police.”


You don’t have to look too far: “Most states’ police forces killed black people at a higher rate per capita than white people, with Illinois, New York and Washington D.C. carrying some of the largest discrepancies by state. D.C., with a black population of nearly 50 percent, had 88 percent of all police killings be against black Americans — a discrepancy of over 38 percentage points. Rhode Island had the largest discrepancy of 44 points, albeit with a much smaller sample size of four police killings in 2019 — two of them being African American.”



How the police came to interact with these individuals mattered not at all. For this statistic to be as meaningful as the study’s author seems to want it to be, we would have to assume that police officers were allowed to shoot, at random, whoever they wanted. Then, yes, we would have a racism problem as serious as the title implies.


We’d also have a much more serious problem in that police were randomly shooting people.....snip~


https://www.westernjournal.com/stats-systemic-police-racism-myth/


There are many more I can reference, but it is not needed because your argument is predicated upon the fallacy that because blacks have a higher “rate” of crime, it correlates to the police interacting with them more, but that isn’t the case as I have shown in numerous case studies.....snip~


Yes that is a fact that has to be taken into account for. Black crime with 13% of the population. So again it is not a fallacy. As there isn't much difference when it comes to contact with the police. For whites.


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on.
Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference......snip~



When you consider that much of our criminal justice system was built, honed, and firmly established during the Jim Crow era, an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede was rife with racism. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order, meaning it kept black people in their place......snip~


Nice try.....but Police reforms changed the modern criminal justice system.


Some of the reforms. Community Policing, Appoint Independent Prosecutors, Set Up civilian Complaint review boards, New Ordinances, New Laws, Organizational reform, Police taking classes on Conflict resolution, De-escalation, Diversity of Officers and in 2010, Focus on treatment of minorities.


Oh and I haven't even brought up juveniles. So I have plenty more to counter any data you bring up.


Btw Concerning Motorists.


To show that the police are stopping to many members of a group, you need to know, at a minimum, the rate of lawbreaking among that group—the so-called violator benchmark. Only if the rate of stops or arrests greatly exceeds the rate of criminal behavior should our suspicions be raised.


White motorists are 49% more likely than African American motorists to have contraband discovered during a consent search by law enforcement, and 56% more likely when compared to Latinos.

No, "per capita" has no bearing on whether or not stop and frisk was a racist policy. You can implement a stop and frisk policy and not have it trend towards being racist, that is solely dependent on the agency implementing the strategy. Again, it also doesn't matter whether or not it is a "nationwide" policy, systemic racism that plagues an agency is still systemic racism. You don't get to say, "Hey look, Wichita doesn't have a police force that has systemic racism; therefore, it doesn't exist anywhere." I didn't say that blacks having a higher crime rate is a fallacy, I said using the rate to make the argument is a fallacy.

Yet another study to support my argument says this....
"Instead of approaching the study with a point of view to be proved or disproved, the researchers set out on a fact-finding mission. They spent two years analyzing the two-year database of 603 firearm homicides by police. They tagged and coded the narratives to put each shooting into context, and then ran the detailed results through a computer program. “The computer looked at the variations in the data and grouped the victims into categories,” says Miller. “It turned out that there were seven categories that fit the statistics.”The seven subtypes of police shootings set apart victims who were armed (with guns or knives) or unarmed, victims who were violent or non-violent, and other crucial details. Among those who were unarmed and appeared to show no objective threat to police, nearly two-thirds of the victims were Hispanic or Black." https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/04/16/000-people-in-the-us-are-killed-every-year-in-police-shootings-how-many-are-preventable/

You argue that crime and suspect behavior determine police interaction, well, that isn't an argument anyone is making, that is common sense. However, when that officer profiles a black person differently than a white person, regardless of "crime rate" that is systemic racism. They are making a judgment on a person based solely on their skin color. Think about it like this; if we were in South Africa and the majority (black) is using systemic racism to oppress the minority (white), I would be arguing the same point, my position would not change based upon the color of the person that is doing the oppressing nor the oppressed.

Police reforms are a good start, but they hardly addressed the issues we are debating. Having moderate changes is a feel-good thing to write about, but the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin says it all, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

To your last point, no, you do not need to know the "rate of lawbreaking among that group" when talking about motorists, because it has no bearing on the civil liberties bestowed upon us all. Nobody should be profiled or stopped because they share the same skin color as someone that breaks the law, that isn't how the system was supposed to be designed. We are not a "paper's please" society and I hope I read your post wrong because it seemed like that was what you were advocating for. This study based off of the federal government's data shows the disparity in how people are stopped in their vehicles, broken down by race. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/

Safety
06-05-2020, 09:06 PM
Yes lets have more of it. Like with Populations in NYC. Wherein Hispanics were counted as white.Which your source was missing.


I have to break for now. Get some sleep and go to work. Will continue on when I get back this morning.

The majority of Hispanics are a mixed-race, so if they self-identify as white, black, or Asian, that is the sole decision of the person answering the question. It holds no bearing on the discussion at hand.

MMC
06-06-2020, 06:25 AM
The majority of Hispanics are a mixed-race, so if they self-identify as white, black, or Asian, that is the sole decision of the person answering the question. It holds no bearing on the discussion at hand.

Doesn't matter what they Self Identify. The Stats you gave from your link. Doesn't include Origin. Nor did it point out that Hispanics were counted as white. Which this was correlated with your stop and frisk law in NYC. Which You brought it up.

Safety
06-06-2020, 06:45 AM
Doesn't matter what they Self Identify. The Stats you gave from your link. Doesn't include Origin. Nor did it point out that Hispanics were counted as white. Which this was correlated with your stop and frisk law in NYC. Which You brought it up.

Determining whether or not someone that is Hispanic and can be counted as white has no relevance to this debate.

MMC
06-06-2020, 06:54 AM
Determining whether or not someone that is Hispanic and can be counted as white has no relevance to this debate.
Yes it did, when Stop and Frisk wasn't implemented in all of NYC and was targeting areas of High Crime. While looking at population. It was a false account of the population.

Safety
06-06-2020, 07:09 AM
Yes it did, when Stop and Frisk wasn't implemented in all of NYC and was targeting areas of High Crime. While looking at population. It was a false account of the population.

Now you are attempting to argue from an unknown. There is no constant metric to qualify someone that self-identifies as Hispanic. The US census breaks down the racial identification by several questions on the topic, whereas most police arrest forms do not.

Now, tell me why this is an issue for you and your argument.

MMC
06-06-2020, 07:18 AM
No, "per capita" has no bearing on whether or not stop and frisk was a racist policy. You can implement a stop and frisk policy and not have it trend towards being racist, that is solely dependent on the agency implementing the strategy. Again, it also doesn't matter whether or not it is a "nationwide" policy, systemic racism that plagues an agency is still systemic racism. You don't get to say, "Hey look, Wichita doesn't have a police force that has systemic racism; therefore, it doesn't exist anywhere." I didn't say that blacks having a higher crime rate is a fallacy, I said using the rate to make the argument is a fallacy.

Yet another study to support my argument says this....
"Instead of approaching the study with a point of view to be proved or disproved, the researchers set out on a fact-finding mission. They spent two years analyzing the two-year database of 603 firearm homicides by police. They tagged and coded the narratives to put each shooting into context, and then ran the detailed results through a computer program. “The computer looked at the variations in the data and grouped the victims into categories,” says Miller. “It turned out that there were seven categories that fit the statistics.”The seven subtypes of police shootings set apart victims who were armed (with guns or knives) or unarmed, victims who were violent or non-violent, and other crucial details. Among those who were unarmed and appeared to show no objective threat to police, nearly two-thirds of the victims were Hispanic or Black." https://news.northeastern.edu/2020/04/16/000-people-in-the-us-are-killed-every-year-in-police-shootings-how-many-are-preventable/

You argue that crime and suspect behavior determine police interaction, well, that isn't an argument anyone is making, that is common sense. However, when that officer profiles a black person differently than a white person, regardless of "crime rate" that is systemic racism. They are making a judgment on a person based solely on their skin color. Think about it like this; if we were in South Africa and the majority (black) is using systemic racism to oppress the minority (white), I would be arguing the same point, my position would not change based upon the color of the person that is doing the oppressing nor the oppressed.

Police reforms are a good start, but they hardly addressed the issues we are debating. Having moderate changes is a feel-good thing to write about, but the famous quote from Benjamin Franklin says it all, "it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer."

To your last point, no, you do not need to know the "rate of lawbreaking among that group" when talking about motorists, because it has no bearing on the civil liberties bestowed upon us all. Nobody should be profiled or stopped because they share the same skin color as someone that breaks the law, that isn't how the system was supposed to be designed. We are not a "paper's please" society and I hope I read your post wrong because it seemed like that was what you were advocating for. This study based off of the federal government's data shows the disparity in how people are stopped in their vehicles, broken down by race. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/

Yes per capita does. Other Police Depts all across the country have stop and frisk policies. No others were deemed racist. One example out of all those Police depts across the country. Doesn't mean there is systemic racism with the police. Infact due to all other Police Depts being a majority and not some disparity. Validates there is no systemic racism in Police Depts across the country. What you did with NYC and its stop and frisk policy is prove the exception to the norm. Which again validates there isn't any systemic racism by police.

Well despite your link by NE Ed......More whites that were unarmed were killed than Blacks or Latinos. Been that way for years and especially since the 90s.

Yes you can't make an argument about suspect behavior, that which you say is common sense. That doesn't mean the variable is dismissed when looking at systemic racism by Police against blacks. Also you forget the fact that almost 20% of attacks on cops with firearms or a weapon. Is done more by Blacks. So in areas of High crime rates. Like the West and South Side of Chicago which is predominately Black. There will be a higher percentage of Blacks involved in crime. Just as with Latino Neighborhoods and White Neighborhoods.

Again.

But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.....snip~



Then you said this.


When you consider that much of our criminal justice system was built, honed, and firmly established during the Jim Crow era, an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede was rife with racism. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order, meaning it kept black people in their place......snip~


Yet Police reforms brought on by Civil Rights groups. Activists and Politicians. Brought reform to Police Depts. Especially with Democrat governed and controlled cities. So no the modern criminal justice system did not preserve racial order. That is a straight up falsehood.


Oh and Ted Miller despite his research found no systemic racism with regards to Motorists. That is who you were relying on.


Ted R Miller currently works at the Calverton Center, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation and is an Adjunct Professor at the Curtin University School of Public Health.


I have to break due to some issues for work. Will return later.

Safety
06-06-2020, 08:24 AM
Yes per capita does. Other Police Depts all across the country have stop and frisk policies. No others were deemed racist. One example out of all those Police depts across the country. Doesn't mean there is systemic racism with the police. Infact due to all other Police Depts being a majority and not some disparity. Validates there is no systemic racism in Police Depts across the country. What you did with NYC and its stop and frisk policy is prove the exception to the norm. Which again validates there isn't any systemic racism by police.

Well despite your link by NE Ed......More whites that were unarmed were killed than Blacks or Latinos. Been that way for years and especially since the 90s.

Yes you can't make an argument about suspect behavior, that which you say is common sense. That doesn't mean the variable is dismissed when looking at systemic racism by Police against blacks. Also you forget the fact that almost 20% of attacks on cops with firearms or a weapon. Is done more by Blacks. So in areas of High crime rates. Like the West and South Side of Chicago which is predominately Black. There will be a higher percentage of Blacks involved in crime. Just as with Latino Neighborhoods and White Neighborhoods.

Again.

But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.....snip~



Then you said this.


When you consider that much of our criminal justice system was built, honed, and firmly established during the Jim Crow era, an era almost everyone, conservatives included, will concede was rife with racism. The modern criminal-justice system helped preserve racial order, meaning it kept black people in their place......snip~


Yet Police reforms brought on by Civil Rights groups. Activists and Politicians. Brought reform to Police Depts. Especially with Democrat governed and controlled cities. So no the modern criminal justice system did not preserve racial order. That is a straight up falsehood.


Oh and Ted Miller despite his research found no systemic racism with regards to Motorists. That is who you were relying on.


Ted R Miller currently works at the Calverton Center, Pacific Institute for Research and Evaluation and is an Adjunct Professor at the Curtin University School of Public Health.


I have to break due to some issues for work. Will return later.

What "other" police departments are you referring to? How do you qualify whether or not it was "deemed" racist?

Do I need to repost what systemic racism is? I see you keep using it in the wrong context. It isn't an "all or nothing" criteria and you can have police departments that do not show any indication of systemic racism, and you can have others that show abnormal indications of systemic racism.

More whites were killed by police than black or hispanic...now you are referencing a "total", not "rate". Let's keep with the same metrics when we make our arguments. Additionally, we are debating systemic racism and whethor or not it exists, in which we should have to establish that before we can move to any "causes" such your statement "Also you forget the fact that almost 20% of attacks on cops with firearms or a weapon. Is done more by Blacks". However, since you brought it up, are you trying to argue that cops are justified in their systemic racism because they should fear blacks based upon your statement?

Are you trying to ascertain that cops don't profile black people by referencing a survey? A survey that I linked in my post that shows that "driving while black" was a real phenomenon?

So, the "democratic run cities" are not preserving the racial order, because they are "democratically run"? Is that what you are insisting on?

What did Ted Miller conclude? Because the data shows not only systemic racism in police profiling blacks at a higher rate, but that you are more likely to get pulled over for driving while black. In fact, Native Americans are were at the top of the list according to the data.

MMC
06-06-2020, 01:20 PM
Now you are attempting to argue from an unknown. There is no constant metric to qualify someone that self-identifies as Hispanic. The US census breaks down the racial identification by several questions on the topic, whereas most police arrest forms do not.

Now, tell me why this is an issue for you and your argument.

Its not an unknown, for decades Hispanics were identified as white. As to the argument. You used Stop and frisk and the Court conceded that High crime Areas in NYC were targeted. While knowing some areas of the city the policy wasn't put in place. Yet they still ruled in favor of the ACLU and others.

Non-Hispanic Whites Are Now a ... - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html)https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html
Mar 28, 2011 · For the first time, black, Hispanic and Asian residents of New York City and its suburbs are a majority of the metropolitan area’s more than 19 million residents, according to the 2010 census …



The point was you were wrong on who made up the majority of the city proper then you were given the reason why.

MMC
06-06-2020, 02:45 PM
What "other" police departments are you referring to? How do you qualify whether or not it was "deemed" racist?

Do I need to repost what systemic racism is? I see you keep using it in the wrong context. It isn't an "all or nothing" criteria and you can have police departments that do not show any indication of systemic racism, and you can have others that show abnormal indications of systemic racism.

More whites were killed by police than black or hispanic...now you are referencing a "total", not "rate". Let's keep with the same metrics when we make our arguments. Additionally, we are debating systemic racism and whethor or not it exists, in which we should have to establish that before we can move to any "causes" such your statement "Also you forget the fact that almost 20% of attacks on cops with firearms or a weapon. Is done more by Blacks". However, since you brought it up, are you trying to argue that cops are justified in their systemic racism because they should fear blacks based upon your statement?

Are you trying to ascertain that cops don't profile black people by referencing a survey? A survey that I linked in my post that shows that "driving while black" was a real phenomenon?

So, the "democratic run cities" are not preserving the racial order, because they are "democratically run"? Is that what you are insisting on?

What did Ted Miller conclude? Because the data shows not only systemic racism in police profiling blacks at a higher rate, but that you are more likely to get pulled over for driving while black. In fact, Native Americans are were at the top of the list according to the data.

What other police depts? What confuses you about the majority across the nation?

Do I need to put up the video of Thomas Sowell so you can comprehend why there is no systemic racism? Yes that is what the majority is and then you can show a few exceptions to the norm. That is what is called a few disparities.

Again my stats back that criminal behavior identified to groups isn't racism. Also my stat from the Dept of Justice states blacks are not racially profiled and their study bears that out. Done every 3 years all over the country. Then there is the Leftist Fryer and his study. “On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.”


Then there is the National Crime Victim Survey that supports there is no Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks. Their study supports the DOJ study. Then the National Academy of Sciences that 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.


Yes more whites are killed than blacks or Hispanics. That's despite the fact that more crimes are committed by Blacks. Oh and yes that would include the stat on unarmed groups.


No I am not trying to ascertain that cops don't profile black people by referencing just a survey. I am doing so with 4 or 5 studies. Surveys. Reports. Or whatever terminology you use.


Oh because you used that more blacks are stopped while driving. The Motorists study?



The Racial Profiling Myth Debunked.....


The anti–racial profiling juggernaut has finally met its nemesis: the truth. According to a new study, black drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike are twice as likely to speed as white drivers, and are even more dominant among drivers breaking 90 miles per hour. This finding demolishes the myth of racial profiling. Precisely for that reason, the Bush Justice Department tried to bury the report so the profiling juggernaut could continue its destructive campaign against law enforcement. What happens next will show whether the politics of racial victimization now trump all other national concerns.


Until now, the anti-police crusade that travels under the banner of “ending racial profiling” has traded on ignorance. Its spokesmen went around the country charging that the police were stopping “too many” minorities for traffic infractions or more serious violations. The reason, explained the anti-cop crowd, was that the police were racist.


They can argue that no more. The new turnpike study solves one of the most vexing problems in racial profiling analysis: establishing a violator benchmark. To show that the police are stopping “too many” members of a group, you need to know, at a minimum, the rate of lawbreaking among that group—the so-called violator benchmark. Only if the rate of stops or arrests greatly exceeds the rate of criminal behavior should our suspicions be raised.


But most of the studies that the ACLU and defense attorneys have proffered to show biased behavior by the police only used crude population measures as the benchmark for comparing police activity—arguing, say, that if 24 percent of speeding stops on a particular stretch of highway were of black drivers, in a city or state where blacks make up 19 percent of the population, the police are over-stopping blacks.


Such an analysis is clearly specious, since it fails to say what percentage of speeders are black, but the data required to rebut it were not available.


Such investigations violate the reigning fiction in anti–racial profiling rhetoric: that all groups commit crime and other infractions at equal rates. It follows from this central fiction that any differences in the rate at which the police interact with certain citizens result only from police bias, not from differences in citizen behavior.

Despite the glaring flaws in every racial profiling study heretofore available, the press and the politicians jumped on the anti-profiling bandwagon. How could they lose? They showed their racial sensitivity, and, as for defaming the police without evidence, well, you don’t have to worry that the New York Times will be on your case if you do.


No institution made more destructive use of racial profiling junk science than the Clinton Justice Department. Armed with the shoddy studies, it slapped costly consent decrees on police departments across the country, requiring them to monitor their officers’ every interaction with minorities, among other managerial intrusions.

But one thing did not change after the much-publicized consent decree: the proportion of blacks stopped on the turnpike for speeding continued to exceed their proportion in the driving population. Man, those troopers must be either really dumb or really racist! thought most observers, including the New Jersey attorney general, who accused the troopers of persistent profiling.


Black drivers speed twice as much as white drivers, and speed at reckless levels even more. Blacks are actually stopped less than their speeding behavior would predict—they are 23 percent of those stopped.


The devastation wrought by this study to the anti-police agenda is catastrophic. It turns out that the police stop blacks more for speeding because they speed more. Race has nothing to do with it.


The elegant study, designed by the Public Service Research Institute in Maryland, had taken photos with high-speed camera equipment and a radar gun of nearly 40,000 drivers on the turnpike. The researchers then showed the photos to a team of three evaluators, who identified the race of the driver. The evaluators had no idea if the drivers in the photos had been speeding. The photos were then correlated with speeds.


Matthew Zingraff’s pioneering traffic research in North Carolina, due out in April, as well as sound studies in Pennsylvania, New York, and Miami. Expect many of the results to support the turnpike data, since circumstantial evidence from traffic fatalities and drunk-driving tests have long suggested different driving behaviors among different racial groups. While racist cops undoubtedly do exist, and undoubtedly they are responsible for isolated instances of racial profiling, the evidence shows that systematic racial profiling by police does not exist.....snip~


https://www.city-journal.org/html/racial-profiling-myth-debunked-12244.html


No the Democratic governed and controlled cities, along with their activists implemented change. Reforms to mitigate racism in their police depts.


What did Ted Miller conclude. As follows.


“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said.


Miller said that his findings were consistent with simulation studies that have found “police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites”, citing a 2007 study from the University of Colorado. Researchers there found that, while the general public is more likely to erroneously shoot an unarmed black person in a computer simulation, police officers in the same game did not make the same errors. “Officers showed greater sensitivity,” that study reads, and “this tended to be particularly true with Black targets”. The same study found that both police and the general public were susceptible to anti-black bias in their reaction time.


A third study, also released this month, from the Center for Policing Equity (PE), (http://policingequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CPE_SoJ_Race-Arrests-UoF_2016-07-08-1130.pdf) a criminal justice thinktank, reached a conclusion similar to Fryer’s. Its data suggests that in most use-of-force situations, black Americans were “more likely than Whites to be targeted for force”, including the drawing and pointing of weapons, use of pepper spray, Tasers and hands. But when it came to lethal force, the mean use of force rate was nearly double for whites versus blacks. The PE data was pulled from Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers for eight locales, and calculated use of force compared against arrests......snip~

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/black-men-minorities-killed-police-encounters-study

Safety
06-06-2020, 08:14 PM
Its not an unknown, for decades Hispanics were identified as white. As to the argument. You used Stop and frisk and the Court conceded that High crime Areas in NYC were targeted. While knowing some areas of the city the policy wasn't put in place. Yet they still ruled in favor of the ACLU and others.

Non-Hispanic Whites Are Now a ... - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html)https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html
Mar 28, 2011 · For the first time, black, Hispanic and Asian residents of New York City and its suburbs are a majority of the metropolitan area’s more than 19 million residents, according to the 2010 census …



The point was you were wrong on who made up the majority of the city proper then you were given the reason why.

This is what you said..."Considering most of New York City is Black and Latino" I showed you that is false, Black, Latino, and Asian combined is a slim majority over whites. Whites still outnumber black and Latino.

Then you said this..."Rather it was applied in High Crime areas which in New York tend to be disproportionately Black and Latino"...it can't be "disproportionate" if the census accuratly reports the numbers.

So far you have not come close to supporting your premise, you pick a couple of outliers that use statistics to try and paint something that isn't true, then when I challenge you on them, you just repeat what you've already posted. Even the words you use to defend your argument only strengthens mine because you attempt to make it about the police having "cause" to profile based upon the crime rate of blacks, which laughingly proves that systemic racism is used by the police.

Safety
06-06-2020, 08:30 PM
What other police depts? What confuses you about the majority across the nation?

Do I need to put up the video of Thomas Sowell so you can comprehend why there is no systemic racism? Yes that is what the majority is and then you can show a few exceptions to the norm. That is what is called a few disparities.

Again my stats back that criminal behavior identified to groups isn't racism. Also my stat from the Dept of Justice states blacks are not racially profiled and their study bears that out. Done every 3 years all over the country. Then there is the Leftist Fryer and his study. “On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.”


Then there is the National Crime Victim Survey that supports there is no Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks. Their study supports the DOJ study. Then the National Academy of Sciences that 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.


Yes more whites are killed than blacks or Hispanics. That's despite the fact that more crimes are committed by Blacks. Oh and yes that would include the stat on unarmed groups.


No I am not trying to ascertain that cops don't profile black people by referencing just a survey. I am doing so with 4 or 5 studies. Surveys. Reports. Or whatever terminology you use.


Oh because you used that more blacks are stopped while driving. The Motorists study?



The Racial Profiling Myth Debunked.....


The anti–racial profiling juggernaut has finally met its nemesis: the truth. According to a new study, black drivers on the New Jersey Turnpike are twice as likely to speed as white drivers, and are even more dominant among drivers breaking 90 miles per hour. This finding demolishes the myth of racial profiling. Precisely for that reason, the Bush Justice Department tried to bury the report so the profiling juggernaut could continue its destructive campaign against law enforcement. What happens next will show whether the politics of racial victimization now trump all other national concerns.


Until now, the anti-police crusade that travels under the banner of “ending racial profiling” has traded on ignorance. Its spokesmen went around the country charging that the police were stopping “too many” minorities for traffic infractions or more serious violations. The reason, explained the anti-cop crowd, was that the police were racist.


They can argue that no more. The new turnpike study solves one of the most vexing problems in racial profiling analysis: establishing a violator benchmark. To show that the police are stopping “too many” members of a group, you need to know, at a minimum, the rate of lawbreaking among that group—the so-called violator benchmark. Only if the rate of stops or arrests greatly exceeds the rate of criminal behavior should our suspicions be raised.


But most of the studies that the ACLU and defense attorneys have proffered to show biased behavior by the police only used crude population measures as the benchmark for comparing police activity—arguing, say, that if 24 percent of speeding stops on a particular stretch of highway were of black drivers, in a city or state where blacks make up 19 percent of the population, the police are over-stopping blacks.


Such an analysis is clearly specious, since it fails to say what percentage of speeders are black, but the data required to rebut it were not available.


Such investigations violate the reigning fiction in anti–racial profiling rhetoric: that all groups commit crime and other infractions at equal rates. It follows from this central fiction that any differences in the rate at which the police interact with certain citizens result only from police bias, not from differences in citizen behavior.

Despite the glaring flaws in every racial profiling study heretofore available, the press and the politicians jumped on the anti-profiling bandwagon. How could they lose? They showed their racial sensitivity, and, as for defaming the police without evidence, well, you don’t have to worry that the New York Times will be on your case if you do.


No institution made more destructive use of racial profiling junk science than the Clinton Justice Department. Armed with the shoddy studies, it slapped costly consent decrees on police departments across the country, requiring them to monitor their officers’ every interaction with minorities, among other managerial intrusions.

But one thing did not change after the much-publicized consent decree: the proportion of blacks stopped on the turnpike for speeding continued to exceed their proportion in the driving population. Man, those troopers must be either really dumb or really racist! thought most observers, including the New Jersey attorney general, who accused the troopers of persistent profiling.


Black drivers speed twice as much as white drivers, and speed at reckless levels even more. Blacks are actually stopped less than their speeding behavior would predict—they are 23 percent of those stopped.


The devastation wrought by this study to the anti-police agenda is catastrophic. It turns out that the police stop blacks more for speeding because they speed more. Race has nothing to do with it.


The elegant study, designed by the Public Service Research Institute in Maryland, had taken photos with high-speed camera equipment and a radar gun of nearly 40,000 drivers on the turnpike. The researchers then showed the photos to a team of three evaluators, who identified the race of the driver. The evaluators had no idea if the drivers in the photos had been speeding. The photos were then correlated with speeds.


Matthew Zingraff’s pioneering traffic research in North Carolina, due out in April, as well as sound studies in Pennsylvania, New York, and Miami. Expect many of the results to support the turnpike data, since circumstantial evidence from traffic fatalities and drunk-driving tests have long suggested different driving behaviors among different racial groups. While racist cops undoubtedly do exist, and undoubtedly they are responsible for isolated instances of racial profiling, the evidence shows that systematic racial profiling by police does not exist.....snip~


https://www.city-journal.org/html/racial-profiling-myth-debunked-12244.html


No the Democratic governed and controlled cities, along with their activists implemented change. Reforms to mitigate racism in their police depts.


What did Ted Miller conclude. As follows.


“What this study says is that it doesn’t matter what your race is when you’re in a stop and frisk situation or arrest situation with a police officer. Your chance of being injured or killed is the same regardless of race – it’s equally dangerous for everyone,” Miller said.


Miller said that his findings were consistent with simulation studies that have found “police are no more likely to fire on unarmed blacks than unarmed whites”, citing a 2007 study from the University of Colorado. Researchers there found that, while the general public is more likely to erroneously shoot an unarmed black person in a computer simulation, police officers in the same game did not make the same errors. “Officers showed greater sensitivity,” that study reads, and “this tended to be particularly true with Black targets”. The same study found that both police and the general public were susceptible to anti-black bias in their reaction time.


A third study, also released this month, from the Center for Policing Equity (PE), (http://policingequity.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/CPE_SoJ_Race-Arrests-UoF_2016-07-08-1130.pdf) a criminal justice thinktank, reached a conclusion similar to Fryer’s. Its data suggests that in most use-of-force situations, black Americans were “more likely than Whites to be targeted for force”, including the drawing and pointing of weapons, use of pepper spray, Tasers and hands. But when it came to lethal force, the mean use of force rate was nearly double for whites versus blacks. The PE data was pulled from Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers for eight locales, and calculated use of force compared against arrests......snip~

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jul/26/black-men-minorities-killed-police-encounters-study

Again, you are arguing in a circle. You present authority figures that use stats in a way to make their point, whereas the same stats are used to make the point systemic racism is a real thing. Just because you post it from someone and expect everyone to accept it just because they said it, is an appeal to authority fallacy. Furthermore, if the "Jersey turnpike survey" is the end-all to support your position on systemic racism, why does the government's study not show the same data where blacks speed 2x more than whites? If it is happening in Jersey, then it should be happening everywhere. Is it because maybe it's an outlier or is it because the data methodology was flawed? That is yet another point that maybe you should not put all your eggs in the basket just because an article confirms your bias.

Finally, your premise is lacking the substancial proof it needs to negate facts and reality. You said "Its data suggests that in most use-of-force situations, black Americans were “more likely than Whites to be targeted for force”, including the drawing and pointing of weapons, use of pepper spray, Tasers and hands." but somehow you think that because "when it came to lethal force, the mean use of force rate was nearly double for whites versus blacks." that somehow that supports your claim that systemic racism doesn't exist. George Floyd was killed, not by lethal force, but by hands (rather knees), so that blows your argument out of the water that only lethal force dictates the lack of systemic racism. Everthing you have posted so far, the profiling, the claiming of criminal rate is justification for profiling or being stopped, etc, only proves that the police target citizens based on race, which is racist in it's implementation. Therefore systemic racism is alive and well in policing. Thank you for making my case.

MMC
06-07-2020, 06:50 AM
Again, you are arguing in a circle. You present authority figures that use stats in a way to make their point, whereas the same stats are used to make the point systemic racism is a real thing. Just because you post it from someone and expect everyone to accept it just because they said it, is an appeal to authority fallacy. Furthermore, if the "Jersey turnpike survey" is the end-all to support your position on systemic racism, why does the government's study not show the same data where blacks speed 2x more than whites? If it is happening in Jersey, then it should be happening everywhere. Is it because maybe it's an outlier or is it because the data methodology was flawed? That is yet another point that maybe you should not put all your eggs in the basket just because an article confirms your bias.

Finally, your premise is lacking the substancial proof it needs to negate facts and reality. You said "Its data suggests that in most use-of-force situations, black Americans were “more likely than Whites to be targeted for force”, including the drawing and pointing of weapons, use of pepper spray, Tasers and hands." but somehow you think that because "when it came to lethal force, the mean use of force rate was nearly double for whites versus blacks." that somehow that supports your claim that systemic racism doesn't exist. George Floyd was killed, not by lethal force, but by hands (rather knees), so that blows your argument out of the water that only lethal force dictates the lack of systemic racism. Everthing you have posted so far, the profiling, the claiming of criminal rate is justification for profiling or being stopped, etc, only proves that the police target citizens based on race, which is racist in it's implementation. Therefore systemic racism is alive and well in policing. Thank you for making my case.



Your argument is debunked by the DOJ and the National Academy of Sciences. Their final conclusions is there is no systemic racism by cops against blacks. It doesn't matter about how you or I arguing all the other studies and looking for flaws in each study. The Bottomline there is no systemic racism by Cops against blacks.
Moreover if there was Systemic racism by Cops then it would be in the FBI. Intelligence agencies. Armed Forces etc etc.


There is no way to truly measure racism throughout the years, which is necessary in creating a relationship between racism and economic inequality. Over time, the gap has only widened, and I strongly doubt that America is more racist now than it was under Jim Crow. In fact, under Jim Crow laws, blacks were escaping poverty at a rate much faster than they were after the 1960’s explosion in welfare spending and affirmative action policies.


Sowell describes this perfectly in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies,


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5daNMXer2UQ&feature=emb_title


Systemic racism by Cops against blacks has been debunked. Perhaps you can say there use to be. But not in this day and age.


Furthermore. Mac Donald and her study backs the DOJ and the National Academy of Sciences. No evidence by the left has debunked Mac Donald nor the DOJ and the National Academy of Sciences. You thinking you can is an exercise in futility. If you could, you would be famous.

MMC
06-07-2020, 07:00 AM
This is what you said..."Considering most of New York City is Black and Latino" I showed you that is false, Black, Latino, and Asian combined is a slim majority over whites. Whites still outnumber black and Latino.

Then you said this..."Rather it was applied in High Crime areas which in New York tend to be disproportionately Black and Latino"...it can't be "disproportionate" if the census accuratly reports the numbers.

So far you have not come close to supporting your premise, you pick a couple of outliers that use statistics to try and paint something that isn't true, then when I challenge you on them, you just repeat what you've already posted. Even the words you use to defend your argument only strengthens mine because you attempt to make it about the police having "cause" to profile based upon the crime rate of blacks, which laughingly proves that systemic racism is used by the police.

Yet you didn't show I was false. You used the 2010 Census. Here is what you said.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2882730#post2882730) But it being a moral question only strengthens the argument that the police are exhibiting systemic racism. Plus, I don't think your assertion about the demographics of NYC is accurate, according to the 2010 census, Whites made up 44.6%, Blacks 27%, and Hispanics 28.6%. (USC) However, moving on...in this study, it determined that..."The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more." (Ross) which puts it at odds with your original source. So, at this moment we have conflicting data sets in regards to the question of if there is systemic racism in the police, but based upon the additional sources I provided, it proves that systemic racism exists in police procedures.

United States Census. 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data NYC. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning...sf1_dp_nyc.pdf (https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/planning-level/nyc-population/census2010/t_sf1_dp_nyc.pdf)
Ross, Cody T. PLOS ONE. 2015. A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0141854 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854)


That was your response to my saying that Blacks and Latinos make up the majority of the Population of NYC.

Now you don't seem to read so well.


Non-Hispanic Whites Are Now a ... - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html)

https://www.nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/)/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html
Mar 28, 2011 · For the first time, black, Hispanic and Asian residents of New York City and its suburbs are a majority of the metropolitan area’s more than 19 million residents, according to the 2010 census …


So no.....you didn't prove that was false.

Safety
06-07-2020, 11:40 PM
Your argument is debunked by the DOJ and the National Academy of Sciences. Their final conclusions is there is no systemic racism by cops against blacks. It doesn't matter about how you or I arguing all the other studies and looking for flaws in each study. The Bottomline there is no systemic racism by Cops against blacks.
Moreover if there was Systemic racism by Cops then it would be in the FBI. Intelligence agencies. Armed Forces etc etc.


There is no way to truly measure racism throughout the years, which is necessary in creating a relationship between racism and economic inequality. Over time, the gap has only widened, and I strongly doubt that America is more racist now than it was under Jim Crow. In fact, under Jim Crow laws, blacks were escaping poverty at a rate much faster than they were after the 1960’s explosion in welfare spending and affirmative action policies.


Sowell describes this perfectly in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies,


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5daNMXer2UQ&feature=emb_title


Systemic racism by Cops against blacks has been debunked. Perhaps you can say there use to be. But not in this day and age.


Furthermore. Mac Donald and her study backs the DOJ and the National Academy of Sciences. No evidence by the left has debunked Mac Donald nor the DOJ and the National Academy of Sciences. You thinking you can is an exercise in futility. If you could, you would be famous.

Then let me be clear again, the fallacy you are undertaking does not prove systemic racism doesn't exist, all it does is show the sources you are using are cherry-picking statistics to formulate their point. The same data they are arguing and you are arguing, clearly shows that there is a systemic racism problem. The mere fact that police use race as a profile to target, harass, interact with someone, is exactly what systemic racism means. Either we are all individuals free to pursue the constitutional right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, or we are bound to only enjoy that right as long as someone, that shares the same skin color, doesn't act criminally. Sorry, but like I said earlier, so far you are only arguing to justify the use of systemic racism, not arguing to disprove it exists.

Safety
06-08-2020, 12:07 AM
Yet you didn't show I was false. You used the 2010 Census. Here is what you said.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2882730#post2882730) But it being a moral question only strengthens the argument that the police are exhibiting systemic racism. Plus, I don't think your assertion about the demographics of NYC is accurate, according to the 2010 census, Whites made up 44.6%, Blacks 27%, and Hispanics 28.6%. (USC) However, moving on...in this study, it determined that..."The results provide evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being {black, unarmed, and shot by police} is about 3.49 times the probability of being {white, unarmed, and shot by police} on average. Furthermore, the results of multi-level modeling show that there exists significant heterogeneity across counties in the extent of racial bias in police shootings, with some counties showing relative risk ratios of 20 to 1 or more." (Ross) which puts it at odds with your original source. So, at this moment we have conflicting data sets in regards to the question of if there is systemic racism in the police, but based upon the additional sources I provided, it proves that systemic racism exists in police procedures.

United States Census. 2010. 2010 Demographic Profile Data NYC. https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning...sf1_dp_nyc.pdf (https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/planning/download/pdf/planning-level/nyc-population/census2010/t_sf1_dp_nyc.pdf)
Ross, Cody T. PLOS ONE. 2015. A Multi-Level Bayesian Analysis of Racial Bias in Police Shootings... https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ar...l.pone.0141854 (https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0141854)


That was your response to my saying that Blacks and Latinos make up the majority of the Population of NYC.

Now you don't seem to read so well.


Non-Hispanic Whites Are Now a ... - The New York Times (https://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html)

https://www.nytimes.com (http://www.nytimes.com/)/2011/03/28/nyregion/28nycensus.html
Mar 28, 2011 · For the first time, black, Hispanic and Asian residents of New York City and its suburbs are a majority of the metropolitan area’s more than 19 million residents, according to the 2010 census …


So no.....you didn't prove that was false.

Sigh, you were trying to make a correlation that "stop and frisk" was not racist because NYC was majority black and Hispanic. If that was the case, then it never would have stood up in court, all the defense had to say was "it's not racist because the majority of the population was black and Hispanic." Yet the simple fact that because police were targeting people based upon them being black and Hispanic and no other reason, (since we are not at a point in society where "pre-crime" is a thing) was why it was deemed racist. Hence systemic racism being proved once again.

MMC
06-08-2020, 06:35 AM
Sigh, you were trying to make a correlation that "stop and frisk" was not racist because NYC was majority black and Hispanic. If that was the case, then it never would have stood up in court, all the defense had to say was "it's not racist because the majority of the population was black and Hispanic." Yet the simple fact that because police were targeting people based upon them being black and Hispanic and no other reason, (since we are not at a point in society where "pre-crime" is a thing) was why it was deemed racist. Hence systemic racism being proved once again.

Wrong again.....the disparity doesn't prove Systemic Racism.

The Defense didn't argue about race. They argued that the policy was directed at High Crime areas. Which they even stated they pulled 66k weapons off the streets.


There is no Systemic racism with Cops being against Blacks.


DOJ validates that. National Academy of Sciences validates that. Leading Blacks in the Nation have debunked the lie. Whom better to humiliate those Blacks that believe in Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks.


You have lost on this issue.


You should have stuck with the simple and said there are people who are racist. As that is certainly a fact.

Safety
06-08-2020, 07:22 AM
Wrong again.....the disparity doesn't prove Systemic Racism.

The Defense didn't argue about race. They argued that the policy was directed at High Crime areas. Which they even stated they pulled 66k weapons off the streets.


There is no Systemic racism with Cops being against Blacks.


DOJ validates that. National Academy of Sciences validates that. Leading Blacks in the Nation have debunked the lie. Whom better to humiliate those Blacks that believe in Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks.


You have lost on this issue.


You should have stuck with the simple and said there are people who are racist. As that is certainly a fact.

What proves systemic racism and in this case, with LEOs, is the policies such as "stop and frisk". Take note, stop and frisk is not the only policy that proves the systemic racism, but based upon "how" the departments implemented the procedures, it is the text book example of what systemic racism is. Going back, you will notice how I presented it to you and let you argue on it, just so we can see if you were going to end up making my case. That is exactly what happened, you didn't argue that systemic racism doesn't exist, you argued justifications on its existance. Again, thanks.

"leading blacks in the nation"? Um...LoL

"whom better to humiliate those blacks that believe in systemic racism by cops against blacks"...I guess that really just says it all, now doesn't it.

I think it is safe to say that not only did you fail in disproving systemic racism, but you managed to prove it exists.

MMC
06-08-2020, 07:41 AM
No it doesn't...its like Sowell says. Disparities don't prove Systemic Racism. Especially with Police Policies. Stop and Frisk in NYC isn't a policy that was implemented thru all other Police Depts in the country. Not in County Police. Not in State police. Not in all other local Police Depts.


Oh I argued it and debunked your claim despite you not noticing how that was done.


Yes Sowell is one of the Top Social Theorists and Economists in the Country. What other Black Individual can compete with him? Oh and why hasn't one?


Of course humiliation from ones own race. Is the best humiliation of all.


I think the debate has shown that you actually don't know what Systemic racism is and why it isn't any sort of Norm for all Blacks with Cops.


The only thing I proved is that your disparity isn't Systemic racism and that there isn't Systemic racism against blacks. If there was.....it would be taking place in all Police Depts and all over the country.


Its quite funny that even the Atlantic in their in-depth article on the matter stated that Stop and frisk in NYC was a Disparity. Looks like you didn't get that message.

Safety
06-08-2020, 08:35 AM
No it doesn't...its like Sowell says. Disparities don't prove Systemic Racism. Especially with Police Policies. Stop and Frisk in NYC isn't a policy that was implemented thru all other Police Depts in the country. Not in County Police. Not in State police. Not in all other local Police Depts.


Oh I argued it and debunked your claim despite you not noticing how that was done.


Yes Sowell is one of the Top Social Theorists and Economists in the Country. What other Black Individual can compete with him? Oh and why hasn't one?


Of course humiliation from ones own race. Is the best humiliation of all.


I think the debate has shown that you actually don't know what Systemic racism is and why it isn't any sort of Norm for all Blacks with Cops.


The only thing I proved is that your disparity isn't Systemic racism and that there isn't Systemic racism against blacks. If there was.....it would be taking place in all Police Depts and all over the country.


Its quite funny that even the Atlantic in their in-depth article on the matter stated that Stop and frisk in NYC was a Disparity. Looks like you didn't get that message.

I see the course of action you have set upon is to just double down and hope that if you speak loud enough it will make what you say relevant or correct. Subjective platitudes for someone because they say what you want to hear, is still subjective platitudes. At this point, you have exhausted your argument because you are back to where you were at the beginning, "Sowell, Elder says...." therefore it is true. Not to mention your fallacy in even suggesting that because they are also black, that more relevance must be placed upon their words...which is not only disturbing, but racist in nature. Finally, attempting to "rename" something in order to claim victory is not a new technique, it occurs a lot, especially in situations where a person has no further ideas on how to move forward to argue their case, so you calling systemic racism "disparity" is recognized and dismissed.

MMC
06-08-2020, 10:11 AM
I see the course of action you have set upon is to just double down and hope that if you speak loud enough it will make what you say relevant or correct. Subjective platitudes for someone because they say what you want to hear, is still subjective platitudes. At this point, you have exhausted your argument because you are back to where you were at the beginning, "Sowell, Elder says...." therefore it is true. Not to mention your fallacy in even suggesting that because they are also black, that more relevance must be placed upon their words...which is not only disturbing, but racist in nature. Finally, attempting to "rename" something in order to claim victory is not a new technique, it occurs a lot, especially in situations where a person has no further ideas on how to move forward to argue their case, so you calling systemic racism "disparity" is recognized and dismissed.

Systemic racism is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Wikipedia



Systemic racism theory today is alleged to, composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.


Now you know why it doesn't exist.


Oh and on a side note. Feagin wouldn't take Sowell on for a debate on his Theory.

You lose!

Safety
06-08-2020, 10:29 AM
Systemic racism is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Wikipedia



Systemic racism theory today is alleged to, composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.


Now you know why it doesn't exist.


Oh and on a side note. Feagin wouldn't take Sowell on for a debate on his Theory.

You lose!

Yea, no. A systemic issue is not something that one person can "debunk" and it is arrogant to think such. The issue has been ingrained in society for so long that not only are the orgins blurred, but people will just as soon call you a liar rather than accept the fact it exists. Seeing how you attempted to argue that systemic racism doesn't exist, then proceeded to justify the racist police procedures, only means you were not equipped for this debate.

MMC
06-08-2020, 11:21 AM
Yea, no. A systemic issue is not something that one person can "debunk" and it is arrogant to think such. The issue has been ingrained in society for so long that not only are the orgins blurred, but people will just as soon call you a liar rather than accept the fact it exists. Seeing how you attempted to argue that systemic racism doesn't exist, then proceeded to justify the racist police procedures, only means you were not equipped for this debate.

Uhm no!

Systemic racism theory today is alleged to, composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.


There is no overlapping, intersecting, practices of Systemic racism by Cops against blacks. Bottomline its just theory that the creator of that theory ran, hid from, rather than take on someone who could debunk him easily.


Actually that is what you and those who support Feagin's Theory do. Refusing to accept facts. Thinking you can apply the vague term of Systemic racism to this day and age.


Its not just one Person debunking Systemic racism. Its the DOJ, the National Academy of Sciences, Experts studying the Police. Universities. All of them coming up with a bottomline that there is no Systemic Racism.


Then you have the one of Top Social Theorists in the Country. Who happens to be black. Who called out the man who came up with the theory of Systemic racism. Only to have that man run, hide, and avoid debating his theory. For fear of it being debunked.


https://patriot.imgix.net/bfb21571b20fa2e70771f1425793355f99ba6906cf58f1532a eb7c001dce6a4d.jpg?auto=format
https://polination.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/booker-t-washington-quote.jpg

Safety
06-09-2020, 08:05 AM
Uhm no!

Systemic racism theory today is alleged to, composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.


There is no overlapping, intersecting, practices of Systemic racism by Cops against blacks. Bottomline its just theory that the creator of that theory ran, hid from, rather than take on someone who could debunk him easily.


Actually that is what you and those who support Feagin's Theory do. Refusing to accept facts. Thinking you can apply the vague term of Systemic racism to this day and age.


Its not just one Person debunking Systemic racism. Its the DOJ, the National Academy of Sciences, Experts studying the Police. Universities. All of them coming up with a bottomline that there is no Systemic Racism.


Then you have the one of Top Social Theorists in the Country. Who happens to be black. Who called out the man who came up with the theory of Systemic racism. Only to have that man run, hide, and avoid debating his theory. For fear of it being debunked.


https://patriot.imgix.net/bfb21571b20fa2e70771f1425793355f99ba6906cf58f1532a eb7c001dce6a4d.jpg?auto=format
https://polination.files.wordpress.com/2015/05/booker-t-washington-quote.jpg

Um...you have identified numerous instances where the police targeted civilians based on nothing but race, then when that helped my argument, you attempted to change the goalposts to make it about disparity and crime rate. You take the data gathered from the DOJ, National Acadamy of Sciences, and experts on police, and find one subheading that can be manipulated to your agenda and declare that those entities have "debunked" something, yet the hundreds of experts and researchers on the subject use the same data to show systemic racism exists. There is a reason people like Elder, Sowell, and Thomas exist, and it is not because they are the brightest, smartest, or most intelligent, but they do serve a purpose for those that only look to find someone's skin color a reason to listen to their opinion.

MMC
06-09-2020, 09:18 AM
Um...you have identified numerous instances where the police targeted civilians based on nothing but race, then when that helped my argument, you attempted to change the goalposts to make it about disparity and crime rate. You take the data gathered from the DOJ, National Acadamy of Sciences, and experts on police, and find one subheading that can be manipulated to your agenda and declare that those entities have "debunked" something, yet the hundreds of experts and researchers on the subject use the same data to show systemic racism exists. There is a reason people like Elder, Sowell, and Thomas exist, and it is not because they are the brightest, smartest, or most intelligent, but they do serve a purpose for those that only look to find someone's skin color a reason to listen to their opinion.

No it wasn't targeted by nothing but race.


There is no overlapping, intersecting, practices of Systemic racism by Cops against blacks.....snip~


There is no overlapping intersecting practices of Systemic racism by Cops. Hence County Sheriffs, State Police. States Attorneys Office. Police Depts with minorities. No codependent institutions of racism there. They aren't overlapping. All police depts. aren't practicing the same policy. Don't have the same practices. Don't have the same ideas nor the same beliefs. Some don't even have some crimes that other police depts. must deal with.


Moreover.....when police dept have minorities that make up damn near half the dept or more than half. Ends any notion of Systemic racism existing in police depts.


Also.....Police are trained to deal with groups of people that commit certain crimes. Such as mass murderers. Which that demographic is mostly white. Then there are bombings. Are cops racist in how they must deal with Bombings and what type of Bombings are committed?
As of Right now.....what ethnicity is known for suicide bombers. Are they Black, White or Latino? Whats the answer Safety? Do you even know? Who commits bombings that aren't suicide bombings? What ethnicity? Hint.....they aren't Black or Latino. Then there is arson.


Yes there is a reason people like Elder Sowell and Williams exist. They exist to humiliate race baiters and people that believe in the spoon fed lies due to their ignorance and lack of education.(Taught by who) That being said......Sowell is one of the brightest, smartest, and most intelligent Social Theorists of this day and age. That is why over 98% of the left can't debunk him. That is why most they wont even debate him. Elder isn't a Social Theorist nor an economist. Just a former attorney. Yet he tears up the left, their media, and any Race baiting Blacks. Like Sharpton, Jackson. Its why the Media types wont invite him on their shows. Except every once in a blue moon. Its why Democrats....run, hide, and do all they can to avoid him. Refusing to even be interviewed by him. Refusing to back thoughts, ideas, concepts, even their policy. Most of the left who is somebody gives Elder props. Even you should know why that is.


https://cdn.geckoandfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/racism-racism-quotes-11.jpg



Of course Sowell lived during the era of Jim Crows laws. Knows racism first hand. In which the majority of you leftists. Those such as yourself. Never experienced it as it was. All you can possibly do is....read about it. Dream about it, and then fantasize that Systemic racism exists today. All based on a few individuals who are prejudice.

Safety
06-09-2020, 01:41 PM
No it wasn't targeted by nothing but race.


There is no overlapping, intersecting, practices of Systemic racism by Cops against blacks.....snip~


There is no overlapping intersecting practices of Systemic racism by Cops. Hence County Sheriffs, State Police. States Attorneys Office. Police Depts with minorities. No codependent institutions of racism there. They aren't overlapping. All police depts. aren't practicing the same policy. Don't have the same practices. Don't have the same ideas nor the same beliefs. Some don't even have some crimes that other police depts. must deal with.


Moreover.....when police dept have minorities that make up damn near half the dept or more than half. Ends any notion of Systemic racism existing in police depts.


Also.....Police are trained to deal with groups of people that commit certain crimes. Such as mass murderers. Which that demographic is mostly white. Then there are bombings. Are cops racist in how they must deal with Bombings and what type of Bombings are committed?
As of Right now.....what ethnicity is known for suicide bombers. Are they Black, White or Latino? Whats the answer Safety? Do you even know? Who commits bombings that aren't suicide bombings? What ethnicity? Hint.....they aren't Black or Latino. Then there is arson.


Yes there is a reason people like Elder Sowell and Williams exist. They exist to humiliate race baiters and people that believe in the spoon fed lies due to their ignorance and lack of education.(Taught by who) That being said......Sowell is one of the brightest, smartest, and most intelligent Social Theorists of this day and age. That is why over 98% of the left can't debunk him. That is why most they wont even debate him. Elder isn't a Social Theorist nor an economist. Just a former attorney. Yet he tears up the left, their media, and any Race baiting Blacks. Like Sharpton, Jackson. Its why the Media types wont invite him on their shows. Except every once in a blue moon. Its why Democrats....run, hide, and do all they can to avoid him. Refusing to even be interviewed by him. Refusing to back thoughts, ideas, concepts, even their policy. Most of the left who is somebody gives Elder props. Even you should know why that is.


https://cdn.geckoandfly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/racism-racism-quotes-11.jpg



Of course Sowell lived during the era of Jim Crows laws. Knows racism first hand. In which the majority of you leftists. Those such as yourself. Never experienced it as it was. All you can possibly do is....read about it. Dream about it, and then fantasize that Systemic racism exists today. All based on a few individuals who are prejudice.

Circles again. When a policy uses race as a metric to target citizens, regardless of the data you use to justify it, it is a racist policy. It doesn’t matter how many Sowells or Elders you try to find to argue against it, does not change that basic fact. Furthermore, the fallacy that just because a department has minorities on the force it absolves any systemic racism of that department, is just that, a fallacy. I mean, that is dismissed because you made it a point to seek out blacks such as Sowell and Elder, simply because they aligned their ideology with yours, and you were hoping nothing will be challenged because they were black. That effort has been noted and proves that systemic racism is alive and well.

MMC
06-09-2020, 05:48 PM
Circles again. When a policy uses race as a metric to target citizens, regardless of the data you use to justify it, it is a racist policy. It doesn’t matter how many Sowells or Elders you try to find to argue against it, does not change that basic fact. Furthermore, the fallacy that just because a department has minorities on the force it absolves any systemic racism of that department, is just that, a fallacy. I mean, that is dismissed because you made it a point to seek out blacks such as Sowell and Elder, simply because they aligned their ideology with yours, and you were hoping nothing will be challenged because they were black. That effort has been noted and proves that systemic racism is alive and well.

Yes you are running around in circles and no it isn't a racist policy because ethnicity is one of the metrics used in truth. Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. That coming from the one who came up with the concept and terminology. Which you haven't proved any of that. You tried to use some disparity and that was all it was.

The only fallacy is your argument about Sowell and Elder. Because you can't get around their basic facts. They aren't dismissed because they are black and align their ideology with mine. Their debunking of the falsehood of systemic racism starts with who created the concept and the terminology. Sowell because he lived in the time of Systemic racism. Elder coming in Right before the Civil Rights movement. So your take is just completely laughable when it comes to Sowell and Elder. Just because they are Black and disagree with you and your argument doesn't make them into any sort of fallacy. You even trying to play on them being a fallacy validates that you can't get around the truth and have lost the debate. Attempting to make them, the messengers.....the issue.


Oh and I wasn't hoping that they couldn't be challenged. I knew they couldn't be challenged because the left has no one. That's no one out there Debunking them. Nor challenging them. So I definitely knew you couldn't. If you could, you would have and been famous. So again you are wrong about that and it is your fallacy about them that validates you struggling to prove that systemic racism exists. Which you followed thru and haven't.


Lastly, about minorities making up half or more of a police dept. It isn't false. As it came from reform. Due to the time of Jim Crow wherein Police depts were completely white. Furthermore.....once Democrats placed in a Minority or woman in their major urban cities. As the Police Chief or Police Commissioner. It was done so there couldn't be Systemic racism in the force. You trying to ignore or deny that aspect is only due to the fact that it by itself along with Feagins stated social construct as to what that is.....destroys your argument and validates that there is no Systemic racism with Cops against blacks. No matter how you try to word or phrase a statement. Or try to play on what is said. Doesn't change up the fact. That there isn't any Systemic racism taking place today by cops against blacks.

Safety
06-09-2020, 08:23 PM
Yes you are running around in circles and no it isn't a racist policy because ethnicity is one of the metrics used in truth. Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. That coming from the one who came up with the concept and terminology. Which you haven't proved any of that. You tried to use some disparity and that was all it was.

The only fallacy is your argument about Sowell and Elder. Because you can't get around their basic facts. They aren't dismissed because they are black and align their ideology with mine. Their debunking of the falsehood of systemic racism starts with who created the concept and the terminology. Sowell because he lived in the time of Systemic racism. Elder coming in Right before the Civil Rights movement. So your take is just completely laughable when it comes to Sowell and Elder. Just because they are Black and disagree with you and your argument doesn't make them into any sort of fallacy. You even trying to play on them being a fallacy validates that you can't get around the truth and have lost the debate. Attempting to make them, the messengers.....the issue.


Oh and I wasn't hoping that they couldn't be challenged. I knew they couldn't be challenged because the left has no one. That's no one out there Debunking them. Nor challenging them. So I definitely knew you couldn't. If you could, you would have and been famous. So again you are wrong about that and it is your fallacy about them that validates you struggling to prove that systemic racism exists. Which you followed thru and haven't.


Lastly, about minorities making up half or more of a police dept. It isn't false. As it came from reform. Due to the time of Jim Crow wherein Police depts were completely white. Furthermore.....once Democrats placed in a Minority or woman in their major urban cities. As the Police Chief or Police Commissioner. It was done so there couldn't be Systemic racism in the force. You trying to ignore or deny that aspect is only due to the fact that it by itself along with Feagins stated social construct as to what that is.....destroys your argument and validates that there is no Systemic racism with Cops against blacks. No matter how you try to word or phrase a statement. Or try to play on what is said. Doesn't change up the fact. That there isn't any Systemic racism taking place today by cops against blacks.

LoL, you are making this too easy. First, it is clear you have no idea what systemic/institutional racism is, because you keep arguing about irrelevant metrics as it is part of the discussion. You are focused on attempting to invalidate "individual interactions" with law enforcement and then you try to suggest that because "x /=/ y, therefore it does not exist". Systemic/institutional racism refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems-level, taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions. These systems can include laws and regulations, but also unquestioned social systems. Systemic racism can stem from education, hiring practices, or access. The mere fact that you unknowingly made my point after the first post in the thread, is shadowed by how you were not cognizant enough to recognize you were engaging in fallacies which only strengthened my argument. Every time you attempted to justify WHY the police were using race as a profile to target a citizen, not only proved that systemic racism was present, but that it is also vastly widespread.

As for your nonsensical rebuttal about "systemic racism" only being a theory "discovered/created" by Feagins, I can only laugh at such ignorance. There have been numerous works discussing not only the validity of such, but also the effects it has on minorities.

MMC
06-10-2020, 07:12 AM
LoL, you are making this too easy. First, it is clear you have no idea what systemic/institutional racism is, because you keep arguing about irrelevant metrics as it is part of the discussion. You are focused on attempting to invalidate "individual interactions" with law enforcement and then you try to suggest that because "x /=/ y, therefore it does not exist". Systemic/institutional racism refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems-level, taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions. These systems can include laws and regulations, but also unquestioned social systems. Systemic racism can stem from education, hiring practices, or access. The mere fact that you unknowingly made my point after the first post in the thread, is shadowed by how you were not cognizant enough to recognize you were engaging in fallacies which only strengthened my argument. Every time you attempted to justify WHY the police were using race as a profile to target a citizen, not only proved that systemic racism was present, but that it is also vastly widespread.

As for your nonsensical rebuttal about "systemic racism" only being a theory "discovered/created" by Feagins, I can only laugh at such ignorance. There have been numerous works discussing not only the validity of such, but also the effects it has on minorities.

LMAO its hilarious that you still cant figure out how you lost this debate and why your lacking education doesn't allow you to comprehend what systemic racism is.

Systemic/institutional racism refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems-level, taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.....snip~


http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gif….. http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/funny.gif….. :smiley_ROFLMAO: Now that is just some plain ass silly and dumbshit. From the 65 Civil Rights acts until now.....reforms remember. Those concepts came from Black Leaders, black activists. Affecting every aspect of government and society. Duh!


LMAO white superiority captured in everyday thinking at a systems level taking in a big picture of how society operates. What a joke.....you must have forgot all of those Black and Latino politicians initiating legislation, getting it passed, and how that affects how society operates. From National to Local politics.

No I never made your point and that you still don't have the brain capacity to figure that out shows just why you are woefully inadequate to even debate this issue. Again, disparities don't make your case. Now you just doubled down on some clear stupidity with that crap about white superiority being captured in everyday thinking. The mere fact that you can't comprehend Black mayors, Black Governors, Black City Councils, Black AG's, Black Police Chiefs or Commissioners and Black Judges. Black Business owners and how they affect every aspect of society. Validates you have no idea of what Systemic racism is.....even after it has been described what it is and what would have to take place in order for it to exist.


Yes you laugh because you have no idea what systemic racism is. Just two words you heard and repeat. You had to drop the failed attempt to debunk Sowell and Elder. Knowing you couldn't do so. Uh, huh.....numerous works that discuss the validity of the social concept. Yet none of them or the creators of those numerous works were willing to take on Sowell to prove it exists.


At best, you can come with some exception to the norm and even that is debatable. Otherwise all you have is that there are some people who remain racist. Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. In which not once in this thread can you prove there is any of that taking place with Cops engaging in systemic racism against blacks.


Truly you shouldn't ever debate about Systemic racism and just stick to, there are people who are racist. As that is all you can ever prove. You have lost this debate.....and thanks for validating you have no idea as to what Systemic Racism is.







Again, in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.

Safety
06-10-2020, 09:09 AM
LMAO its hilarious that you still cant figure out how you lost this debate and why your lacking education doesn't allow you to comprehend what systemic racism is.

Systemic/institutional racism refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems-level, taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.....snip~


http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gif….. http://www.politicalwrinkles.com/images/smilies/funny.gif….. :smiley_ROFLMAO: Now that is just some plain ass silly and dumbshit. From the 65 Civil Rights acts until now.....reforms remember. Those concepts came from Black Leaders, black activists. Affecting every aspect of government and society. Duh!


LMAO white superiority captured in everyday thinking at a systems level taking in a big picture of how society operates. What a joke.....you must have forgot all of those Black and Latino politicians initiating legislation, getting it passed, and how that affects how society operates. From National to Local politics.

No I never made your point and that you still don't have the brain capacity to figure that out shows just why you are woefully inadequate to even debate this issue. Again, disparities don't make your case. Now you just doubled down on some clear stupidity with that crap about white superiority being captured in everyday thinking. The mere fact that you can't comprehend Black mayors, Black Governors, Black City Councils, Black AG's, Black Police Chiefs or Commissioners and Black Judges. Black Business owners and how they affect every aspect of society. Validates you have no idea of what Systemic racism is.....even after it has been described what it is and what would have to take place in order for it to exist.


Yes you laugh because you have no idea what systemic racism is. Just two words you heard and repeat. You had to drop the failed attempt to debunk Sowell and Elder. Knowing you couldn't do so. Uh, huh.....numerous works that discuss the validity of the social concept. Yet none of them or the creators of those numerous works were willing to take on Sowell to prove it exists.


At best, you can come with some exception to the norm and even that is debatable. Otherwise all you have is that there are some people who remain racist. Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. In which not once in this thread can you prove there is any of that taking place with Cops engaging in systemic racism against blacks.


Truly you shouldn't ever debate about Systemic racism and just stick to, there are people who are racist. As that is all you can ever prove. You have lost this debate.....and thanks for validating you have no idea as to what Systemic Racism is.







Again, in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.


I guess you lasted as long as you could before resorting to your usual posting style. Here are the takeaways...I explained to you the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism, you respond with appeal to authority fallacies about what they think systemic/institutionalized racism is. I repeat the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism, you respond with justification of why the police exhibit systemic/institutionalized racism in their enforcement-targeting. I once again repeated the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism and showed how you confirmed the use of systemic/institutionalized racism by posting data that reflects racist policies implemented by the police, then you attempted to divert the topic in yet another appeal to authority by asserting Sowell is the final arbiter of deciding what is systemic/institutionalized racism. You also invoked the claim that systemic racism was only a theory created by Feagin, regardless of numerous studies and works prior to him writing a book in 2006. I responded with a ha-ha, and proceeded to point out how your entire argument was invalidated the moment you proved the police implemented, operated, and defended racist policies. I also referenced your error in attributing the unwillingness to confront people like Elder and Sowell as a means that they are correct, as another fallacy not supported by facts nor common sense. You responded with juvenile insults and emojis.

Point after point and response after response, I have countered your argument, highlighted your errors, and supported my position. The notion that I have lost this debate is illogical and borders on willful dishonesty.

MMC
06-10-2020, 09:44 AM
I guess you lasted as long as you could before resorting to your usual posting style. Here are the takeaways...I explained to you the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism, you respond with appeal to authority fallacies about what they think systemic/institutionalized racism is. I repeat the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism, you respond with justification of why the police exhibit systemic/institutionalized racism in their enforcement-targeting. I once again repeated the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism and showed how you confirmed the use of systemic/institutionalized racism by posting data that reflects racist policies implemented by the police, then you attempted to divert the topic in yet another appeal to authority by asserting Sowell is the final arbiter of deciding what is systemic/institutionalized racism. You also invoked the claim that systemic racism was only a theory created by Feagin, regardless of numerous studies and works prior to him writing a book in 2006. I responded with a ha-ha, and proceeded to point out how your entire argument was invalidated the moment you proved the police implemented, operated, and defended racist policies. I also referenced your error in attributing the unwillingness to confront people like Elder and Sowell as a means that they are correct, as another fallacy not supported by facts nor common sense. You responded with juvenile insults and emojis.

Point after point and response after response, I have countered your argument, highlighted your errors, and supported my position. The notion that I have lost this debate is illogical and borders on willful dishonesty.

Yes I lasted long enough to debunk your bullshit. Here is the final line. You lost when you came up with that bullshit about Superior white thinking.

Bottomline. DOJ, National Academy of Sciences, Universities, Experts on Law Enforcement and Thomas Sowell. Debunk your bullshit.


Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. Which you failed to prove. You countered nothing.


Oh and concerning my posting. You get what you give. But I doubt you can comprehend that. Just like you not comprehending what Systemic racism is and only repeating what you hear.


Btw if you doubt that you lost. Take a poll of those that have been checking it out. But as usual you will cry and whine about the Right outnumbering you leftists.


Lastly you had no one that countered Sowell. But then there isn't anyone of your so called sources that took him on in Systemic racism. Economics.....maybe. But not Systemic Racism.


Chalk it up as a loss for you. You should have researched rather than just off the top of your head.


One last thing thanks for the laugh about that Superior white thing in everyday thinking at systems levels. You must have thought you were displaying smart powers with that terminology. You were wrong. Don't forget I displayed that uhm smart power in the thread that is open.

Safety
06-10-2020, 10:04 AM
Yes I lasted long enough to debunk your bullshit. Here is the final line. You lost when you came up with that bullshit about Superior white thinking.

Bottomline. DOJ, National Academy of Sciences, Universities, Experts on Law Enforcement and Thomas Sowell. Debunk your bullshit.


Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors. Which you failed to prove. You countered nothing.


Oh and concerning my posting. You get what you give. But I doubt you can comprehend that. Just like you not comprehending what Systemic racism is and only repeating what you hear.


Btw if you doubt that you lost. Take a poll of those that have been checking it out. But as usual you will cry and whine about the Right outnumbering you leftists.


Lastly you had no one that countered Sowell. But then there isn't anyone of your so called sources that took him on in Systemic racism. Economics.....maybe. But not Systemic Racism.


Chalk it up as a loss for you. You should have researched rather than just off the top of your head.


One last thing thanks for the laugh about that Superior white thing in everyday thinking at systems levels. You must have thought you were displaying smart powers with that terminology. You were wrong. Don't forget I displayed that uhm smart power in the thread that is open.

Clearly you display your frustration at the notion that I have not only countered all of your spurious claims, but I did so without resorting to petty, juvenile insults. One of the basic criteria to engage in discussions in this forum is the understanding that this is supposed to be an area free from the sort of distractions you displayed in your last couple of responses. I accept your concession on this topic, it must have been a daunting endeavor nonetheless, as I witnessed the slow degradation of valid points you were offering, to the final result of total breakdown.

The point still stands, systemic racism is alive and real.

MMC
06-10-2020, 10:39 AM
Clearly you display your frustration at the notion that I have not only countered all of your spurious claims, but I did so without resorting to petty, juvenile insults. One of the basic criteria to engage in discussions in this forum is the understanding that this is supposed to be an area free from the sort of distractions you displayed in your last couple of responses. I accept your concession on this topic, it must have been a daunting endeavor nonetheless, as I witnessed the slow degradation of valid points you were offering, to the final result of total breakdown.

The point still stands, systemic racism is alive and real.

Clearly it was you that was frustrated by Sowell. Since you couldn't debunk him. You countered nothing. Oh you did so without resorting to petty insults eh?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2886271#post2886271)
As for your nonsensical rebuttal …..snip~ You shouldn't assume that you would be given the benefit of doubt when trying to insult my intelligence.


There is no way to truly measure racism throughout the years, which is necessary in creating a relationship between racism and economic inequality. Over time, the gap has only widened, and I strongly doubt that America is more racist now than it was under Jim Crow. In fact, under Jim Crow laws, blacks were escaping poverty at a rate much faster than they were after the 1960’s explosion in welfare spending and affirmative action policies.


Sowell describes this perfectly in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies,


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~


Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.


You have proved that none exists. All you have done is ignored the information, data, stats, and links that debunked your version of Systemic racism. Calling Sowell a fallacy. Talking about there are plenty of sources to back your play and not producing any knowing they couldn't debunk Sowell.


Clearly your belief doesn't change the reality from what it is.


The bottomline is there is no Systemic racism today. So in truth you really don't have a point. Just a belief. Just an Opinion. One which facts, and the truth overcomes.




Then with Systemic racism by cops against blacks. You failed to prove anything. Other than coming up with an exception to the norm

Safety
06-10-2020, 10:56 AM
Clearly it was you that was frustrated by Sowell. Since you couldn't debunk him. You countered nothing. Oh you did so without resorting to petty insults eh?

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2886271#post2886271)
As for your nonsensical rebuttal …..snip~ You shouldn't assume that you would be given the benefit of doubt when trying to insult my intelligence.


There is no way to truly measure racism throughout the years, which is necessary in creating a relationship between racism and economic inequality. Over time, the gap has only widened, and I strongly doubt that America is more racist now than it was under Jim Crow. In fact, under Jim Crow laws, blacks were escaping poverty at a rate much faster than they were after the 1960’s explosion in welfare spending and affirmative action policies.


Sowell describes this perfectly in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies,


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~


Again in order for there to be systemic racism, it would have to be composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.


You have proved that none exists. All you have done is ignored the information, data, stats, and links that debunked your version of Systemic racism. Calling Sowell a fallacy. Talking about there are plenty of sources to back your play and not producing any knowing they couldn't debunk Sowell.


Clearly your belief doesn't change the reality from what it is.


The bottomline is there is no Systemic racism today. So in truth you really don't have a point. Just a belief. Just an Opinion. One which facts, and the truth overcomes.




Then with Systemic racism by cops against blacks. You failed to prove anything. Other than coming up with an exception to the norm

It is not my job nor inclination to "prove" something you incorrectly "think" defines a term. Systemic racism does not require "composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors." It is defined by this.."The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their color, culture, or ethnic origin. It can be seen or detected in processes, attitudes, and behavior which amount to discrimination through prejudice, ignorance, thoughtlessness and racist stereotyping which disadvantage minority ethnic people" and "is a form of racism expressed in the practice of social and political institutions. It is reflected in disparities regarding wealth, income, criminal justice, employment, housing, health care, political power, and education, among other factors."

So, as I posted at the beginning of this debate, everything you have argued in this discussion was not in light of proving systemic racism doesn't exist, but rather justifications for its existence. By that very metric, you have proved not only that it exists, but that people will accept it because of their bias. I mean, there isn't much that can be said when your opponent in a debate inadvertently makes your case for you.

MMC
06-10-2020, 11:24 AM
Systemic racism does not require "composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors." ….snip~

:rollseyes:


Systemic racism is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Wikipedia


Sorry you don't get to make up your own version of what systemic racism is today. Oh and clearly you haven't proved Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks.

Safety
06-10-2020, 12:03 PM
Systemic racism does not require "composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors." ….snip~

:rollseyes:


Systemic racism is a sociological theory for understanding the role of race and racism in United States society developed by Joe Feagin and presented in his book Racist America: Roots, Current Realities, & Future Reparations. Feagin uses historical evidence and demographic statistics to create a theory that asserts that the United States was founded in racism as the Constitution classified black people as the property of whites, and that this legal recognition of slavery is a cornerstone of a racist social system in which resources and rights were and are unjustly given to white people, and unjustly denied black people.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Wikipedia


Sorry you don't get to make up your own version of what systemic racism is today. Oh and clearly you haven't proved Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks.




So let me get this straight...I provided you the definition of what systemic/institutionalized racism is, and your rebuttal is to insist it is what an author wrote about in a book titled "Racist America"? Interesting...well not really. Systemic/institutionalized racism is not a theory, but a fact. You see, facts and theories are different things, simply not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty, facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when people attempt to debate rival theories to explain them. So you see, this is why I call your preemptive cheer for victory a little premature because, in your attempt to debate theory, you inadvertently just ended up proving a fact.

MMC
06-10-2020, 12:48 PM
So let me get this straight...I provided you the definition of what systemic/institutionalized racism is, and your rebuttal is to insist it is what an author wrote about in a book titled "Racist America"? Interesting...well not really. Systemic/institutionalized racism is not a theory, but a fact. You see, facts and theories are different things, simply not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty, facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when people attempt to debate rival theories to explain them. So you see, this is why I call your preemptive cheer for victory a little premature because, in your attempt to debate theory, you inadvertently just ended up proving a fact.

Well you provided one definition. Although you forgot a couple very important parts. Highlighted.

The phrase "systemic racism" is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help others.


Of course Feagins Theory comes straight from the definition of Systemic Racism.....which as Sowell acknowledged. Was in the past. Yet is not today. Due to those parts highlighted. In the Past ALL policies and practices were entrenched in institutions and they were composed of intersecting, overlapping, and co-dependent racist institutions. In which they harmed certain racial groups while helping other racial groups. Like Cops and the Judicial System. Where Police Depts were racist, the Prosecutors office and Judges were racist. The entire System/Institution. Intersected and overlapping. Helping Whites over Blacks.


Whereas today all institutions aren't racist. Nor are they intersected or overlapping. Most importantly, the policies and practices of today are not made to help one racial group over another.


Example Cops. Cops are not Systemically racist towards blacks while helping some other race. Not to come out on top of Blacks. To Get Over on Blacks. Some other race being privileged over blacks.


Btw.....you do know that Feagin is White, Correct?

Safety
06-10-2020, 01:56 PM
Well you provided one definition. Although you forgot a couple very important parts. Highlighted.

The phrase "systemic racism" is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help others.


Of course Feagins Theory comes straight from the definition of Systemic Racism.....which as Sowell acknowledged. Was in the past. Yet is not today. Due to those parts highlighted. In the Past ALL policies and practices were entrenched in institutions and they were composed of intersecting, overlapping, and co-dependent racist institutions. In which they harmed certain racial groups while helping other racial groups. Like Cops and the Judicial System. Where Police Depts were racist, the Prosecutors office and Judges were racist. The entire System/Institution. Intersected and overlapping. Helping Whites over Blacks.


Whereas today all institutions aren't racist. Nor are they intersected or overlapping. Most importantly, the policies and practices of today are not made to help one racial group over another.


Example Cops. Cops are not Systemically racist towards blacks while helping some other race. Not to come out on top of Blacks. To Get Over on Blacks. Some other race being privileged over blacks.


Btw.....you do know that Feagin is White, Correct?

Not necessarily. I do not need to identify or show every individual case of racism in order to prove it exists or that it's a problem. In fact, why would I need to show more evidence when you have provided more than is needed to prove it exists? Since the question was asked why I combined systemic and institutionalized, it means the same thing, just that institutionalized was a phrase coined earlier than systemic. It is no different than saying terrorist acts and acts of terror. It is a red herring to suggest that a quid pro quo must be met in order to engage in systemic/institutionalized racism, the mere fact that it exists automatically infers any action taken at the expense of one is in light of the other. If your argument held any merit, then your comment "was in the past" would mean we would not see any indication of systemic/institutionalized racism today, and nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, even your next comment "you do know that Feagin is White" only goes to show your mindset as to what is really driving your premise.

MMC
06-10-2020, 03:42 PM
Not necessarily. I do not need to identify or show every individual case of racism in order to prove it exists or that it's a problem. In fact, why would I need to show more evidence when you have provided more than is needed to prove it exists? Since the question was asked why I combined systemic and institutionalized, it means the same thing, just that institutionalized was a phrase coined earlier than systemic. It is no different than saying terrorist acts and acts of terror. It is a red herring to suggest that a quid pro quo must be met in order to engage in systemic/institutionalized racism, the mere fact that it exists automatically infers any action taken at the expense of one is in light of the other. If your argument held any merit, then your comment "was in the past" would mean we would not see any indication of systemic/institutionalized racism today, and nothing could be further from the truth. I mean, even your next comment "you do know that Feagin is White" only goes to show your mindset as to what is really driving your premise.

You are the one saying that there is Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks. Not me. And none of my answers validates your point. If you took it that way then you have misinterpreted what was said.

Well it was in the past and by ALL institutions. All Intersecting, overlapping, thru policies practices and behavior. Designed to help whites at the sake of blacks. Not today. Not even if you use the word institutional. There is no law or government entity explicitly discriminating against minorities in modern day America.

Safety
06-10-2020, 09:35 PM
You are the one saying that there is Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks. Not me. And none of my answers validates your point. If you took it that way then you have misinterpreted what was said.

Well it was in the past and by ALL institutions. All Intersecting, overlapping, thru policies practices and behavior. Designed to help whites at the sake of blacks. Not today. Not even if you use the word institutional. There is no law or government entity explicitly discriminating against minorities in modern day America.

You started this debate by wanting to discuss a topic you already created a thread about. Your opening post was talking about there not being systemic racism by police. You figured that since you agreed with a couple of black people, that it would make your argument easier. As you found out, not only is that logic flawed, but it turned out to be a miscalculation on your part. Systemic racism exists in police, the judicial system, the prison system, education, etc., and because you share the same belief that “only individual racism exists”, you fail to consider that individuals are what makes up those institutions. Let me give you an example... there are about three or four responses from you pertaining to qualifying the argument that systemic racism doesn’t exist, sourced by Elder and Sowell, strictly because you had it in your mind that nobody would be able to disagree with either of them because they are black (your words). That type of thinking is exactly what perpetuates the systemic racism in society. There does not have to be a law or government entity with a policy established that says “discriminate against minorities” for the law or government entity to discriminate against minorities. They can do shit like “redlining” or “redistricting” to accomplish what they need to accomplish. They can do shit like a modern day poll tax or implement racist procedures like “stop and frisk” to accomplish what they need to accomplish. And all the while, they have their “out” by having people justify their actions by calling it “disparity” or “crime rate”. It really is no different than a plantation owner using a black man as a foreman to control his slaves.

MMC
06-11-2020, 06:25 AM
You started this debate by wanting to discuss a topic you already created a thread about. Your opening post was talking about there not being systemic racism by police. You figured that since you agreed with a couple of black people, that it would make your argument easier. As you found out, not only is that logic flawed, but it turned out to be a miscalculation on your part. Systemic racism exists in police, the judicial system, the prison system, education, etc., and because you share the same belief that “only individual racism exists”, you fail to consider that individuals are what makes up those institutions. Let me give you an example... there are about three or four responses from you pertaining to qualifying the argument that systemic racism doesn’t exist, sourced by Elder and Sowell, strictly because you had it in your mind that nobody would be able to disagree with either of them because they are black (your words). That type of thinking is exactly what perpetuates the systemic racism in society. There does not have to be a law or government entity with a policy established that says “discriminate against minorities” for the law or government entity to discriminate against minorities. They can do shit like “redlining” or “redistricting” to accomplish what they need to accomplish. They can do shit like a modern day poll tax or implement racist procedures like “stop and frisk” to accomplish what they need to accomplish. And all the while, they have their “out” by having people justify their actions by calling it “disparity” or “crime rate”. It really is no different than a plantation owner using a black man as a foreman to control his slaves.

No you assumed my agreeing with a couple of Black people that it would make my argument easier. Yes those 2 people are black. Yet only one of them lived during a time of Systemic racism. Despite that, I have posted up studies, research, reports, from various groups that state there is no systemic racism with cops against blacks.

Again Stop and Frisk is used by All Local Cops. Yet the policy isn't the same for all police depts. Which you used as a policy to say that the NYC Police Dept version of Stop and Frisk was racist. Yet it wasn't for all Local Police Dept. A Policy that all use and yet not ruled racist for any others. But NY City Police. Of course not used by State Police nor County Police.


Moreover I went by the facts that none on the left who is anybody of renown with the issue of race. Hasn't been able to debunk Sowell. Who has debunked Systemic racism. Not just Systemic racism by cops. But as a whole on Modern day society. A fact.....the truth. Also it is logical to use Black Leaders or those of renown when debating about racism against blacks. Especially one who lived during a time of Systemic racism.

If we were talking about racism against Latinos. Then it would be logical to use Leaders that are Latino and have lived thru Systemic racism. The same would be for Asians. If it was Whites then whites would be used. But here in this thread.....I have used a woman who is an expert when it comes to researching and studying police practices. I have used the fed Government. Universities. As well as the Academy of Sciences.


Again at best.....you can show there is racism committed by a small group of people. Solely being racists. Which is Not Systemic racism against Blacks.

Safety
06-11-2020, 08:14 AM
No you assumed my agreeing with a couple of Black people that it would make my argument easier. Yes those 2 people are black. Yet only one of them lived during a time of Systemic racism. Despite that, I have posted up studies, research, reports, from various groups that state there is no systemic racism with cops against blacks.

Again Stop and Frisk is used by All Local Cops. Yet the policy isn't the same for all police depts. Which you used as a policy to say that the NYC Police Dept version of Stop and Frisk was racist. Yet it wasn't for all Local Police Dept. A Policy that all use and yet not ruled racist for any others. But NY City Police. Of course not used by State Police nor County Police.


Moreover I went by the facts that none on the left who is anybody of renown with the issue of race. Hasn't been able to debunk Sowell. Who has debunked Systemic racism. Not just Systemic racism by cops. But as a whole on Modern day society. A fact.....the truth. Also it is logical to use Black Leaders or those of renown when debating about racism against blacks. Especially one who lived during a time of Systemic racism.

If we were talking about racism against Latinos. Then it would be logical to use Leaders that are Latino and have lived thru Systemic racism. The same would be for Asians. If it was Whites then whites would be used. But here in this thread.....I have used a woman who is an expert when it comes to researching and studying police practices. I have used the fed Government. Universities. As well as the Academy of Sciences.


Again at best.....you can show there is racism committed by a small group of people. Solely being racists. Which is Not Systemic racism against Blacks.

Oh, only one lived through a time of systemic racism, eh? Is the other one no longer with us?

No, you posted cherry-picked data from sources that other experts have used to confirm the existence of systemic racism.

No, not all states allow "stop and frisk", so your wrong there.

No, you went by cherry-picked facts with cherry-picked sources. You keep mentioning Sowell, because you limit yourself to only what confirms your bias. You speak in partisan terms, which additionally limits your ability to see reason outside of your subjective sphere. Once again, when you speak of using "black leaders" you are not including the hundreds of thousands that will not agree with Sowell, so your claim is disengenous. You introduce yet another fallacy that one has to have lived through a time of "systemic racism" in order to understand it, which is wrong on two accounts...one, being that a person had to have been alive at that point in history to understand history, is not only egregously ridiculous but fatuous to even say out loud. Two, since systemic racism is still present, it invalidates your argument completely.

I would like you to identify Latino Leaders, Asian Leaders, Black Leaders, and White Leaders. Can you please post their name and what makes them qualified to be labeled as their leader.

Standing by.

MMC
06-11-2020, 08:37 AM
Oh, only one lived through a time of systemic racism, eh? Is the other one no longer with us?

No, you posted cherry-picked data from sources that other experts have used to confirm the existence of systemic racism.

No, not all states allow "stop and frisk", so your wrong there.

No, you went by cherry-picked facts with cherry-picked sources. You keep mentioning Sowell, because you limit yourself to only what confirms your bias. You speak in partisan terms, which additionally limits your ability to see reason outside of your subjective sphere. Once again, when you speak of using "black leaders" you are not including the hundreds of thousands that will not agree with Sowell, so your claim is disengenous. You introduce yet another fallacy that one has to have lived through a time of "systemic racism" in order to understand it, which is wrong on two accounts...one, being that a person had to have been alive at that point in history to understand history, is not only egregously ridiculous but fatuous to even say out loud. Two, since systemic racism is still present, it invalidates your argument completely.

I would like you to identify Latino Leaders, Asian Leaders, Black Leaders, and White Leaders. Can you please post their name and what makes them qualified to be labeled as their leader.

Standing by.

Elder isn't old enough to have lived thru Jim Crow Laws.

No I didn't cherry pick anything since the rules don't allow you to copy and paste the whole article.


The overwhelming majority of Police Depts have a stop and frisk policy for Local Police.


Wrong again.....there is no cherry picking the final conclusions.


Oh the 100s of thousands that will not agree with Sowell. Yet wont take him on in debate. LMAO. The who is who of the leftness and not one of these 100k step up to the plate. Talk about being disingenuous. Where are they why cant they come out and play? I can understand why the logic of someone who lived thru systemic racism would be a problem for you. Would cause you so much discombobulation. As that someone just reinforces why there is no Systemic Racism today nor with Cops being against Blacks.


Leaders like Social Theorists, Religious Leaders, Historians to name a few. No we aren't going to get side tracked with the names of all the different leaders. Since systemic racism doesn't exist in this day and age. That is something you can research yourself.


Waiting for another deflection.

Safety
06-11-2020, 09:11 AM
Elder isn't old enough to have lived thru Jim Crow Laws.

No I didn't cherry pick anything since the rules don't allow you to copy and paste the whole article.


The overwhelming majority of Police Depts have a stop and frisk policy for Local Police.


Wrong again.....there is no cherry picking the final conclusions.


Oh the 100s of thousands that will not agree with Sowell. Yet wont take him on in debate. LMAO. The who is who of the leftness and not one of these 100k step up to the plate. Talk about being disingenuous. Where are they why cant they come out and play? I can understand why the logic of someone who lived thru systemic racism would be a problem for you. Would cause you so much discombobulation. As that someone just reinforces why there is no Systemic Racism today nor with Cops being against Blacks.


Leaders like Social Theorists, Religious Leaders, Historians to name a few. No we aren't going to get side tracked with the names of all the different leaders. Since systemic racism doesn't exist in this day and age. That is something you can research yourself.


Waiting for another deflection.

So to reflect where we are now, you still have failed to answer why someone has to be alive during your "description" of when systemic racism existed, you clearly do not understand what "cherry-picked" means, you have changed the goalposts from "Again Stop and Frisk is used by All Local Cops" to "overwhelming majority of Police Depts have a stop and frisk policy", you introduce yet another fallacy by insisting someone is the final arbiter of truth because nobody debates him, and you failed to list a single "Leader" after shoring up your position based upon that metric.

Maybe you need more time to gather up the required information to try again? I can let you have another shot at it if you think it would help.

MMC
06-11-2020, 09:41 AM
So to reflect where we are now, you still have failed to answer why someone has to be alive during your "description" of when systemic racism existed, you clearly do not understand what "cherry-picked" means, you have changed the goalposts from "Again Stop and Frisk is used by All Local Cops" to "overwhelming majority of Police Depts have a stop and frisk policy", you introduce yet another fallacy by insisting someone is the final arbiter of truth because nobody debates him, and you failed to list a single "Leader" after shoring up your position based upon that metric.

Maybe you need more time to gather up the required information to try again? I can let you have another shot at it if you think it would help.

So back to your deflection.....someone alive during the time of Systemic racism who is a Social Theorist on Race relations clearly would know what Actual Systemic racism is like. Experience remember. You know a Common sense thing. That clearly you should be able to think of on your own.

Clearly you do not comprehend what a Conclusion is.


Yes I had to change that due to New York and Philadelphia not having a stop and frisk policy. So again the vast majority of Police Depts have a stop and frisk policy.


It was you that said 100s of Thousands are out there. Yet no one to this date and time has stepped up and debunked Sowell. Not one has.


Yet I have talked about Sowell being a Black leader in plain view of anything you said. If you need to know who are other leaders of other races. Then research them.


So lets recap.....The DOJ, Universities, Experts on Police procedures and Police Depts and Sowell. All conclude there is no Systemic Racism today by Cops against Blacks. And you have nobody to debunk them. That is where you stand. Let me know when you can find someone to Debunk Sowell.

Safety
06-11-2020, 11:40 AM
So back to your deflection.....someone alive during the time of Systemic racism who is a Social Theorist on Race relations clearly would know what Actual Systemic racism is like. Experience remember. You know a Common sense thing. That clearly you should be able to think of on your own.

That would only be true if you subjectively select when systemic racism existed. Dismissed.


[COLOR=#800000]Clearly you do not comprehend what a Conclusion is.

That depends on whether the facts show the conclusion or whether the conclusion is based upon someone's interpretation of facts. I fully understand the former, and dismiss the latter.


[COLOR=#800000]Yes I had to change that due to New York and Philadelphia not having a stop and frisk policy. So again the vast majority of Police Depts have a stop and frisk policy.

You're still wrong, because there are many states that do not implement "Stop and frisk".


[COLOR=#800000]It was you that said 100s of Thousands are out there. Yet no one to this date and time has stepped up and debunked Sowell. Not one has.

Fallacy. Sowell has not been elected the foregone expert on race, he is only the conservative's "go-to" when they need someone to support their beliefs.


[COLOR=#800000]Yet I have talked about Sowell being a Black leader in plain view of anything you said. If you need to know who are other leaders of other races. Then research them.

Fallacy. You are not qualified to select who is a leader, much less dictate whether or not leaders even exist. Arrogance is unbecomming.


[COLOR=#800000]So lets recap.....The DOJ, Universities, Experts on Police procedures and Police Depts and Sowell. All conclude there is no Systemic Racism today by Cops against Blacks. And you have nobody to debunk them. That is where you stand. Let me know when you can find someone to Debunk Sowell.

Fallacy. Appeals to authority does not render a discussion as being validated or invalidated. Not even considering every one of the entities you mention have a vested interest in claiming systemic racism doesn't exist. Dismissed.

You are still arguing in circles.

MMC
06-11-2020, 12:05 PM
That would only be true if you subjectively select when systemic racism existed. Dismissed.



That depends on whether the facts show the conclusion or whether the conclusion is based upon someone's interpretation of facts. I fully understand the former, and dismiss the latter.



You're still wrong, because there are many states that do not implement "Stop and frisk".



Fallacy. Sowell has not been elected the foregone expert on race, he is only the conservative's "go-to" when they need someone to support their beliefs.



Fallacy. You are not qualified to select who is a leader, much less dictate whether or not leaders even exist. Arrogance is unbecomming.



Fallacy. Appeals to authority does not render a discussion as being validated or invalidated. Not even considering every one of the entities you mention have a vested interest in claiming systemic racism doesn't exist. Dismissed.

You are still arguing in circles.

Wrong.....the Past is the time and its already been brought up about during the time of Jim Crow. So that is just you missing what was already presented with Sowell.


Well clearly you didn't understand the facts from the DOJ, Universities, Police experts, and the National Academy of Sciences.


No I am not wrong the majority of police depts. still use a Stop and Frisk Policy. Key word.....Majority all across the country.


Wrong again, No one said Sowell was the forgone expert on race. He is just one of the best. One of the best that hasn't been debunked.


Wrong again.....in this day and age. Those that top their fields of expertise are looked upon as Leaders in those areas of expertise.


Dismissed.


Again my stats back that criminal behavior identified to groups isn't racism. Also my stat from the Dept of Justice states blacks are not racially profiled and their study bears that out. Done every 3 years all over the country. Then there is the Leftist Fryer and his study. “On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.”


Then there is the National Crime Victim Survey that supports there is no Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks. Their study supports the DOJ study. Then the National Academy of Sciences that 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.




So far.....you have come up with nothing. The reason you can't. Is that Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks. Doesn't exist.

Safety
06-11-2020, 12:37 PM
Wrong.....the Past is the time and its already been brought up about during the time of Jim Crow. So that is just you missing what was already presented with Sowell.


Well clearly you didn't understand the facts from the DOJ, Universities, Police experts, and the National Academy of Sciences.


No I am not wrong the majority of police depts. still use a Stop and Frisk Policy. Key word.....Majority all across the country.


Wrong again, No one said Sowell was the forgone expert on race. He is just one of the best. One of the best that hasn't been debunked.


Wrong again.....in this day and age. Those that top their fields of expertise are looked upon as Leaders in those areas of expertise.


Dismissed.


Again my stats back that criminal behavior identified to groups isn't racism. Also my stat from the Dept of Justice states blacks are not racially profiled and their study bears that out. Done every 3 years all over the country. Then there is the Leftist Fryer and his study. “On the most extreme use of force — officer-involved shootings — we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.”


Then there is the National Crime Victim Survey that supports there is no Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks. Their study supports the DOJ study. Then the National Academy of Sciences that 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.




So far.....you have come up with nothing. The reason you can't. Is that Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks. Doesn't exist.

So your argument is that during Jim Crow, where laws were in place to prevent blacks from enjoying 1st class citizenship, systemic racism existed...but because laws are no longer in place to prevent blacks from enjoying 1st class citizenship, systemic racism doesn’t exist? Do I have that correct?

Because that is not only dangerously idiotic, but borderline psychotic. I am not going to post the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism any longer because at this point it isn’t the fact that you are ignorant to the definition, you are willfully dishonest about it. At this point, when you are only reciting everything you have already posted, in which I have countered your position at every turn, and you think by reposting the same thing again it will change reality, it appears as if you have nothing further to back up your premise. The very policies that speak about “stop and frisk” has been shown by studies to be racist in its implementation. It does not matter the crime rate, location, nor demographics, when the police target an individual based upon their race, that is racist. Irregardless of how much crime “their” race commits in proportion to population. If the policy was to only interact with prior criminals, that is one thing, but to profile someone because they are black and your defense is that the majority population is black, you are enabling the systemic racism exhibited. We have not ever progressed to the point where “pre-crime” is a thing, and anyone that talks the game about caring about the Constitution, could not with a straight face, support such a policy especially one where the enforcers of the policy has the track record they have.

I’m glad to see you are backing away from your ridiculous claim that Sowell is a “Leader”, laughably the one for blacks, considering your penchant for arguing in contrast to the welfare of blacks. I noticed that you again failed to provide any such Leader you mentioned for other races, which is noted again for posterity.

If only society operated as your logic dictates...find a “leader” and have them say gravity does not exist, then claim “see, I told you gravity was just a figment of liberal’s imagination.”

Laughable and predictable.

MMC
06-11-2020, 12:54 PM
So your argument is that during Jim Crow, where laws were in place to prevent blacks from enjoying 1st class citizenship, systemic racism existed...but because laws are no longer in place to prevent blacks from enjoying 1st class citizenship, systemic racism doesn’t exist? Do I have that correct?

Because that is not only dangerously idiotic, but borderline psychotic. I am not going to post the definition of systemic/institutionalized racism any longer because at this point it isn’t the fact that you are ignorant to the definition, you are willfully dishonest about it. At this point, when you are only reciting everything you have already posted, in which I have countered your position at every turn, and you think by reposting the same thing again it will change reality, it appears as if you have nothing further to back up your premise. The very policies that speak about “stop and frisk” has been shown by studies to be racist in its implementation. It does not matter the crime rate, location, nor demographics, when the police target an individual based upon their race, that is racist. Irregardless of how much crime “their” race commits in proportion to population. If the policy was to only interact with prior criminals, that is one thing, but to profile someone because they are black and your defense is that the majority population is black, you are enabling the systemic racism exhibited. We have not ever progressed to the point where “pre-crime” is a thing, and anyone that talks the game about caring about the Constitution, could not with a straight face, support such a policy especially one where the enforcers of the policy has the track record they have.

I’m glad to see you are backing away from your ridiculous claim that Sowell is a “Leader”, laughably the one for blacks, considering your penchant for arguing in contrast to the welfare of blacks. I noticed that you again failed to provide any such Leader you mentioned for other races, which is noted again for posterity.

If only society operated as your logic dictates...find a “leader” and have them say gravity does not exist, then claim “see, I told you gravity was just a figment of liberal’s imagination.”

Laughable and predictable.

LOL no.....now you move the Goalpost about Sowell or someone living during that time. Do you even know you do that?

I didn't move off the Leadership about Sowell. Again he one of the Top Social Theorists and Economists in the Country. One of the best. Sound like you were fishing for a religious leader. Or you were hoping on a Civil Rights Leader. Probably some Attorney that you think is a leader.


Oh back to assuming that society operates as my logic dictates. LOL....Wrong again its operating with the DOJ, Universities, Experts on Police, and the National Academy of Sciences saying there is no Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks. While a Social Theorist and Economist says there is no Systemic racism in this modern time.


Yes I am laughing and that should be predictable based on any and all interactions we have had. Still even that doesn't change up the reality that there is no Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks.

Safety
06-11-2020, 01:05 PM
LOL no.....now you move the Goalpost about Sowell or someone living during that time. Do you even know you do that?

I didn't move off the Leadership about Sowell. Again he one of the Top Social Theorists and Economists in the Country. One of the best. Sound like you were fishing for a religious leader. Or you were hoping on a Civil Rights Leader. Probably some Attorney that you think is a leader.


Oh back to assuming that society operates as my logic dictates. LOL....Wrong again its operating with the DOJ, Universities, Experts on Police, and the National Academy of Sciences saying there is no Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks. While a Social Theorist and Economist says there is no Systemic racism in this modern time.


Yes I am laughing and that should be predictable based on any and all interactions we have had. Still even that doesn't change up the reality that there is no Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks.

Now you are being incoherent. What goalpost was moved? Yes, you actually did move off of the Leadership angle, because when I asked you to name Leaders of other races, you recognized your error and tried to backtrack it by turning it to me. I don’t blame you, it was a ridiculous statement and I would be embarrassed if I had said it.

No, society does not operate under the subjective opinions of people who use those reports to declare systemic racism doesn’t exist. I have posted and referenced those same data points where opposing opinions have declared systemic racism not only exists, it is a problem that led up to people protesting around the world. But hey, you can keep relying on Sowell to make your point, because all you have at this moment is the argument that because “Sowell” said so, it must be true.

MMC
06-11-2020, 01:34 PM
Now you are being incoherent. What goalpost was moved? Yes, you actually did move off of the Leadership angle, because when I asked you to name Leaders of other races, you recognized your error and tried to backtrack it by turning it to me. I don’t blame you, it was a ridiculous statement and I would be embarrassed if I had said it.

No, society does not operate under the subjective opinions of people who use those reports to declare systemic racism doesn’t exist. I have posted and referenced those same data points where opposing opinions have declared systemic racism not only exists, it is a problem that led up to people protesting around the world. But hey, you can keep relying on Sowell to make your point, because all you have at this moment is the argument that because “Sowell” said so, it must be true.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2887718#post2887718) That would only be true if you subjectively select when systemic racism existed. Dismissed.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MMC http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2887731#post2887731) Wrong.....the Past is the time and its already been brought up about during the time of Jim Crow. So that is just you missing what was already presented with Sowell.



No I am not being incoherent. As I am not the one that doesn't have any trouble reading where you start and I respond. That you can't follow your own starting statement with a post.....falls on you.


Wrong again I didn't move off Leadership. That was you trying to say Sowell isn't a Leader. Yes you asked me to name other Leaders from other races and I said you can research that. That I wasn't going to go off track as to what this thread is about.


Yes Society does operate on those conclusions. As they aren't subjective and Society goes forward knowing there isn't any Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks in this day and age. They know this not because of Sowell. They know it from the DOJ, Universities, Experts on Law Enforcement and the National Academy of sciences. Research, reports, and studies.


You have not referenced all that those sources stated. You did cherry pick some of their points that they themselves did, but did not debunk any conclusion they made. So the bottomline is.....there is no Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks.

Safety
06-11-2020, 02:08 PM
http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Safety http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2887718#post2887718) That would only be true if you subjectively select when systemic racism existed. Dismissed.


http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by MMC http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=2887731#post2887731) Wrong.....the Past is the time and its already been brought up about during the time of Jim Crow. So that is just you missing what was already presented with Sowell.



No I am not being incoherent. As I am not the one that doesn't have any trouble reading where you start and I respond. That you can't follow your own starting statement with a post.....falls on you.


Wrong again I didn't move off Leadership. That was you trying to say Sowell isn't a Leader. Yes you asked me to name other Leaders from other races and I said you can research that. That I wasn't going to go off track as to what this thread is about.


Yes Society does operate on those conclusions. As they aren't subjective and Society goes forward knowing there isn't any Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks in this day and age. They know this not because of Sowell. They know it from the DOJ, Universities, Experts on Law Enforcement and the National Academy of sciences. Research, reports, and studies.


You have not referenced all that those sources stated. You did cherry pick some of their points that they themselves did, but did not debunk any conclusion they made. So the bottomline is.....there is no Systemic Racism by Cops against Blacks.


Your words..

Well it was in the past and by ALL institutions. All Intersecting, overlapping, thru policies practices and behavior. Designed to help whites at the sake of blacks. Not today. Not even if you use the word institutional. There is no law or government entity explicitly discriminating against minorities in modern day America.

Yet only one of them lived during a time of Systemic racism. Despite that, I have posted up studies, research, reports, from various groups that state there is no systemic racism with cops against blacks.

What I said...

That would only be true if you subjectively select when systemic racism existed. Dismissed.

Your response...

Wrong.....the Past is the time and its already been brought up about during the time of Jim Crow. So that is just you missing what was already presented with Sowell.

My response...

So your argument is that during Jim Crow, where laws were in place to prevent blacks from enjoying 1st class citizenship, systemic racism existed...but because laws are no longer in place to prevent blacks from enjoying 1st class citizenship, systemic racism doesn’t exist? Do I have that correct?

Your response...

LOL no.....now you move the Goalpost about Sowell or someone living during that time. Do you even know you do that?

Um, clearly you are either attempting to etch-a-sketch your argument, or you completely forgot what you wrote. You brought up the past as having systemic racism, you brought up the corrolation of Sowell and the past because he lived through it, and you then decided to move the goalposts when I questioned your logic of saying something doesn't exist simply because the law changed.

I mean, you are the one writing the responses, correct?

Moving on....

Your words...

If we were talking about racism against Latinos. Then it would be logical to use Leaders that are Latino and have lived thru Systemic racism. The same would be for Asians. If it was Whites then whites would be used.

My response...

I would like you to identify Latino Leaders, Asian Leaders, Black Leaders, and White Leaders. Can you please post their name and what makes them qualified to be labeled as their leader.

Your first deflection, you attempt to backtrack from your use of the term "leader"

Leaders like Social Theorists, Religious Leaders, Historians to name a few. No we aren't going to get side tracked with the names of all the different leaders. Since systemic racism doesn't exist in this day and age. That is something you can research yourself.

My response...

...and you failed to list a single "Leader" after shoring up your position based upon that metric.

Your second attempt to deflect and backtrack...

Yet I have talked about Sowell being a Black leader in plain view of anything you said. If you need to know who are other leaders of other races. Then research them.

My response..

Fallacy. You are not qualified to select who is a leader, much less dictate whether or not leaders even exist. Arrogance is unbecomming.

Your third attempt to deflect and backtrack...

Wrong again.....in this day and age. Those that top their fields of expertise are looked upon as Leaders in those areas of expertise.

My response...

I’m glad to see you are backing away from your ridiculous claim that Sowell is a “Leader”, laughably the one for blacks, considering your penchant for arguing in contrast to the welfare of blacks. I noticed that you again failed to provide any such Leader you mentioned for other races, which is noted again for posterity.

When your backtracking didn't work, you decided to double down...then at the end you attempted to ad hom your way out of it...

I didn't move off the Leadership about Sowell. Again he one of the Top Social Theorists and Economists in the Country. One of the best. Sound like you were fishing for a religious leader. Or you were hoping on a Civil Rights Leader. Probably some Attorney that you think is a leader.

My response...

Yes, you actually did move off of the Leadership angle, because when I asked you to name Leaders of other races, you recognized your error and tried to backtrack it by turning it to me. I don’t blame you, it was a ridiculous statement and I would be embarrassed if I had said it.

Now you are attempting to redirect, obfuscate, and engage in character lies...

Wrong again I didn't move off Leadership. That was you trying to say Sowell isn't a Leader. Yes you asked me to name other Leaders from other races and I said you can research that.

So many fallacies and overt inaccuracies in your responses.

MMC
06-11-2020, 02:35 PM
Your words..



What I said...


Your response...


My response...


Your response...


Um, clearly you are either attempting to etch-a-sketch your argument, or you completely forgot what you wrote. You brought up the past as having systemic racism, you brought up the corrolation of Sowell and the past because he lived through it, and you then decided to move the goalposts when I questioned your logic of saying something doesn't exist simply because the law changed.

I mean, you are the one writing the responses, correct?

Moving on....

Your words...


My response...


Your first deflection, you attempt to backtrack from your use of the term "leader"


My response...


Your second attempt to deflect and backtrack...


My response..


Your third attempt to deflect and backtrack...


My response...


When your backtracking didn't work, you decided to double down...then at the end you attempted to ad hom your way out of it...


My response...


Now you are attempting to redirect, obfuscate, and engage in character lies...


So many fallacies and overt inaccuracies in your responses.

Uhm you were discussing what again in your last 2 posts? Did you read your last two posts. I went by your current posts not some of your other posts back in the thread. The conversation has progressed to us talking about Sowell, his past during Systemic racism and how in your mind that doesn't mean anything, remember?

Yes I know all about the definition and that Social Theory based on the definition. Yet that wasn't what we were talking about in your last two posts.


Oh and I was correct I didn't move off Leadership. But I wasn't going to go tangential like you were. So now you think Sowell is a Leader. Although that was you that did your best to dismiss him as one.


But you were being honest, Right? You like using the word fallacy to back your play. Here you should read Sowell's Book. So you can comprehend those fallacies you engage in.



There is no way to truly measure racism throughout the years, which is necessary in creating a relationship between racism and economic inequality. Over time, the gap has only widened, and I strongly doubt that America is more racist now than it was under Jim Crow. In fact, under Jim Crow laws, blacks were escaping poverty at a rate much faster than they were after the 1960’s explosion in welfare spending and affirmative action policies.


Sowell describes this perfectly in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies,


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~

Safety
06-11-2020, 08:36 PM
Uhm you were discussing what again in your last 2 posts? Did you read your last two posts. I went by your current posts not some of your other posts back in the thread. The conversation has progressed to us talking about Sowell, his past during Systemic racism and how in your mind that doesn't mean anything, remember?

Yes I know all about the definition and that Social Theory based on the definition. Yet that wasn't what we were talking about in your last two posts.


Oh and I was correct I didn't move off Leadership. But I wasn't going to go tangential like you were. So now you think Sowell is a Leader. Although that was you that did your best to dismiss him as one.


But you were being honest, Right? You like using the word fallacy to back your play. Here you should read Sowell's Book. So you can comprehend those fallacies you engage in.



There is no way to truly measure racism throughout the years, which is necessary in creating a relationship between racism and economic inequality. Over time, the gap has only widened, and I strongly doubt that America is more racist now than it was under Jim Crow. In fact, under Jim Crow laws, blacks were escaping poverty at a rate much faster than they were after the 1960’s explosion in welfare spending and affirmative action policies.


Sowell describes this perfectly in his book, Economic Facts and Fallacies,


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~

I was highlighting your attempt to play ignorant. You said systemic racism existed in the past, but not today. Then I asked you if you were saying that systemic racism only existed because laws were enacted like Jim Crow. You recognized that I had you dead to rights, so you attempted to play dumb in your response.

Then I highlighted how you made Sowell a leader of blacks, and compounded it by saying it is kosher to hear from leaders of other races, then when I challenged you to produce at least one name of other leaders, you played dumb again. Sorry, but I am not about to let you weasel out of your usual M.O of trying to doublespeak or obfuscate when your position is “debunked”. Like now, you made the statement “ So now you think Sowell is a Leader.”...WTF are you talking about. Are you having difficulties remembering what we are saying from one post to another?

Finally, you are here once again referencing Sowell and talking about the poverty rate and crime, which was pointed out to you earlier that it doesn’t matter the crime rate or poverty rate, because when law enforcement uses race to profile or target, the citizen that is being profiled or targeted, is doing so because law enforcement is looking at race, not criminal behavior, shoe size, or asking for Grey Poupon.

Race.

MMC
06-12-2020, 06:29 AM
I was highlighting your attempt to play ignorant. You said systemic racism existed in the past, but not today. Then I asked you if you were saying that systemic racism only existed because laws were enacted like Jim Crow. You recognized that I had you dead to rights, so you attempted to play dumb in your response.

Then I highlighted how you made Sowell a leader of blacks, and compounded it by saying it is kosher to hear from leaders of other races, then when I challenged you to produce at least one name of other leaders, you played dumb again. Sorry, but I am not about to let you weasel out of your usual M.O of trying to doublespeak or obfuscate when your position is “debunked”. Like now, you made the statement “ So now you think Sowell is a Leader.”...WTF are you talking about. Are you having difficulties remembering what we are saying from one post to another?

Finally, you are here once again referencing Sowell and talking about the poverty rate and crime, which was pointed out to you earlier that it doesn’t matter the crime rate or poverty rate, because when law enforcement uses race to profile or target, the citizen that is being profiled or targeted, is doing so because law enforcement is looking at race, not criminal behavior, shoe size, or asking for Grey Poupon.

Race.

No you was deliberately forgetting what you brought up in those last couple of posts and what was being discussed, due to your argument not working. As you know you can't play on Sowell, his past, experience, and him debunking Systemic Racism.

Meh, I could have named off a couple of Latino Civil Rights Leaders but you wouldn't know about them anyways. So instead of playing the head game that you play. Is Sowell a Leader in Social Theory with regards to race? Which is it? Yes or no.


No Cops aren't looking at just race when it comes to profiling people. As they profile all people. Criminal behavior, and suspicion. They don't even need to visually see what a persons race is to profile them.


This need not be drawn out.....You have not proved that Systemic racism by Cops against blacks exists.

Safety
06-12-2020, 07:49 AM
No you was deliberately forgetting what you brought up in those last couple of posts and what was being discussed, due to your argument not working. As you know you can't play on Sowell, his past, experience, and him debunking Systemic Racism.

Meh, I could have named off a couple of Latino Civil Rights Leaders but you wouldn't know about them anyways. So instead of playing the head game that you play. Is Sowell a Leader in Social Theory with regards to race? Which is it? Yes or no.


No Cops aren't looking at just race when it comes to profiling people. As they profile all people. Criminal behavior, and suspicion. They don't even need to visually see what a persons race is to profile them.


This need not be drawn out.....You have not proved that Systemic racism by Cops against blacks exists.

Yea, that's not true, that is not supported by the posts in this thread, that isn't what I have identified in my responses to you. I have forgotten nothing of the sort, I am responding to your outlandish claims that systemic racism doesn't exist today because "laws" have changed. You referenced particularly Jim Crow and used it as a crutch of your argument. To think systemic racism went away as soon as laws enabling it went away is an egregious miscalculation and a dangerous mindset. Added to that flawed reasoning the fact that you continuously speak of Sowell, which is only an appeal to authority fallacy, as if he is the only person that exists that can speak to systemic racism, because he lived through it. This is another flawed mindset because, 1. you are not capable of knowing the age, nor the history of everyone alive to be able to make such an arrogant statement. 2. systemic racism still exists, so basically it just invalidates your argument.

Oh, the whole "systemic racism" in law enforcement has been proven, you helped to make that happen. Now, I'm just doing a little house cleaning on your argument, we haven't even started on the other aspects of society. The judicial system, the economic system, etc., we just getting started.

MMC
06-12-2020, 08:02 AM
Yea, that's not true, that is not supported by the posts in this thread, that isn't what I have identified in my responses to you. I have forgotten nothing of the sort, I am responding to your outlandish claims that systemic racism doesn't exist today because "laws" have changed. You referenced particularly Jim Crow and used it as a crutch of your argument. To think systemic racism went away as soon as laws enabling it went away is an egregious miscalculation and a dangerous mindset. Added to that flawed reasoning the fact that you continuously speak of Sowell, which is only an appeal to authority fallacy, as if he is the only person that exists that can speak to systemic racism, because he lived through it. This is another flawed mindset because, 1. you are not capable of knowing the age, nor the history of everyone alive to be able to make such an arrogant statement. 2. systemic racism still exists, so basically it just invalidates your argument.

Oh, the whole "systemic racism" in law enforcement has been proven, you helped to make that happen. Now, I'm just doing a little house cleaning on your argument, we haven't even started on the other aspects of society. The judicial system, the economic system, etc., we just getting started.

Its Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks Safety. That is what the debate is about. So all your bullshit is nothing more than that....straight up bullshit. Running with disparities and just flat out ignoring conclusions by those whom are the go to.

Here is a clue.


Systemic refers to something that affects an entire system. In this sense it is complete. Oh and concerning racism. Let me educate you.


Basically, racism is intentional discrimination against a race for no reason at all.


Wrong.....you misinterpreting that I made your case is just more of your lacking wits. There is no systemic racism by Cops against blacks.


You have failed to prove Systemic racism by Cops against blacks. The reason you fail. Is that there isn't any Systemic racism by cops against blacks. You have lost this debate!

Safety
06-12-2020, 08:13 AM
Its Systemic racism by Cops against Blacks Safety. That is what the debate is about. So all your bullshit is nothing more than that....straight up bullshit. Running with disparities and just flat out ignoring conclusions by those whom are the go to.

Here is a clue.


Systemic refers to something that affects an entire system. In this sense it is complete. Oh and concerning racism. Let me educate you.


Basically, racism is intentional discrimination against a race for no reason at all.


Wrong.....you misinterpreting that I made your case is just more of your lacking wits. There is no systemic racism by Cops against blacks.


You have failed to prove Systemic racism by Cops against blacks. The reason you fail. Is that there isn't any Systemic racism by cops against blacks. You have lost this debate!

Oh, you must be upset, so sorry. You see, the title is "Racism and Systemic racism", because you thought you were going to just rephrase everything from your thread onto here, and when the debate didn't go in the direction you had planned it to go, you started to lose your mind. Like now, you realized that you have just been outsmarted when you accepted this challenge. Go back to the very first post in the thread..."@Safety has challenged MMC to a one-on-one debate on the topic of racism and systematic racism". So like I said, this was just the beginning, we have not even started on the really good stuff.

As for your continued bastardization of the term "Systemic racism", it doesn't matter what you think it means, what it actually means has been provided to you more than three times in this thread.

MMC
06-12-2020, 08:18 AM
LMAO.....Not only have you lost with Systemic racism by cops against Blacks.


Then I debunked your whole Premise with Just one Individual. Sowell. Which you addressed nothing he said. Other than to complain about him personally.


Nice try.....but then you being a nobody. Never had a chance of debunking Sowell.


Oh and its your fault that you don't know what the Definition of Systemic means.

Safety
06-12-2020, 08:20 AM
LMAO.....Not only have you lost with Systemic racism by cops against Blacks.


Then I debunked your whole Premise with Just one Individual. Sowell. Which you addressed nothing he said. Other than to complain about him personally.


Nice try.....but then you being a nobody. Never had a chance of debunking Sowell.


Oh and its your fault that you don't know what the Definition of Systemic means.

Once you finish your cigarette break, want to jump into systemic racism in the judicial system next? We can start with sentencing "disparities".

MMC
06-12-2020, 08:26 AM
Once you finish your cigarette break, want to jump into systemic racism in the judicial system next? We can start with sentencing "disparities".

When you finally get around to listening to Sowell and why there isn't any Systemic racism. Then get back to me with what you think you can dispute him on. At least he comprehends the definition of Systemic.

Safety
06-12-2020, 08:28 AM
When you finally get around to listening to Sowell and why there isn't any Systemic racism. Then get back to me with what you think you can dispute him on. At least he comprehends the definition of Systemic.

That's nice, but Sowell is only one man with an opinion. He is not in any position to say to someone they did or did not experience racism. Now, moving on, sentence disparities?

MMC
06-12-2020, 08:31 AM
That's nice, but Sowell is only one man with an opinion. He is not in any position to say to someone they did or did not experience racism. Now, moving on, sentence disparities?

Well he isn't alone. What sentence now confuses you. As its quite clear you are confused with the word systemic.

MMC
06-12-2020, 09:17 AM
More for you to learn about Safety.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv7hsiUirUU

MMC
06-12-2020, 09:18 AM
Much more!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4TIU0Ucxig

Safety
06-14-2020, 03:06 AM
Well he isn't alone. What sentence now confuses you. As its quite clear you are confused with the word systemic.

The systemic racism in sentencing. It’s the next step after showing the systemic racism from the police. Why would I have to explain that?

Safety
06-14-2020, 03:07 AM
More for you to learn about Safety.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pv7hsiUirUU


Much more!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4TIU0Ucxig

Awww, cute videos. Is that going to be your argument style moving forward?

MMC
06-14-2020, 06:11 AM
Awww, cute videos. Is that going to be your argument style moving forward?

Oh.....so now you are confused as to using all material to back my play? Imagine that. Btw, its not the videos. Its the men and the realities that they make their points on.

Safety
06-14-2020, 09:58 AM
Oh.....so now you are confused as to using all material to back my play? Imagine that. Btw, its not the videos. Its the men and the realities that they make their points on.

Oh, more appeals to authority?

Ok, here you go...
https://youtu.be/ZJwrTPbhMMI

Now, once again your entire argument has been rendered null and void. Ready to move on to sentencing disparities between races?

MMC
06-14-2020, 11:52 AM
Oh, more appeals to authority?

Ok, here you go...
https://youtu.be/ZJwrTPbhMMI

Now, once again your entire argument has been rendered null and void. Ready to move on to sentencing disparities between races?

Now that is funny.....so you now come with an appeal to authority. Imagine that.


Uhm you have one cop that mentions Systemic racism. Passing by another cop? So that means there is systemic racism? You will need to do better than that.

Then you have a cop talking about there needs to be systemic change. Says nothing about systemic racism. Your two cops talked about change coming down from the top. None of it discusses systemic racism. So no your argument doesn't even come close to rendering my argument null and void. Even Gayle King says we discussed many things. Flaws in the System and change. But they started with George Floyd. Nothing about Systemic racism. lol

I can throw up videos of cops saying there is no systemic racism. But then they don't discuss why.


You still haven't gotten past Sowell and Elder nor any of the other studies, and research. Plus you aren't even close to discussing anything Webb and Joe Hicks pointed too.


It was a meh try at best. You will need to put in much more effort than posting a video of some cops and then just say that makes my argument null and void. Take a longer cigarette break maybe another full day. Then see is you can find something that backs your play.

Safety
06-14-2020, 01:03 PM
Now that is funny.....so you now come with an appeal to authority. Imagine that.


Uhm you have one cop that mentions Systemic racism. Passing by another cop? So that means there is systemic racism? You will need to do better than that.

Then you have a cop talking about there needs to be systemic change. Says nothing about systemic racism. Your two cops talked about change coming down from the top. None of it discusses systemic racism. So no your argument doesn't even come close to rendering my argument null and void. Even Gayle King says we discussed many things. Flaws in the System and change. But they started with George Floyd. Nothing about Systemic racism. lol

I can throw up videos of cops saying there is no systemic racism. But then they don't discuss why.


You still haven't gotten past Sowell and Elder nor any of the other studies, and research. Plus you aren't even close to discussing anything Webb and Joe Hicks pointed too.


It was a meh try at best. You will need to put in much more effort than posting a video of some cops and then just say that makes my argument null and void. Take a longer cigarette break maybe another full day. Then see is you can find something that backs your play.

You have presented nothing but appeals to authority in this thread, now you want to balk at me returning the favor? You opened that door counselor. Laughable at best.

The video shows four police chiefs all agreeing that systemic racism is an issue with law enforcement, so no matter how many examples you provide, it won’t erase that four police chiefs believe systemic racism exists in law enforcement.

MMC
06-14-2020, 04:17 PM
You have presented nothing but appeals to authority in this thread, now you want to balk at me returning the favor? You opened that door counselor. Laughable at best.

The video shows four police chiefs all agreeing that systemic racism is an issue with law enforcement, so no matter how many examples you provide, it won’t erase that four police chiefs believe systemic racism exists in law enforcement.

And.....that is what you do as well. So you aren't saying anything when trying to play that headgame. Other than the fact that you don't have much of anything to back your argument.

You formulate a conclusion and then seek out confirmation while ignoring disconfirmation. That's cherry picking. One Chief mention Systemic Racism. Yet doesn't correlate racism to any of the changes they talked about. None of them do.


Once again you forget racism is intentional and you forget exactly what it is they are talking about. Forgetting that the concept comes from the definition.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Systemic refers to something that affects an entire system. In this sense it is complete.....snip~


Criminal Behavior, Not Racism, Explains ‘Racial Disparities’ in Crime Stats


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.



A reasonable discussion about blacks and police practices cannot take place without acknowledging the disproportion amount of crime committed by blacks. According to the Department of Justice’s “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009,” in the country’s 75 largest counties, blacks committed 62 percent of robberies, 45 percent of assaults and accounted for 57 percent of murder defendants.....snip~




Additionally, 61 percent of black voters support
“‘summonses or make arrests’ in their neighborhood for quality-of-life offenses,” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419469/broken-windows-policing-does-work-heather-mac-donald)
once again suggesting that there is no evidence of systemic racism in policing......snip~

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-sta...-aaron-bandler (https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-statistics-show-systemic-racism-doesnt-exist-aaron-bandler)

Safety
06-15-2020, 09:48 PM
And.....that is what you do as well. So you aren't saying anything when trying to play that headgame. Other than the fact that you don't have much of anything to back your argument.

You formulate a conclusion and then seek out confirmation while ignoring disconfirmation. That's cherry picking. One Chief mention Systemic Racism. Yet doesn't correlate racism to any of the changes they talked about. None of them do.


Once again you forget racism is intentional and you forget exactly what it is they are talking about. Forgetting that the concept comes from the definition.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Systemic refers to something that affects an entire system. In this sense it is complete.....snip~


Criminal Behavior, Not Racism, Explains ‘Racial Disparities’ in Crime Stats


But aren’t blacks routinely “racially profiled” by cops? Not according to the Police-Public Contact Survey. Produced every three years by the Department of Justice’s Bureau of Justice Statistics, the survey asks more than 60,000 people about their interactions with the police. It asks respondents’ to provide age, race and gender. It asks them whether they had any contact with the police in the last year; what was the experience like; how were your treated; was there a use of force and so on. Turns out, according to a September 2017 National Review article, black men and white men are about equally likely to have a contact with a cop in a given year. As to multiple contacts, defined as three or more with the police in a given year, 1.5 percent of blacks vs. 1.2 percent of whites fall in that category. Not much difference.



A reasonable discussion about blacks and police practices cannot take place without acknowledging the disproportion amount of crime committed by blacks. According to the Department of Justice’s “Felony Defendants in Large Urban Counties, 2009,” in the country’s 75 largest counties, blacks committed 62 percent of robberies, 45 percent of assaults and accounted for 57 percent of murder defendants.....snip~




Additionally, 61 percent of black voters support
“‘summonses or make arrests’ in their neighborhood for quality-of-life offenses,” (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/419469/broken-windows-policing-does-work-heather-mac-donald)
once again suggesting that there is no evidence of systemic racism in policing......snip~

https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-sta...-aaron-bandler (https://www.dailywire.com/news/7-statistics-show-systemic-racism-doesnt-exist-aaron-bandler)

No, you WANT systemic racism to include everything so that you can find a podunk little town with no black people and say "see there isn't racism here, therefore there can't be systemic racism". That is the reason you rely so heavily on people like Sowell, Elder, et. al. to speak for you, because when challenged on debating in your own words, you fail tremendously. I do not need to formulate a conclusion, because it is without a doubt accepted understanding that systemic racism is present in law enforcement. Period.

Now, why do you think we also see systemic racism in the sentencing disparites handed out by judges when contrasting white people vs black people? Take note, any suggestion of "prior criminal record or socioeconomic status" has already been neutralized. We are not talking about rich white people vs poor black people, or no previous criminal record vs a previous criminal record.

MMC
06-16-2020, 06:22 AM
No, you WANT systemic racism to include everything so that you can find a podunk little town with no black people and say "see there isn't racism here, therefore there can't be systemic racism". That is the reason you rely so heavily on people like Sowell, Elder, et. al. to speak for you, because when challenged on debating in your own words, you fail tremendously. I do not need to formulate a conclusion, because it is without a doubt accepted understanding that systemic racism is present in law enforcement. Period.

Now, why do you think we also see systemic racism in the sentencing disparites handed out by judges when contrasting white people vs black people? Take note, any suggestion of "prior criminal record or socioeconomic status" has already been neutralized. We are not talking about rich white people vs poor black people, or no previous criminal record vs a previous criminal record.

Wrong again....its not me that wants Systemic racism to include everything. That is what Experts defined Systemic racism to be. Including the lefts.....who used a definition and then came up with a Social Theory. Oh now a logical fallacy about some small Podunk town with no blacks. Yet I have used Major urban cities with a police Dept being damn near half of minorities or has more than half being minorities. Which pointing out Chiefs of Police being a minority. Or a Police commissioner being minority. Which I didn't even bring in a Mayor and or Alderman being minorities. Oh and I Use Sowell, Elder and others who have been saying the same thing for years. Were saying it first and because your leftist heroes and race baiters wont take them on. Because they use stats and I am saying the same thing they are. Leaving it in their own words wherein you can't play off how I say something and can't play with terminology.

You don't need to formulate a conclusion. Because you don't have proof that there is Systemic Racism present in Law Enforcement. At best you have a disparity and that there are a few cops that are racists. Period! There is no Systemic racism in Law Enforcement.

Nice try.....Rich White people and Po Black people. Uhm that isn't about race. That is about Class. Just like Rich white people vs Poor white people. Rich White people vs Poor Latino People. I noticed you didn't include Rich criminals vs any others either.


On Racial Bias in Criminal SentencingAugust 10, 2019November 4, 2019 (https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/on-racial-bias-in-criminal-sentencing/)

Sometimes, people say things like “Black Americans get harsher criminal sentences than white Americans even when race is the only thing differentiating the black and white defendants”. This fact is then pointed to as evidence that racial bias is at work in the American criminal justice system, and American society at large. In this post, I will argue that the available empirical research does not justify this claim and that, in fact, the empirical evidence more favors the view that there is no racial bias in criminal sentencing.


Pre-trial Outcomes
With respect to pre-trial outcomes, Wu (2016) (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854815628026) meta-analyzed 36 studies on the effect that race has on the probability that a defendant would be fully charged. Wu argues that these pre-trial decisions are very importance since 80% of state cases and 90% of federal cases never actually go to trial. Wu finds that black defendants are 9% more likely than white defendants to be charged.


In the moderator analysis, Wu produces several interesting findings. First, this effect is only found in the South. This finding is consistent with out intuitions about how racism is distributed across America. However, several other findings from the moderator analysis cast doubt on the idea that this meta-analysis is detecting real bias.


First, the strength of this effect has not changed with time contrary to what we might expect if racial animus was its cause.
Second, it was found that controlling for crime type and criminal history actually increased the size of this effect, a finding that is hard to make any sense of.
Thirdly, and most importantly, no bias was found in studies that reported their standard error. The standard error is a statistic needed to put an result into this meta-analysis. Some studies reported them and others did not. When the standard error was not reported, Wu estimated what the standard error probably was. As Wu writes “Estimated standard errors likely overestimated or underestimated the effect of race and ethnicity on prosecutorial outcomes.”


Post-trial Outcomes
Turning to post-trial decisions, Mitchell (2005) (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=208129) conducted a meta-analysis in which various sentencing outcomes were considered (e.g. prison vs no prison, sentence length, etc.) and converted to a common statistical measure. The results were then divided into those concerning state sentencing and federal sentencing.


With respect to state crimes, black Americans were 28% more likely than white Americans to receive a harsh sentence. However, this gap was reduced to 14% in studies that controlled for things like criminal history and crime type. There was also evidence that studies finding larger effects were more likely to be published since the elevated risk in unpublished studies was only 14% even before applying any controls.


For these findings to be compelling, we would need to see a meta-analysis which both controls for publication bias and only includes studies that control for obvious differences in crime type and criminal history. Since both of these moves seem to reduce the significance of the effect, it is remains unknown whether the result would remain statistically, or practically, significant if both moves were done at once. Given this, until a better meta-analysis is conducted, I don’t think we can form confident views about what this research is actually finding.


Moreover, research on both pre and post trial outcomes suffer from a more fundamental flaw which is that they omit many variables which might differ between black and white criminals and which might explain their differing legal outcomes.


For instance, this research fails to control for differences in the way in which crimes were carried out within the same crime type. As an example, assaults can differ both in their degree of seriousness and in the motives that caused them. These variables might in-turn differ, on average, between black and white criminals in a way that leads to white criminals receiving preferable legal outcomes.


Another omitted variable is courtroom behavior. How criminals act in a courtroom, and especially how remorseful they seem, might influence their sentencing. Yet, this is uncontrolled for in studies on racial bias.


Black Judges and Black Lawyers
Another line of evidence worth mentioning concerns research on racial bias among black judges and black lawyers. These studies offer more evidence that racial bias is not at play in the criminal justice system.


The fact that the supposed racial bias seen among white judges is also found among black judges strengthens the case that this so called “bias” is actually due to variables which differ between black and white criminals but which are omitted from the standard research literature. Of course, it is possible that black judges are racist against black people to the exact same degree that white judges are, but there is no empirical evidence suggesting that this is so, and in the absence of evidence we should assume this is false since black people in general do not exhibit an anti-black bias.



ConclusionIn summary, research on pre-trial outcomes does not seem to favor the view that racial bias is at play. Meta-analyses may claim otherwise, but a close look at their moderator analyses suggests that the bias they claim to detect is actually a statistical error. Research on post-trial outcomes might suggest a small anti-black bias but we can’t tell both because there are no meta-analyses that utilize strong controls and correct for publication bias at once, and because this literature in general ignores variables which might contribute to racial differences in legal outcomes. By contrast, these issues do not plague mock jury research, or research comparing the behaviors of black and white judges, and both of these lines of evidence suggest that no racial bias is at play. Thus, I think the available empirical evidence makes the existence of significant anti-black bias in sentencing less probable than its non-existence.....snip~


https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/on-racial-bias-in-criminal-sentencing/


So much for that BS about Prior record and Socioeconomic status being neutralized. Despite you bringing up Poor and rich people. So now, more validation that there is no Systemic racism. Period! More importantly, you not proving any Systemic racism exists and that its just 2 words that you hear and repeat.

Safety
06-16-2020, 08:04 AM
Wrong again....its not me that wants Systemic racism to include everything.

Back in post #12 I addressed your mistake...
It is a common misinterpretation to use the term "systemic racism" as it meaning that everyone in the system is racist. In fact, systemic racism means almost the opposite. It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them


That is what Experts defined Systemic racism to be. Including the lefts.....who used a definition and then came up with a Social Theory. Oh now a logical fallacy about some small Podunk town with no blacks. Yet I have used Major urban cities with a police Dept being damn near half of minorities or has more than half being minorities. Which pointing out Chiefs of Police being a minority. Or a Police commissioner being minority. Which I didn't even bring in a Mayor and or Alderman being minorities. Oh and I Use Sowell, Elder and others who have been saying the same thing for years. Were saying it first and because your leftist heroes and race baiters wont take them on. Because they use stats and I am saying the same thing they are. Leaving it in their own words wherein you can't play off how I say something and can't play with terminology.

Let me state the systemic racism definition again..."It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them". Maybe I should post it one more time because they say repetition is key to comprehending.


You don't need to formulate a conclusion. Because you don't have proof that there is Systemic Racism present in Law Enforcement. At best you have a disparity and that there are a few cops that are racists. Period! There is no Systemic racism in Law Enforcement.

Oh, nearly every day there is proof being shown of the effects of systemic racism being present in law enforcement, I have clearly shown it exists not only with facts and datasets, but I even used your own argument attempting to "explain why race is used as a profile" as proof it exists. I mean, we covered this extensively and I understand why you want a "do-over" on the argument, but that ship has sailed. Sorry.


Nice try.....Rich White people and Po Black people. Uhm that isn't about race. That is about Class. Just like Rich white people vs Poor white people. Rich White people vs Poor Latino People. I noticed you didn't include Rich criminals vs any others either.

This is a great example of proof you are not reading what I post, or you are not comprehending it, which is indicative of what you have been doing this entire thread. I said this "Take note, any suggestion of "prior criminal record or socioeconomic status" has already been neutralized. We are not talking about rich white people vs poor black people, or no previous criminal record vs a previous criminal record." It is crucial that in order to participate in a debate, you are honest about what is written, and at the minimum able to comprehend what is written.



On Racial Bias in Criminal SentencingAugust 10, 2019November 4, 2019 (https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/on-racial-bias-in-criminal-sentencing/)

Sometimes, people say things like “Black Americans get harsher criminal sentences than white Americans even when race is the only thing differentiating the black and white defendants”. This fact is then pointed to as evidence that racial bias is at work in the American criminal justice system, and American society at large. In this post, I will argue that the available empirical research does not justify this claim and that, in fact, the empirical evidence more favors the view that there is no racial bias in criminal sentencing.


Pre-trial Outcomes
With respect to pre-trial outcomes, Wu (2016) (https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854815628026) meta-analyzed 36 studies on the effect that race has on the probability that a defendant would be fully charged. Wu argues that these pre-trial decisions are very importance since 80% of state cases and 90% of federal cases never actually go to trial. Wu finds that black defendants are 9% more likely than white defendants to be charged.


In the moderator analysis, Wu produces several interesting findings. First, this effect is only found in the South. This finding is consistent with out intuitions about how racism is distributed across America. However, several other findings from the moderator analysis cast doubt on the idea that this meta-analysis is detecting real bias.


First, the strength of this effect has not changed with time contrary to what we might expect if racial animus was its cause.
Second, it was found that controlling for crime type and criminal history actually increased the size of this effect, a finding that is hard to make any sense of.
Thirdly, and most importantly, no bias was found in studies that reported their standard error. The standard error is a statistic needed to put an result into this meta-analysis. Some studies reported them and others did not. When the standard error was not reported, Wu estimated what the standard error probably was. As Wu writes “Estimated standard errors likely overestimated or underestimated the effect of race and ethnicity on prosecutorial outcomes.”


Post-trial Outcomes
Turning to post-trial decisions, Mitchell (2005) (https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/abstractdb/AbstractDBDetails.aspx?id=208129) conducted a meta-analysis in which various sentencing outcomes were considered (e.g. prison vs no prison, sentence length, etc.) and converted to a common statistical measure. The results were then divided into those concerning state sentencing and federal sentencing.


With respect to state crimes, black Americans were 28% more likely than white Americans to receive a harsh sentence. However, this gap was reduced to 14% in studies that controlled for things like criminal history and crime type. There was also evidence that studies finding larger effects were more likely to be published since the elevated risk in unpublished studies was only 14% even before applying any controls.


For these findings to be compelling, we would need to see a meta-analysis which both controls for publication bias and only includes studies that control for obvious differences in crime type and criminal history. Since both of these moves seem to reduce the significance of the effect, it is remains unknown whether the result would remain statistically, or practically, significant if both moves were done at once. Given this, until a better meta-analysis is conducted, I don’t think we can form confident views about what this research is actually finding.


Moreover, research on both pre and post trial outcomes suffer from a more fundamental flaw which is that they omit many variables which might differ between black and white criminals and which might explain their differing legal outcomes.


For instance, this research fails to control for differences in the way in which crimes were carried out within the same crime type. As an example, assaults can differ both in their degree of seriousness and in the motives that caused them. These variables might in-turn differ, on average, between black and white criminals in a way that leads to white criminals receiving preferable legal outcomes.


Another omitted variable is courtroom behavior. How criminals act in a courtroom, and especially how remorseful they seem, might influence their sentencing. Yet, this is uncontrolled for in studies on racial bias.


Black Judges and Black Lawyers
Another line of evidence worth mentioning concerns research on racial bias among black judges and black lawyers. These studies offer more evidence that racial bias is not at play in the criminal justice system.


The fact that the supposed racial bias seen among white judges is also found among black judges strengthens the case that this so called “bias” is actually due to variables which differ between black and white criminals but which are omitted from the standard research literature. Of course, it is possible that black judges are racist against black people to the exact same degree that white judges are, but there is no empirical evidence suggesting that this is so, and in the absence of evidence we should assume this is false since black people in general do not exhibit an anti-black bias.



ConclusionIn summary, research on pre-trial outcomes does not seem to favor the view that racial bias is at play. Meta-analyses may claim otherwise, but a close look at their moderator analyses suggests that the bias they claim to detect is actually a statistical error. Research on post-trial outcomes might suggest a small anti-black bias but we can’t tell both because there are no meta-analyses that utilize strong controls and correct for publication bias at once, and because this literature in general ignores variables which might contribute to racial differences in legal outcomes. By contrast, these issues do not plague mock jury research, or research comparing the behaviors of black and white judges, and both of these lines of evidence suggest that no racial bias is at play. Thus, I think the available empirical evidence makes the existence of significant anti-black bias in sentencing less probable than its non-existence.....snip~


https://ideasanddata.wordpress.com/2019/08/10/on-racial-bias-in-criminal-sentencing/


So much for that BS about Prior record and Socioeconomic status being neutralized. Despite you bringing up Poor and rich people. So now, more validation that there is no Systemic racism. Period! More importantly, you not proving any Systemic racism exists and that its just 2 words that you hear and repeat.

Ok, let's unpack what you just posted.....First, you referenced a f'king blog. Second, the referenced source in your blog "(Wu 2016)" links to an abstract for a document that is access controlled. So, automatically that source is dismissed. The second source in the "blog" "(Mitchell 2005)" links to a report that says this...
Results of analysis of variances and multiple regression analyses indicated that African-American and Latinos were generally sentenced more punitively than were Whites; this effect remained after controlling for defendant criminal history and current offense seriousness. Sentencing disparities were observed for studies that examined drug offenses, imprisonment or discretionary sentencing decisions, and in recent Federal court data analyses. Evidence also suggested that sentencing guidelines were associated with smaller sentencing disparities. Overall, the meta-analysis calls into question the argument that there is no or minimal racial/ethnic sentencing disparity operating in American courts. Policymakers are called upon to re-evaluate sentencing practices.

I mean, your own source within a "blog" not only contradicts your argument, but makes mine. So, what I am going to do is reference the source "within the blog you posted" as being a reference for my position. Thanks.

Here a study of racial disparity in crime sentences concludes..."Using rich new linked data that allow us to address the sample selection problems and other limitations that have pervaded prior research, this paper provides robust evidence that black male federal arrestees ultimately face longer prison terms than whites arrested for the same offenses with the same prior records. This disparity arises from disparities in the intensive but not in the extensive margin of incarceration." (Rehavi)


Rehavi, M. Marit, and Sonja B. Starr. “Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences.” University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, 2014, repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1414/.

Mitchell, Ojmarrh, and Doris L. MacKenzie. “PUBLICATIONS.” NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2004, www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=208129.

MMC
06-16-2020, 11:11 AM
Back in post #12 I addressed your mistake...

You Addressed it.....but then in several posts were corrected as to what Systemic racism is.

Let me state the systemic racism definition again..."It means that we have systems and institutions that produce racially disparate outcomes, regardless of the intentions of the people who work within them". Maybe I should post it one more time because they say repetition is key to comprehending.

Here let me help with your misinterpretation of what Systemic Racism is. First here is what you said.


Systemic/institutional racism refers to how ideas of white superiority are captured in everyday thinking at a systems-level, taking in the big picture of how society operates, rather than looking at one-on-one interactions.....snip~


Then there is reality.

Systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Systemic refers to something that affects an entire system. In this sense it is complete. Oh and concerning racism. Let me educate you.
Basically, racism is intentional discrimination against a race for no reason at all.


The phrase "systemic racism" is used to talk about all of the policies and practices entrenched in established institutions that harm certain racial groups and help others......snip~





Oh, nearly every day there is proof being shown of the effects of systemic racism being present in law enforcement, I have clearly shown it exists not only with facts and datasets, but I even used your own argument attempting to "explain why race is used as a profile" as proof it exists. I mean, we covered this extensively and I understand why you want a "do-over" on the argument, but that ship has sailed. Sorry.

And I clearly have shown not only data, research and studies that it doesn't exist. I also have shown Black leaders and men that have proven it doesn't exist. With one not being debunked by anyone from your mindset. Stating there is no systemic racism in todays day age.

This is a great example of proof you are not reading what I post, or you are not comprehending it, which is indicative of what you have been doing this entire thread. I said this "Take note, any suggestion of "prior criminal record or socioeconomic status" has already been neutralized. We are not talking about rich white people vs poor black people, or no previous criminal record vs a previous criminal record." It is crucial that in order to participate in a debate, you are honest about what is written, and at the minimum able to comprehend what is written.


You stated it was neutralized. Which it never was. Regardless of not counting class.



Ok, let's unpack what you just posted.....First, you referenced a f'king blog. Second, the referenced source in your blog "(Wu 2016)" links to an abstract for a document that is access controlled. So, automatically that source is dismissed. The second source in the "blog" "(Mitchell 2005)" links to a report that says this...

I mean, your own source within a "blog" not only contradicts your argument, but makes mine. So, what I am going to do is reference the source "within the blog you posted" as being a reference for my position. Thanks.

Not quite.....and so what it is a blog. One with links to data and charts. One that debunks Wu and Mitchell. Moreover it clearly states how it counters your argument . Just looking at Mock Juries alone. Let alone the other fact that you missed on purpose. That being Black Lawyers and Black Judges.

Here a study of racial disparity in crime sentences concludes..."Using rich new linked data that allow us to address the sample selection problems and other limitations that have pervaded prior research, this paper provides robust evidence that black male federal arrestees ultimately face longer prison terms than whites arrested for the same offenses with the same prior records. This disparity arises from disparities in the intensive but not in the extensive margin of incarceration." (Rehavi)


Rehavi, M. Marit, and Sonja B. Starr. “Racial Disparity in Federal Criminal Sentences.” University of Michigan Law School Scholarship Repository, 2014, repository.law.umich.edu/articles/1414/.

Mitchell, Ojmarrh, and Doris L. MacKenzie. “PUBLICATIONS.” NCJRS Abstract - National Criminal Justice Reference Service, 2004, www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=208129 (http://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=208129).



Devine and Caughlin (2014) (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1610/1e386734fd24f0dbaaf3ae3691a002960487.pdf) conducted a similar meta-analysis finding that white jurors had no bias against black defendants but did have a modest bias against Hispanic defendants. Black jurors, once again, exhibited a pro-black or anti-white bias.

On the other hand, someone might question whether this experimental research is applicable to the real world. It could be that the sort of people included in these experiments differ from the sorts of people who make up real world juries in a way that is relevant to their degree of racial bias. Or is might be that people simply don’t act the same way in experiments as they do in the real world, again, in a way that is relevant to racial bias. These are logical possibilities, but I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that they are true.

Moving on to judges. Steffenmeier et al. (2001) (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0038-4941.00057) analyzed data on 40,000 sentences that were given in Pennsylvania between the years of 1991 and 1994. The impact that being black had on a person’s sentence was found to not significantly differ between black and white judges.


Similarly, Ulhman (1978) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2110596.pdf?casa_token=egDJiaHQPZMAAAAA:MA3izEMh4n OISCfczPb-tt0ORpm_lGd7QQvZJGvi_uN3FuYNA_FTqdBFHj_nzfNb1qBthg ekpQEP5CxP-VDETvNGU-JvsKIL5JU-j4Xv5lKXJDbpxw&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) analyzed data from 35,000 trails which took place between 1968 and 1974. It was found that black and white judges exhibited equal degrees of racial bias. This was true both with respect to whether a defendant was found guilty and with respect to their sentence length.....snip~



Whats even more hilarious is you can't figure out how I set you up to come back with something from what I have posted. Like this blog with links to verified studies. Knowing you will completely and intentionally avoid the conclusions. Just like I did with all the other links I have presented. Although I did have to laugh with your complaint about it being a blog. Despite the charts and links.


Of course you validated your loss when you started whining and crying about my using Sowell, Elder, or any other videos. Wherein you attacked the men due to them being black and never challenged their arguments debunking Systemic and Institutional racism.


Here is another expert with the Criminal Justice System.


Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?No: the high percentage of blacks behind bars reflects crime rates, not bigotry.

Heather Mac Donald (https://www.city-journal.org/contributor/heather-mac-donald_122)


The race industry and its elite enablers take it as self-evident that high black incarceration rates result from discrimination.


The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement, and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny. The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.


Racial activists usually remain assiduously silent about that problem. But in 2005, the black homicide rate was over seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. From 1976 to 2005, blacks committed over 52 percent of all murders in America. In 2006, the black arrest rate for most crimes was two to nearly three times blacks’ representation in the population. Blacks constituted 39.3 percent of all violent-crime arrests, including 56.3 percent of all robbery and 34.5 percent of all aggravated-assault arrests, and 29.4 percent of all property-crime arrests.


The advocates acknowledge such crime data only indirectly: by charging bias on the part of the system’s decision makers.


No one has ever come up with a plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports.


In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms. A 1987 analysis of Georgia felony convictions, for example, found that blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient punishment. A 1990 study of 11,000 California cases found that slight racial disparities in sentence length resulted from blacks’ prior records and other legally relevant variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records.


This consensus hasn’t made the slightest dent in the ongoing search for systemic racism. An entire industry in the law schools now dedicates itself to flushing out prosecutorial and judicial bias, using ever more complicated statistical artillery. The net result? A few new studies show tiny, unexplained racial disparities in sentencing, while other analyses continue to find none. Any differences that do show up are trivially small compared with the exponentially greater rates of criminal offending among blacks. No criminologist would claim, moreover, to have controlled for every legal factor that affects criminal-justice outcomes, says Patrick Langan, former senior statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prosecutors and judges observe the heinousness of a defendant’s conduct, for example, but a number-crunching researcher has no easy way to discover and quantify that variable.


Some criminologists replace statistics with High Theory in their search for racism. The criminal-justice system does treat individual suspects and criminals equally, they concede. But the problem is how society defines crime and criminals. Crime is a social construction designed to marginalize minorities, these theorists argue. A liberal use of scare quotes is virtually mandatory in such discussions, to signal one’s distance from primitive notions like “law-abiding” and “dangerous.” Arguably, vice crimes are partly definitional (though even there, the law enforcement system focuses on them to the extent that they harm communities). But the social constructivists are talking about all crime, and it’s hard to see how one could “socially reconstruct” assault or robbery so as to convince victims that they haven’t been injured.


Next, critics blame drug enforcement for rising racial disparities in prison. Again, the facts say otherwise. In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference. (No criminologist, to the best of my knowledge, has ever performed this exercise.)


The evidence is clear: black prison rates result from crime, not racism. America’s comparatively high rates of incarceration are nothing to celebrate, of course, but the alternative is far worse. The dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s, to which stricter sentencing policies unquestionably contributed, has freed thousands of law-abiding inner-city residents from the bondage of fear. Commerce and street life have revived in those urban neighborhoods where crime has fallen most.


The pressure to divert even more offenders from prison, however, will undoubtedly grow. If a probation system can finally be crafted that provides as much public safety as prison, we should welcome it. But the continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school—and out of trouble.....snip~


https://www.city-journal.org/html/criminal-justice-system-racist-13078.html


Thanks for validating that Systemic and Institutional Racism doesn't exist. Oh and don't forget that in todays day and age.....No policies or reforms are made with helping one race to get over on another. Nor to favor one race over another.

Safety
06-16-2020, 12:09 PM
Devine and Caughlin (2014) (https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/1610/1e386734fd24f0dbaaf3ae3691a002960487.pdf) conducted a similar meta-analysis finding that white jurors had no bias against black defendants but did have a modest bias against Hispanic defendants. Black jurors, once again, exhibited a pro-black or anti-white bias.

On the other hand, someone might question whether this experimental research is applicable to the real world. It could be that the sort of people included in these experiments differ from the sorts of people who make up real world juries in a way that is relevant to their degree of racial bias. Or is might be that people simply don’t act the same way in experiments as they do in the real world, again, in a way that is relevant to racial bias. These are logical possibilities, but I am not aware of any evidence suggesting that they are true.

Hmm, seems like the Zimmerman jury disproves that study. The defense seemed to pick all white jurors and a hispanic juror for the trial.
Evidence of race based jury striking....(remember the term systemic...)

"Other evidence calls the holdings of the Minnesota appellate courts into question. Surveys conducted by the Racial Bias Task Force revealed that nearly one-half of the public defenders, and fifty-three percent of the metropolitan judges believe that prosecutors in the state are more likely to use peremptory challenges against jurors who are people of color."(Martin)



Moving on to judges. Steffenmeier et al. (2001) (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/0038-4941.00057) analyzed data on 40,000 sentences that were given in Pennsylvania between the years of 1991 and 1994. The impact that being black had on a person’s sentence was found to not significantly differ between black and white judges.


Similarly, Ulhman (1978) (https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/2110596.pdf?casa_token=egDJiaHQPZMAAAAA:MA3izEMh4n OISCfczPb-tt0ORpm_lGd7QQvZJGvi_uN3FuYNA_FTqdBFHj_nzfNb1qBthg ekpQEP5CxP-VDETvNGU-JvsKIL5JU-j4Xv5lKXJDbpxw&seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents) analyzed data from 35,000 trails which took place between 1968 and 1974. It was found that black and white judges exhibited equal degrees of racial bias. This was true both with respect to whether a defendant was found guilty and with respect to their sentence length.....snip~

"I think in part, this state has a false image of itself ... that we [are] different from the rest of the U.S., and we're not. We're as racist as the red hills of Alabama." Chief Judge Kevin Burke, Hennepin County District Court.

Racial bias exists in American society and in Minnesota. Racial bias necessarily exists in the Minnesota justice system to the extent that the justice system implements norms based on societal values. Racial bias persists in the Minnesota justice system because the judiciary is willing to tolerate racial bias to advance other goals. A review of Minnesota Supreme Court decisions could lead to the conclusion that racial or cultural bias is not a problem in the Minnesota justice system. It came as a surprise to some in 1993 when the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Bias in the Judicial System published findings that racial bias was rampant in the Minnesota judicial system. This conclusion seemed inconsistent with the hundreds of pages of appellate opinions that reveal no racial bias or only insignificant incidents of racial bias in Minnesota courts." (Martin)






Whats even more hilarious is you can't figure out how I set you up to come back with something from what I have posted. Like this blog with links to verified studies. Knowing you will completely and intentionally avoid the conclusions. Just like I did with all the other links I have presented. Although I did have to laugh with your complaint about it being a blog. Despite the charts and links.

It was a blog, which is held to a lower standard than an opinion piece from an established newspaper.



Of course you validated your loss when you started whining and crying about my using Sowell, Elder, or any other videos. Wherein you attacked the men due to them being black and never challenged their arguments debunking Systemic and Institutional racism.

Learn what an appeal to authority is.



Here is another expert with the Criminal Justice System.


Is the Criminal-Justice System Racist?No: the high percentage of blacks behind bars reflects crime rates, not bigotry.

Heather Mac Donald (https://www.city-journal.org/contributor/heather-mac-donald_122)


The race industry and its elite enablers take it as self-evident that high black incarceration rates result from discrimination.


The favorite culprits for high black prison rates include a biased legal system, draconian drug enforcement, and even prison itself. None of these explanations stands up to scrutiny. The black incarceration rate is overwhelmingly a function of black crime. Insisting otherwise only worsens black alienation and further defers a real solution to the black crime problem.


Racial activists usually remain assiduously silent about that problem. But in 2005, the black homicide rate was over seven times higher than that of whites and Hispanics combined, according to the federal Bureau of Justice Statistics. From 1976 to 2005, blacks committed over 52 percent of all murders in America. In 2006, the black arrest rate for most crimes was two to nearly three times blacks’ representation in the population. Blacks constituted 39.3 percent of all violent-crime arrests, including 56.3 percent of all robbery and 34.5 percent of all aggravated-assault arrests, and 29.4 percent of all property-crime arrests.


The advocates acknowledge such crime data only indirectly: by charging bias on the part of the system’s decision makers.


No one has ever come up with a plausible argument as to why crime victims would be biased in their reports.


In 1997, criminologists Robert Sampson and Janet Lauritsen reviewed the massive literature on charging and sentencing. They concluded that “large racial differences in criminal offending,” not racism, explained why more blacks were in prison proportionately than whites and for longer terms. A 1987 analysis of Georgia felony convictions, for example, found that blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient punishment. A 1990 study of 11,000 California cases found that slight racial disparities in sentence length resulted from blacks’ prior records and other legally relevant variables. A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records.


This consensus hasn’t made the slightest dent in the ongoing search for systemic racism. An entire industry in the law schools now dedicates itself to flushing out prosecutorial and judicial bias, using ever more complicated statistical artillery. The net result? A few new studies show tiny, unexplained racial disparities in sentencing, while other analyses continue to find none. Any differences that do show up are trivially small compared with the exponentially greater rates of criminal offending among blacks. No criminologist would claim, moreover, to have controlled for every legal factor that affects criminal-justice outcomes, says Patrick Langan, former senior statistician for the Bureau of Justice Statistics. Prosecutors and judges observe the heinousness of a defendant’s conduct, for example, but a number-crunching researcher has no easy way to discover and quantify that variable.


Some criminologists replace statistics with High Theory in their search for racism. The criminal-justice system does treat individual suspects and criminals equally, they concede. But the problem is how society defines crime and criminals. Crime is a social construction designed to marginalize minorities, these theorists argue. A liberal use of scare quotes is virtually mandatory in such discussions, to signal one’s distance from primitive notions like “law-abiding” and “dangerous.” Arguably, vice crimes are partly definitional (though even there, the law enforcement system focuses on them to the extent that they harm communities). But the social constructivists are talking about all crime, and it’s hard to see how one could “socially reconstruct” assault or robbery so as to convince victims that they haven’t been injured.


Next, critics blame drug enforcement for rising racial disparities in prison. Again, the facts say otherwise. In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference. (No criminologist, to the best of my knowledge, has ever performed this exercise.)


The evidence is clear: black prison rates result from crime, not racism. America’s comparatively high rates of incarceration are nothing to celebrate, of course, but the alternative is far worse. The dramatic drop in crime in the 1990s, to which stricter sentencing policies unquestionably contributed, has freed thousands of law-abiding inner-city residents from the bondage of fear. Commerce and street life have revived in those urban neighborhoods where crime has fallen most.


The pressure to divert even more offenders from prison, however, will undoubtedly grow. If a probation system can finally be crafted that provides as much public safety as prison, we should welcome it. But the continuing search for the chimera of criminal-justice bigotry is a useless distraction that diverts energy and attention from the crucial imperative of helping more inner-city boys stay in school—and out of trouble.....snip~


https://www.city-journal.org/html/criminal-justice-system-racist-13078.html


Thanks for validating that Systemic and Institutional Racism doesn't exist. Oh and don't forget that in todays day and age.....No policies or reforms are made with helping one race to get over on another. Nor to favor one race over another.

I see your "experts" and provide you with this...

"Unconscious racism is the residual ingrained racism of a society that has, for the majority of its existence, been dominated by overt racism. Since society has only recently broken free from the formal bonds of intentional racism, the notion that racial prejudice in the United States has actually been eradicated is absurd and potentially dangerous."(Silton)

"Racial profiling by law enforcement officials occurs not only in the typical "Driving While Black" scenario, but also when walking while Black, standing while Black, or doing practically anything while black"(Silton)



Silton, DJ. “Current Issue: Volume 38, Issue 2 (2020) Issue 2.” Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice | University of Minnesota Law School, 2002, scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq.

William E. Martin and Peter N. Thompson, Judicial Toleration of Racial Bias in the Minnesota Justice System, 25 Hamline Law Review 235-270, 236-240 (Winter, 2002)

MMC
06-16-2020, 02:00 PM
Hmm, seems like the Zimmerman jury disproves that study. The defense seemed to pick all white jurors and a hispanic juror for the trial.
Evidence of race based jury striking....(remember the term systemic...)

"Other evidence calls the holdings of the Minnesota appellate courts into question. Surveys conducted by the Racial Bias Task Force revealed that nearly one-half of the public defenders, and fifty-three percent of the metropolitan judges believe that prosecutors in the state are more likely to use peremptory challenges against jurors who are people of color."(Martin)




"I think in part, this state has a false image of itself ... that we [are] different from the rest of the U.S., and we're not. We're as racist as the red hills of Alabama." Chief Judge Kevin Burke, Hennepin County District Court.

Racial bias exists in American society and in Minnesota. Racial bias necessarily exists in the Minnesota justice system to the extent that the justice system implements norms based on societal values. Racial bias persists in the Minnesota justice system because the judiciary is willing to tolerate racial bias to advance other goals. A review of Minnesota Supreme Court decisions could lead to the conclusion that racial or cultural bias is not a problem in the Minnesota justice system. It came as a surprise to some in 1993 when the Minnesota Supreme Court Task Force on Racial Bias in the Judicial System published findings that racial bias was rampant in the Minnesota judicial system. This conclusion seemed inconsistent with the hundreds of pages of appellate opinions that reveal no racial bias or only insignificant incidents of racial bias in Minnesota courts." (Martin)







It was a blog, which is held to a lower standard than an opinion piece from an established newspaper.




Learn what an appeal to authority is.




I see your "experts" and provide you with this...

"Unconscious racism is the residual ingrained racism of a society that has, for the majority of its existence, been dominated by overt racism. Since society has only recently broken free from the formal bonds of intentional racism, the notion that racial prejudice in the United States has actually been eradicated is absurd and potentially dangerous."(Silton)

"Racial profiling by law enforcement officials occurs not only in the typical "Driving While Black" scenario, but also when walking while Black, standing while Black, or doing practically anything while black"(Silton)



Silton, DJ. “Current Issue: Volume 38, Issue 2 (2020) Issue 2.” Law & Inequality: A Journal of Theory and Practice | University of Minnesota Law School, 2002, scholarship.law.umn.edu/lawineq.

William E. Martin and Peter N. Thompson, Judicial Toleration of Racial Bias in the Minnesota Justice System, 25 Hamline Law Review 235-270, 236-240 (Winter, 2002)

Oh and disparity with the Zimmermann case? Uh oh the Minnesota Appellate court. So not the entire Appeals courts. Systemic remember.

You counter with that despite not being able to counter this.


A 1987 analysis of Georgia felony convictions, for example, found that blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient punishment.....snip~



A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records.


Some criminologists replace statistics with High Theory in their search for racism. The criminal-justice system does treat individual suspects and criminals equally, they concede. But the problem is how society defines crime and criminals. Crime is a social construction designed to marginalize minorities, these theorists argue. A liberal use of scare quotes is virtually mandatory in such discussions, to signal one’s distance from primitive notions like “law-abiding” and “dangerous.” Arguably, vice crimes are partly definitional (though even there, the law enforcement system focuses on them to the extent that they harm communities). But the social constructivists are talking about all crime, and it’s hard to see how one could “socially reconstruct” assault or robbery so as to convince victims that they haven’t been injured.


LMAO Unconscious Racism.



The need to plumb the unconscious to explain ongoing racial gaps arises for one reason: it is taboo in universities and mainstream society to acknowledge intergroup differences in interests, abilities, cultural values, or family structure that might produce socioeconomic disparities.


The implicit-bias idea burst onto the academic scene in 1998 with the rollout of a psychological instrument called the implicit association test (IAT). Created by social psychologists Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji, with funding from the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Mental Health, the IAT was announced as a breakthrough in prejudice studies: “The pervasiveness of prejudice, affecting 90 to 95 percent of people, was demonstrated today . . . by psychologists who developed a new tool that measures the unconscious roots of prejudice,” read the press release.


But though proponents refer to IAT research as “science”—or, in Kang’s words, “remarkable,” “jaw-dropping” science—their claims about its social significance leapfrogged ahead of scientific validation. There is hardly an aspect of IAT doctrine that is not now under methodological challenge.


Any social-psychological instrument must pass two tests to be considered accurate: reliability and validity. A psychological instrument is reliable if the same test subject, taking the test at different times, achieves roughly the same score each time. But IAT bias scores have a lower rate of consistency than is deemed acceptable for use in the real world—a subject could be rated with a high degree of implicit bias on one taking of the IAT and a low or moderate degree the next time around. A recent estimate puts the reliability of the race IAT at half of what is considered usable. No evidence exists, in other words, that the IAT reliably measures anything stable in the test-taker.


But the fiercest disputes concern the IAT’s validity. A psychological instrument is deemed “valid” if it actually measures what it claims to be measuring—in this case, implicit bias and, by extension, discriminatory behavior. If the IAT were valid, a high implicit-bias score would predict discriminatory behavior, as Greenwald and Banaji asserted from the start. It turns out, however, that IAT scores have almost no connection to what ludicrously counts as “discriminatory behavior” in IAT research—trivial nuances of body language during a mock interview in a college psychology laboratory, say, or a hypothetical choice to donate to children in Colombian, rather than South African, slums. Oceans of ink have been spilled debating the statistical strength of the correlation between IAT scores and lab-induced “discriminatory behavior” on the part of college students paid to take the test. The actual content of those “discriminatory behaviors” gets mentioned only in passing, if at all, and no one notes how remote those behaviors are from the discrimination that we should be worried about.


If such discrimination is so ubiquitous, there should be victims aplenty that the proponents of implicit bias can point to. They cannot.


The iron grip of the implicit-bias concept on the corporate world will merely result in a loss of efficiency as workers are again trundled off to this latest iteration of diversity training and are further pressured to take race into account in personnel decisions.


But the most influential sectors of our economy today practice preferences in favor of blacks. The main obstacles to racial equality at present lie not in implicit bias but in culture and behavior......snip~


https://www.city-journal.org/html/are-we-all-unconscious-racists-15487.html


Countered with no problem at all. There is no reason to suppose everyone is detectably racist in this way unless you stretch the definition of racism to vague meaninglessness.


More that counters Unintentional racism.


The Implicit Association Test: Flawed Science Tricks Americans into Believing They Are Unconscious Racists....



Key Takeaways

1. Proponents of the IAT have not shown that it unequivocally measures unconscious racism and have failed to rule out alternative explanations.


2. The IAT has not been shown to correlate with other established measures of prejudice and discrimination or to predict discriminatory behavior.


3. There are high rates of false positives and false negatives associated with the test. The IAT has not been shown to apply to real-world settings.





Not much has changed. In the 2009 Annual Review of Political Science, noted public opinion researchers and political scientists Leonie Huddy and Stanley Feldman examined the work on the IAT, and concluded that, while interesting, “the results of implicit racial attitudes can be confusing.”68Huddy and Feldman, “On Assessing the Political Effects,” p. 436.


They, too, note the often-contradictory results between implicit and explicit attitudes.

Huddy and Feldman argue that explicit racial attitude questions, not the results of an unconscious racism test, should suffice to uncover racism, especially when there is time for a respondent to think about policies or a politician (e.g., feelings toward President Obama).69Ibid., pp. 436 and 437.


Huddy and Feldman state: “[C]ontinuing disputes in psychology over the meaning of implicit attitudes serve as a cautionary note to political scientists interested in incorporating such measures into their research.”
70
Ibid., p. 437.



Along similar lines, the lack of consistent and robust correlation between IAT results and other measures led social scientist Justine Tinkler in 2012 to also conclude that it is wrong to discount explicit attitudes and focus only on implicit attitudes.



Conclusion and Implications
Proponents of the IAT have not shown that the test unequivocally measures unconscious racism and have failed to rule out alternative explanations. Likewise, the IAT has not been shown to correlate with other established measures of prejudice and discrimination, and little research shows it predicting discriminatory behavior. There are high rates of false positives and false negatives associated with the test. The IAT has not been shown to apply to real-world settings.


Notwithstanding these problems, IAT proponents seek its widespread adoption in public policy and legal arenas. Ignoring the differences between scholarly research and real-world implementation, big institutions have hired private consultants and instituted proprietary programs to correct, train, and generally root out unconscious racism and other forms of bias.


Ultimately, unconscious racism, cultural stereotyping, stereotype threat—or whatever is actually measured by the IAT—is regularly overcome in everyday life.


Given the high probability of errors associated with the IAT, it should not be incorporated into public policies, such as hiring and university admissions, housing, banking, and government contracting, by law enforcement, in lawsuits, or in jury selection. Although it has been hailed by the media as uncovering a dark, secret side of the American psyche, numerous critics of the IAT have demonstrated that it simply cannot predict how test takers will act in the real world. The test fails to prove that we are a nation of unconscious racists.....snip~



https://www.heritage.org/science-policy/report/the-implicit-association-test-flawed-science-tricks-americans-believing-they


Unconscious racism.....Destroyed!

Safety
06-23-2020, 07:14 AM
Oh and disparity with the Zimmermann case? Uh oh the Minnesota Appellate court. So not the entire Appeals courts. Systemic remember.

You counter with that despite not being able to counter this.


A 1987 analysis of Georgia felony convictions, for example, found that blacks frequently received disproportionately lenient punishment.....snip~



A 1994 Justice Department survey of felony cases from the country’s 75 largest urban areas discovered that blacks actually had a lower chance of prosecution following a felony than whites did and that they were less likely to be found guilty at trial. Following conviction, blacks were more likely to receive prison sentences, however—an outcome that reflected the gravity of their offenses as well as their criminal records.


Some criminologists replace statistics with High Theory in their search for racism. The criminal-justice system does treat individual suspects and criminals equally, they concede. But the problem is how society defines crime and criminals. Crime is a social construction designed to marginalize minorities, these theorists argue. A liberal use of scare quotes is virtually mandatory in such discussions, to signal one’s distance from primitive notions like “law-abiding” and “dangerous.” Arguably, vice crimes are partly definitional (though even there, the law enforcement system focuses on them to the extent that they harm communities). But the social constructivists are talking about all crime, and it’s hard to see how one could “socially reconstruct” assault or robbery so as to convince victims that they haven’t been injured.


LMAO Unconscious Racism.



The need to plumb the unconscious to explain ongoing racial gaps arises for one reason: it is taboo in universities and mainstream society to acknowledge intergroup differences in interests, abilities, cultural values, or family structure that might produce socioeconomic disparities.


The implicit-bias idea burst onto the academic scene in 1998 with the rollout of a psychological instrument called the implicit association test (IAT). Created by social psychologists Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji, with funding from the National Science Foundation and National Institute of Mental Health, the IAT was announced as a breakthrough in prejudice studies: “The pervasiveness of prejudice, affecting 90 to 95 percent of people, was demonstrated today . . . by psychologists who developed a new tool that measures the unconscious roots of prejudice,” read the press release.


But though proponents refer to IAT research as “science”—or, in Kang’s words, “remarkable,” “jaw-dropping” science—their claims about its social significance leapfrogged ahead of scientific validation. There is hardly an aspect of IAT doctrine that is not now under methodological challenge.


Any social-psychological instrument must pass two tests to be considered accurate: reliability and validity. A psychological instrument is reliable if the same test subject, taking the test at different times, achieves roughly the same score each time. But IAT bias scores have a lower rate of consistency than is deemed acceptable for use in the real world—a subject could be rated with a high degree of implicit bias on one taking of the IAT and a low or moderate degree the next time around. A recent estimate puts the reliability of the race IAT at half of what is considered usable. No evidence exists, in other words, that the IAT reliably measures anything stable in the test-taker.


But the fiercest disputes concern the IAT’s validity. A psychological instrument is deemed “valid” if it actually measures what it claims to be measuring—in this case, implicit bias and, by extension, discriminatory behavior. If the IAT were valid, a high implicit-bias score would predict discriminatory behavior, as Greenwald and Banaji asserted from the start. It turns out, however, that IAT scores have almost no connection to what ludicrously counts as “discriminatory behavior” in IAT research—trivial nuances of body language during a mock interview in a college psychology laboratory, say, or a hypothetical choice to donate to children in Colombian, rather than South African, slums. Oceans of ink have been spilled debating the statistical strength of the correlation between IAT scores and lab-induced “discriminatory behavior” on the part of college students paid to take the test. The actual content of those “discriminatory behaviors” gets mentioned only in passing, if at all, and no one notes how remote those behaviors are from the discrimination that we should be worried about.


If such discrimination is so ubiquitous, there should be victims aplenty that the proponents of implicit bias can point to. They cannot.


The iron grip of the implicit-bias concept on the corporate world will merely result in a loss of efficiency as workers are again trundled off to this latest iteration of diversity training and are further pressured to take race into account in personnel decisions.


But the most influential sectors of our economy today practice preferences in favor of blacks. The main obstacles to racial equality at present lie not in implicit bias but in culture and behavior......snip~


https://www.city-journal.org/html/are-we-all-unconscious-racists-15487.html


Countered with no problem at all. There is no reason to suppose everyone is detectably racist in this way unless you stretch the definition of racism to vague meaninglessness.


More that counters Unintentional racism.


The Implicit Association Test: Flawed Science Tricks Americans into Believing They Are Unconscious Racists....



Key Takeaways

1. Proponents of the IAT have not shown that it unequivocally measures unconscious racism and have failed to rule out alternative explanations.


2. The IAT has not been shown to correlate with other established measures of prejudice and discrimination or to predict discriminatory behavior.


3. There are high rates of false positives and false negatives associated with the test. The IAT has not been shown to apply to real-world settings.





Not much has changed. In the 2009 Annual Review of Political Science, noted public opinion researchers and political scientists Leonie Huddy and Stanley Feldman examined the work on the IAT, and concluded that, while interesting, “the results of implicit racial attitudes can be confusing.”68Huddy and Feldman, “On Assessing the Political Effects,” p. 436.


They, too, note the often-contradictory results between implicit and explicit attitudes.

Huddy and Feldman argue that explicit racial attitude questions, not the results of an unconscious racism test, should suffice to uncover racism, especially when there is time for a respondent to think about policies or a politician (e.g., feelings toward President Obama).69Ibid., pp. 436 and 437.


Huddy and Feldman state: “[C]ontinuing disputes in psychology over the meaning of implicit attitudes serve as a cautionary note to political scientists interested in incorporating such measures into their research.”
70
Ibid., p. 437.



Along similar lines, the lack of consistent and robust correlation between IAT results and other measures led social scientist Justine Tinkler in 2012 to also conclude that it is wrong to discount explicit attitudes and focus only on implicit attitudes.



Conclusion and Implications
Proponents of the IAT have not shown that the test unequivocally measures unconscious racism and have failed to rule out alternative explanations. Likewise, the IAT has not been shown to correlate with other established measures of prejudice and discrimination, and little research shows it predicting discriminatory behavior. There are high rates of false positives and false negatives associated with the test. The IAT has not been shown to apply to real-world settings.


Notwithstanding these problems, IAT proponents seek its widespread adoption in public policy and legal arenas. Ignoring the differences between scholarly research and real-world implementation, big institutions have hired private consultants and instituted proprietary programs to correct, train, and generally root out unconscious racism and other forms of bias.


Ultimately, unconscious racism, cultural stereotyping, stereotype threat—or whatever is actually measured by the IAT—is regularly overcome in everyday life.


Given the high probability of errors associated with the IAT, it should not be incorporated into public policies, such as hiring and university admissions, housing, banking, and government contracting, by law enforcement, in lawsuits, or in jury selection. Although it has been hailed by the media as uncovering a dark, secret side of the American psyche, numerous critics of the IAT have demonstrated that it simply cannot predict how test takers will act in the real world. The test fails to prove that we are a nation of unconscious racists.....snip~



https://www.heritage.org/science-policy/report/the-implicit-association-test-flawed-science-tricks-americans-believing-they




Unconscious racism.....Destroyed!

Yes the Minnesota Appellate court, where they conducted the study. Once again, systemic incorporates the system and does not have to mean everything.

Wait, so now you're saying that because two people "invented" a test to detect racism, that it is supposed to be the end-all and you are now using it to say systemic racism doesn't exist?

LoL....

"People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that."


But here’s the thing: It turns out the IAT might not tell individuals much about their individual bias. According to a growing body of research and the researchers who created the test and maintain it at the Project Implicit website, the IAT is not good for predicting individual biases based on just one test. It requires a collection — an aggregate — of tests before it can really make any sort of conclusions.

https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism

Then from the "scientists that created the IAT...


In Blindspot, Greenwald and Banaji wrote:

[G]iven the relatively small proportion of people who are overtly prejudiced and how clearly it is established that automatic race preference predicts discrimination, it is reasonable to conclude not only that implicit bias is a cause of Black disadvantage but also that it plausibly plays a greater role than does explicit bias in explaining the discrimination that contributes to Black disadvantage.

But then continuing....


In Blindspot, Banaji and Greenwald estimate some 40% of white Americans are “uncomfortable egalitarians” who are more likely to help white people than black—in situations ranging from job interviews to first aid response—but are “earnestly” unaware of their prejudiced behavior.

Many are prejudiced but hope to escape the label of “racist” or “sexist.” And the theory of implicit bias has handed them an excuse.

So, once again, you not only make my point, you completely destroyed your own. Banaji and Greenwald just confirmed systemic racism. Good Job.

MMC
06-23-2020, 12:32 PM
Yes the Minnesota Appellate court, where they conducted the study. Once again, systemic incorporates the system and does not have to mean everything.

Wait, so now you're saying that because two people "invented" a test to detect racism, that it is supposed to be the end-all and you are now using it to say systemic racism doesn't exist?

LoL....

"People took the implicit association test to gauge their subconscious racism. Now the researchers behind the test admit it can’t always do that."



https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism

Then from the "scientists that created the IAT...



But then continuing....



So, once again, you not only make my point, you completely destroyed your own. Banaji and Greenwald just confirmed systemic racism. Good Job.

LMAO no one has made your point no matter how much you say it. Believe it.....nor however long you take to get back to a debate. Did you enjoy your vacation looking up for anything and everything for a way out of your conundrum? LOL


So lets recap. DOJ, Public research, Experts on Law Enforcement and Top Social Theorists all stating there is no Systemic Racism in todays day and age. Of course you not being able to counter Sowell, Hicks, Webb or any other Black conservatives validates you really have no clue as to what you are talking about. Again, no policies or regulations are made in todays day and age that shows nor validates any systemic racism.


Yes you like to cherry pick out sources used against you. But in the end just can't get around their final conclusions. Btw, The US AG recently did an interview and was talked to as if systemic racism existed. Take another vacation, research it and this time remember his conclusion wherein he says there is no systemic racism or institutional racism in todays day and age.


You lost this debate before you even got started, and the only thing you can prove is. There are racist people who still live in the US.


Oh and the only ones in the US that is openly discriminated against as a whole, as a complete concept. Systemically.....Are Ex Convicts.

Safety
06-23-2020, 01:50 PM
LMAO no one has made your point no matter how much you say it. Believe it.....nor however long you take to get back to a debate. Did you enjoy your vacation looking up for anything and everything for a way out of your conundrum? LOL


So lets recap. DOJ, Public research, Experts on Law Enforcement and Top Social Theorists all stating there is no Systemic Racism in todays day and age. Of course you not being able to counter Sowell, Hicks, Webb or any other Black conservatives validates you really have no clue as to what you are talking about. Again, no policies or regulations are made in todays day and age that shows nor validates any systemic racism.


Yes you like to cherry pick out sources used against you. But in the end just can't get around their final conclusions. Btw, The US AG recently did an interview and was talked to as if systemic racism existed. Take another vacation, research it and this time remember his conclusion wherein he says there is no systemic racism or institutional racism in todays day and age.


You lost this debate before you even got started, and the only thing you can prove is. There are racist people who still live in the US.


Oh and the only ones in the US that is openly discriminated against as a whole, as a complete concept. Systemically.....Are Ex Convicts.

Oh but you have, that is what is so ironic. Your recap, as well as your entire argument, consists of nothing but subjective sources that either, make money for being opposed to settled science, Law Enforcement that have a vested interest to portray themselves as not engaging in systemic racism, and a handful of selected individuals of whom are only solicited for advice either because of the color of their skin, or because they espouse conservative mantra. They, by no manner of logic or common sense, prove systemic racism doesn’t exist because as I have shown and proven time after time, not only does it exist in various entities of Law Enforcement, it is also an institution that is protected by those aligning themselves with the social conservative ideology. I laugh at you attempting to argue that I cherry pick any sources, because I take the time to actually read the data the sources provide, the methodology the analysis is based upon, and the basis of how they arrive at their conclusion. Whereas, you only provide sources that either isolate a single characteristic to focus on, or whether or not the source is black, therefore implying their opinion is held with more weight. Shit, you even posted an argument using Greenwald and Banaji, in which I not only showed you how they even admitted that their methodology was flawed, but even showed systemic racism existed. I mean, LoL.

Hell, even looking at the polling results from the thread asking who is winning, and you will see the breakdown of social cons on this board that support you, because that is the only way to attempt to continue the agenda of social order. None of the votes for you include any of the fiscal conservatives or constitutional conservatives that are present on the board. There’s a reason for that.

MMC
06-23-2020, 02:11 PM
Only in your mind. But then I guess if you keep hearing yourself repeat your version of an alternate reality. You wont ever stop believing your little Systemic Racism Bubble. Oh now all of my sources make money for being opposed to settled science. LMAO.


Yes you cherry pick but then always forget the conclusion despite anything you thinks back your play. Its funny they show your a side of your argument and still come with a conclusion debunking your BS. Then you blew it with that crap about unintentional racism. Now that was just hilarious. :smiley_ROFLMAO:


Oh were you just paying attention to some poll here on the site. Imagine that. Its funny how none of the most intelligent leftists on this site didn't vote for you. Knowing you lack what it takes and would come up short and fail to give leftists a good result. Naturally most of those fiscal conservatives and constitutional conservatives are in the Open thread and aren't giving you any support. Laughing at you, mocking you. In the poll on this they knew you would come in and claim victim. Whine about more conservatives on the site, your usual. Oh that's Right.....just one reason your uhm so called intelligence didn't think of. Tell you what, take another week and see if you can come up those smart powers. :laugh:

Safety
06-23-2020, 02:27 PM
Only in your mind. But then I guess if you keep hearing yourself repeat your version of an alternate reality. You wont ever stop believing your little Systemic Racism Bubble. Oh now all of my sources make money for being opposed to settled science. LMAO.


Yes you cherry pick but then always forget the conclusion despite anything you thinks back your play. Its funny they show your a side of your argument and still come with a conclusion debunking your BS. Then you blew it with that crap about unintentional racism. Now that was just hilarious. :smiley_ROFLMAO:


Oh were you just paying attention to some poll here on the site. Imagine that. Its funny how none of the most intelligent leftists on this site didn't vote for you. Knowing you lack what it takes and would come up short and fail to give leftists a good result. Naturally most of those fiscal conservatives and constitutional conservatives are in the Open thread and aren't giving you any support. Laughing at you, mocking you. In the poll on this they knew you would come in and claim victim. Whine about more conservatives on the site, your usual. Oh that's Right.....just one reason your uhm so called intelligence didn't think of. Tell you what, take another week and see if you can come up those smart powers. :laugh:

Don’t make the mistake of my acknowledgement of the vote breakdown as being anything other than further proof that people are denying the existence of systemic racism, because not only would it render any movement dedicated to eradicating such a blight from our existence as having validity, but it would also create an existential threat to everything they hold dear. I know asking such a thing as to not make simple mistakes is a tall order, considering how you never rebut a single argument I made in your own words, rather than use school yard taunts like “you didn’t win, I did” or “I don’t cherry pick, you do”, and then when that doesn’t work, you fall back to your M.O of claiming someone is a victim.

At the end of the day, the most telling aspect of this interaction is knowing that not only did you react the very way I expected you to, you even didn’t have the courage to quote me.

MMC
06-23-2020, 03:03 PM
Don’t make the mistake of my acknowledgement of the vote breakdown as being anything other than further proof that people are denying the existence of systemic racism, because not only would it render any movement dedicated to eradicating such a blight from our existence as having validity, but it would also create an existential threat to everything they hold dear. I know asking such a thing as to not make simple mistakes is a tall order, considering how you never rebut a single argument I made in your own words, rather than use school yard taunts like “you didn’t win, I did” or “I don’t cherry pick, you do”, and then when that doesn’t work, you fall back to your M.O of claiming someone is a victim.

At the end of the day, the most telling aspect of this interaction is knowing that not only did you react the very way I expected you to, you even didn’t have the courage to quote me.

Oh I didn't.....but then not only did I know you would go there. So to did several others. Nah most know there is no such thing as unintentional racism. Most know policies, regulations, and reforms aren't created with any favoring of a race over another. Not in this day and age.

When using studies, research, experts in related fields that debunk the theory and or idea of systemic racism. Don't need my own words that would mirror what the conclusion is. Which was my premise from the very start of this debate. Repeating it would be way more than what already has been repeated. Oh and didn't worry about any mistakes you made. Not once did I claim victim for anything presented.


Yet in reality you were quoted directly many many times in this thread. So that deflection just doesn't carry any weight. Nor does it have anything to do with lacking courage in dealing with you. That just implies that you think more of yourself than whats actually there. As its clear you don't have a clue as to how others see you. Gage you. Assess you. Nor set you up. Knowing exactly how you will react. Like you did with this BS. Even more amusing is how you always fail to see when your own choice of words brings any affront. Though you know that is exactly what you are doing. So save the Righteous BS.

Safety
06-23-2020, 09:36 PM
Oh I didn't.....but then not only did I know you would go there. So to did several others. Nah most know there is no such thing as unintentional racism. Most know policies, regulations, and reforms aren't created with any favoring of a race over another. Not in this day and age.

When using studies, research, experts in related fields that debunk the theory and or idea of systemic racism. Don't need my own words that would mirror what the conclusion is. Which was my premise from the very start of this debate. Repeating it would be way more than what already has been repeated. Oh and didn't worry about any mistakes you made. Not once did I claim victim for anything presented.


Yet in reality you were quoted directly many many times in this thread. So that deflection just doesn't carry any weight. Nor does it have anything to do with lacking courage in dealing with you. That just implies that you think more of yourself than whats actually there. As its clear you don't have a clue as to how others see you. Gage you. Assess you. Nor set you up. Knowing exactly how you will react. Like you did with this BS. Even more amusing is how you always fail to see when your own choice of words brings any affront. Though you know that is exactly what you are doing. So save the Righteous BS.

Still more of the same. You incorrectly characterize systemic racism, you intentionally refer to false dichotomies in your representation of my position, then you take what I say and turn it around as if you came up with it.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

MMC
06-24-2020, 06:32 AM
Still more of the same. You incorrectly characterize systemic racism, you intentionally refer to false dichotomies in your representation of my position, then you take what I say and turn it around as if you came up with it.

Wash, rinse, repeat.

You're wrong about incorrectly characterizing systemic racism. You cant change the definition nor the social theory that came from that definition. No I intentionally put forth research, data, studies, reports, then experts in Law Enforcement, History, Social Theory, and people who lived during a time of systemic racism. All of which debunk systemic racism in this day and age. You tried a one on one debate because you didn't have the courage to take on all that knows it doesn't exist in todays age. Wherein Not only did I take you on one on one, but all of those that think like you that got involved in the open thread.

All that is wash, rinse, and repeat is your own prejudice that blinds you from reality. Hence you doing what all knew you would. Attacking Black men not by countering their argument. But by only one concept. That they were Black and oppose the BS about Systemic racism today. Then you fall off into your affronts/diss, go personal. Mocking and then thinking you know what someone is thinking. Its what you do and your norm around here.

Safety
06-24-2020, 07:45 AM
Oh I didn't.....but then not only did I know you would go there. So to did several others. Nah most know there is no such thing as unintentional racism. Most know policies, regulations, and reforms aren't created with any favoring of a race over another. Not in this day and age.

When using studies, research, experts in related fields that debunk the theory and or idea of systemic racism. Don't need my own words that would mirror what the conclusion is. Which was my premise from the very start of this debate. Repeating it would be way more than what already has been repeated. Oh and didn't worry about any mistakes you made. Not once did I claim victim for anything presented.


Yet in reality you were quoted directly many many times in this thread. So that deflection just doesn't carry any weight. Nor does it have anything to do with lacking courage in dealing with you. That just implies that you think more of yourself than whats actually there. As its clear you don't have a clue as to how others see you. Gage you. Assess you. Nor set you up. Knowing exactly how you will react. Like you did with this BS. Even more amusing is how you always fail to see when your own choice of words brings any affront. Though you know that is exactly what you are doing. So save the Righteous BS.


You're wrong about incorrectly characterizing systemic racism. You cant change the definition nor the social theory that came from that definition. No I intentionally put forth research, data, studies, reports, then experts in Law Enforcement, History, Social Theory, and people who lived during a time of systemic racism. All of which debunk systemic racism in this day and age. You tried a one on one debate because you didn't have the courage to take on all that knows it doesn't exist in todays age. Wherein Not only did I take you on one on one, but all of those that think like you that got involved in the open thread.

All that is wash, rinse, and repeat is your own prejudice that blinds you from reality. Hence you doing what all knew you would. Attacking Black men not by countering their argument. But by only one concept. That they were Black and oppose the BS about Systemic racism today. Then you fall off into your affronts/diss, go personal. Mocking and then thinking you know what someone is thinking. Its what you do and your norm around here.

I'm glad you finally realized that you cannot change the definition, I just don't know why it took 101 posts for you to get it. Here it is again, just so you can remember it this time....from Merriam-Webster.....


"a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles" and "a political or social system founded on racism."

Continuing....
Many people think that racism is simply hatred toward people of a different race, which completely overlooks the centuries-long impact of race-based laws, policies, and practices that have caused and perpetuated racial inequities.

Systemic racism goes beyond individual beliefs and feelings about people of other races. It means that the systems on which a society functions—the economic system, the education system, the heathcare system, the criminal justice system, etc.—are both infused with and impacted by the racism within which they were created and maintained.

This is from... https://www.good.is/Culture/systemic-racism-explainer-video

Which is pretty much a complete package to debunk anyone insisting systemic racism doesn't exist.


https://youtu.be/Muw3rFzBVZU

MMC
06-24-2020, 08:44 AM
I'm glad you finally realized that you cannot change the definition, I just don't know why it took 101 posts for you to get it. Here it is again, just so you can remember it this time....from Merriam-Webster.....

No you aren't glad that you cant change the definition. That the Social Theory is derived from. Lets look at that again.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Wikipedia




Continuing....

This is from... https://www.good.is/Culture/systemic-racism-explainer-video

Which is pretty much a complete package to debunk anyone insisting systemic racism doesn't exist.




LOL.....a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism




https://youtu.be/Muw3rFzBVZU


Yet they didn't Debunk Sowell, Hicks, Webb, or Elder. Nor the DOJ, Nor the Academy of Sciences. So that don't mean much. LMAO.


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5daNMXer2UQ&feature=emb_title

Sowell uses reality.....not an assumption.


Oh and Coleman Hughes tells you why none has debunked Elder, and is another that validates there is no Systemic Racism.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sV5qU6e-YY

Safety
06-24-2020, 09:41 AM
Yet they didn't Debunk Sowell, Hicks, Webb, or Elder. Nor the DOJ, Nor the Academy of Sciences. So that don't mean much. LMAO.


“The percentage of blacks with incomes below the poverty line fell most sharply between 1940 and 1960, going from 87 percent to 47 percent over that span, before either the Civil Rights Act of 1964 or the Voting Rights Act of 1965 and well before the 1970s, when affirmative action evolved into numerical goals or quotas.”


But if not racism, what caused the poverty rate to diminish less drastically after such landmark events as the Civil Rights Act than before their existence? In my post, “The Welfare Delusion”, I go into great detail the effects of government aid on the impoverished, without looking at it through the lens of race. But its effect on the black community cannot be understated. The fact that the welfare system has been aimed so heavily at black Americans is pivotal in understanding disparities among them and other races.


Take the crime rate among blacks, for example. The great sum of this crime is not due to racist cops or a rigged legal system, but to the abundance of fatherless homes......snip~




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5daNMXer2UQ&feature=emb_title

Sowell uses reality.....not an assumption.


Oh and Coleman Hughes tells you why none has debunked Elder, and is another that validates there is no Systemic Racism.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sV5qU6e-YY

....and once again, you are not arguing that systemic racism doesn't exist, you are attempting to justify the reason it exists. Dismissing the continued appeals to authority you keep posting, the mere fact that the system shows a disparity in results stemming from the mindset that "black people are more criminal, therefore the police targets black people more" is no different than someone saying "why does every time a white cop shoots a black person does it make the news, but not the black on black crime or black on white crime". You agree with the ends justifying the means, but you fail to realize that the means is the reason people are protesting and why systemic racism is a known quantity.

MMC
06-24-2020, 10:13 AM
....and once again, you are not arguing that systemic racism doesn't exist, you are attempting to justify the reason it exists. Dismissing the continued appeals to authority you keep posting, the mere fact that the system shows a disparity in results stemming from the mindset that "black people are more criminal, therefore the police targets black people more" is no different than someone saying "why does every time a white cop shoots a black person does it make the news, but not the black on black crime or black on white crime". You agree with the ends justifying the means, but you fail to realize that the means is the reason people are protesting and why systemic racism is a known quantity.

Again you must not know how to read and comprehend. When one talks about a Myth of Systemic racism. Only in your head would you think they aren't arguing that systemic racism doesn't exist. When one debunks the assumption of Systemic racism they aren't saying that systemic racism exists. They are saying there is no systemic racism. Myth, Debunking. Not your friends. Remember that!

myth - a widely held but false belief or idea.


Yeah you dismiss the appeals of authority based on some Black guys skin color not by dismissing their argument. You dismiss appeals to authority only because they disagree with you. If they agree with you then side with those appeals of authority. There is no ends justifying the means. The reason people are protesting is due to not comprehending issues, Being misled. Not knowing History. Just like when they protested in Ferguson with Michael Brown. Protested all on a lie. A false widely held belief or idea.Yet they protested enmasse.

Safety
06-24-2020, 11:30 AM
Again you must not know how to read and comprehend. When one talks about a Myth of Systemic racism. Only in your head would you think they aren't arguing that systemic racism doesn't exist. When one debunks the assumption of Systemic racism they aren't saying that systemic racism exists. They are saying there is no systemic racism. Myth, Debunking. Not your friends. Remember that!

myth - a widely held but false belief or idea.


Yeah you dismiss the appeals of authority based on some Black guys skin color not by dismissing their argument. You dismiss appeals to authority only because they disagree with you. If they agree with you then side with those appeals of authority. There is no ends justifying the means. The reason people are protesting is due to not comprehending issues, Being misled. Not knowing History. Just like when they protested in Ferguson with Michael Brown. Protested all on a lie. A false widely held belief or idea.Yet they protested enmasse.

Incorrect. You are arguing that systemic racism is a myth, yet everything I have posted dispels that myth and supports the fact that systemic racism exists. You cannot “debunk” systemic racism by proving LE uses racism to profile citizens, you cannot “debunk” systemic racism by proving there is a disparity in the sentencing of criminals by race, you cannot “debunk” systemic racism by cherry picking one argument from experts, but ignoring the rest of the study, you cannot “debunk” systemic racism by using an individual’s opinion, then saying because you think he is right, therefore it does not exist. They are all flawed logic posing as a debate.

What has been proven in this thread....systemic racism exists, proven by numerous Chiefs of police, proven by numerous experts in the field with studies that is backed by data, proven by multitudes of individuals experiencing it, but because admitting it exists would give validity to organizations that fight it. That would mean the agenda social conservatives base their ideology on, would show it being aligned with what has been the main force that created the marginalization, oppression, and implementation of racist policies, procedures, and laws that has plagued this country for centuries.

Basically, I don’t expect a racist to ever admit they were racist, they would always argue they weren’t, while justifying why they “could” be.

MMC
06-24-2020, 12:02 PM
Incorrect. You are arguing that systemic racism is a myth, yet everything I have posted dispels that myth and supports the fact that systemic racism exists. You cannot “debunk” systemic racism by proving LE uses racism to profile citizens, you cannot “debunk” systemic racism by proving there is a disparity in the sentencing of criminals by race, you cannot “debunk” systemic racism by cherry picking one argument from experts, but ignoring the rest of the study, you cannot “debunk” systemic racism by using an individual’s opinion, then saying because you think he is right, therefore it does not exist. They are all flawed logic posing as a debate.

What has been proven in this thread....systemic racism exists, proven by numerous Chiefs of police, proven by numerous experts in the field with studies that is backed by data, proven by multitudes of individuals experiencing it, but because admitting it exists would give validity to organizations that fight it. That would mean the agenda social conservatives base their ideology on, would show it being aligned with what has been the main force that created the marginalization, oppression, and implementation of racist policies, procedures, and laws that has plagued this country for centuries.

Basically, I don’t expect a racist to ever admit they were racist, they would always argue they weren’t, while justifying why they “could” be.

Coleman Hughes says its a Myth. Argues that it is a myth and explains why. Sowell just debunked the whole concept of systemic racism existing in this day and age. Not one has stated your assumption is even remotely tied to reality.

Actually its you that can't argue systemic racism exist by bringing up some disparity. Then there was that hilarious crap about racism being unintentional.


Whats been proven in this thread. Is that systemic racism doesn't exist in this day and age. By the National Academy of Sciences. By the DOJ. By University studies. By Law Enforcement Experts. That it doesn't exist in Law Enforcement. By the Public and Police research. By top Black Leaders that are conservatives. 2 of them who use to be die hard leftists. But then discovered the truth about the Left and their Democrats. That Systemic Racism is nothing more than an assumption. A Failed Social Theory Construct.


Of course you don't expect yourself to ever admit to it. But then you thought you were debating a white man.

Safety
06-24-2020, 12:13 PM
Coleman Hughes says its a Myth. Argues that it is a myth and explains why. Sowell just debunked the whole concept of systemic racism existing in this day and age. Not one has stated your assumption is even remotely tied to reality.

Actually its you that can't argue systemic racism exist by bringing up some disparity. Then there was that hilarious crap about racism being unintentional.


Whats been proven in this thread. Is that systemic racism doesn't exist in this day and age. By the National Academy of Sciences. By the DOJ. By University studies. By Law Enforcement Experts. That it doesn't exist in Law Enforcement. By the Public and Police research. By top Black Leaders that are conservatives. 2 of them who use to be die hard leftists. But then discovered the truth about the Left and their Democrats. That Systemic Racism is nothing more than an assumption. A Failed Social Theory Construct.


Of course you don't expect yourself to ever admit to it. But then you thought you were debating a white man.

“Coleman Hughes says its a myth”...“Sowell says...”...textbook argument based upon the fallacy that because someone in authority says it, it must be true. That isn’t an argument, that’s an opinion.

Actually, the very distinction of showing disparity “by race” by systems, agencies, and government, proves that systemic racism exists.

The very fact that you even mention what race you are not as it making a f’fing difference, only strengthens my argument that social conservatives are heavily vested in making sure systemic racism doesn’t exist, therefore social order can be maintained. See my last sentence of my previous reply.

MMC
06-24-2020, 01:19 PM
“Coleman Hughes says its a myth”...“Sowell says...”...textbook argument based upon the fallacy that because someone in authority says it, it must be true. That isn’t an argument, that’s an opinion.

Actually, the very distinction of showing disparity “by race” by systems, agencies, and government, proves that systemic racism exists.

The very fact that you even mention what race you are not as it making a f’fing difference, only strengthens my argument that social conservatives are heavily vested in making sure systemic racism doesn’t exist, therefore social order can be maintained. See my last sentence of my previous reply.

Oh like your video that showed Shapiro getting debunked and then you trying to use those talking points. That Sowell already debunked. The Bottomline is no one has taken on Sowell from your side. There is a reason for that. And again all that I have posted in this thread validates there isn't any Systemic racism in this day and age.

What you have is an assumption on racism vs reality. Now you go off into another assumption of social conservatives. Despite those you tout and aspire to be, claiming they are the elites.


Hughes is correct in that....Systemic racism is a myth. Just a widely held but false belief of an idea that use to exist. But no longer exists any more. Systemic racism and your unintentional racism is a falsehood. Not true. Not real. No matter how much you repeat it. Oh and you have no point in talking about race when it comes to Sowell, Elder, Hicks, Webb, Hughes or myself. Meaning you don't get to use it in any shape or form while trying to chastise others for countering your BS with what you bring to the table.

Safety
06-24-2020, 01:52 PM
Oh like your video that showed Shapiro getting debunked and then you trying to use those talking points. That Sowell already debunked. The Bottomline is no one has taken on Sowell from your side. There is a reason for that. And again all that I have posted in this thread validates there isn't any Systemic racism in this day and age.

What you have is an assumption on racism vs reality. Now you go off into another assumption of social conservatives. Despite those you tout and aspire to be, claiming they are the elites.


Hughes is correct in that....Systemic racism is a myth. Just a widely held but false belief of an idea that use to exist. But no longer exists any more. Systemic racism and your unintentional racism is a falsehood. Not true. Not real. No matter how much you repeat it. Oh and you have no point in talking about race when it comes to Sowell, Elder, Hicks, Webb, Hughes or myself. Meaning you don't get to use it in any shape or form while trying to chastise others for countering your BS with what you bring to the table.

Why don’t you read back through the thread, you were the one that touted Sowell’s and Elder’s race as it meaning anything. Just like you were the one to open the door to using fallacies to make your argument. You don’t get to claim foul now because I point it out. Please use the correct definitions when you attempt to debate, because you can not claim something as being an assumption when it has data and documents to back it up.

MMC
06-24-2020, 02:32 PM
Why don’t you read back through the thread, you were the one that touted Sowell’s and Elder’s race as it meaning anything. Just like you were the one to open the door to using fallacies to make your argument. You don’t get to claim foul now because I point it out. Please use the correct definitions when you attempt to debate, because you can not claim something as being an assumption when it has data and documents to back it up.

It does mean something. But like I said. Meaning you don't just get to use race. Like you did with Sowell and Elder. Of course then you tried to downplay experience from one who lived with systemic racism. Knows exactly what it was.

Oh and don't cry foul when I used your own definition from Merriam. Its obvious that you validate that you don't comprehend what you read.

"a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism, …...snip~


You know, your widely false belief or idea.

Safety
06-24-2020, 03:04 PM
It does mean something. But like I said. Meaning you don't just get to use race. Like you did with Sowell and Elder. Of course then you tried to downplay experience from one who lived with systemic racism. Knows exactly what it was.

Oh and don't cry foul when I used your own definition from Merriam. Its obvious that you validate that you don't comprehend what you read.

"a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism, …...snip~


You know, your widely false belief or idea.

No, I just wanted you to dig yourself a little deeper in the hole....you say you “used” my definition from Merriam, then you accuse me of not comprehending what I read, yet this.....
"a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles" and "a political or social system founded on racism." negates your premise that “assumption” is required. See how you like to cherry pick stuff only when it allows you to claim it means something it doesn’t?

Now here you go again attempting to double speak your argument, whereas you brought up race, next you accuse me of bring race into the discussion, then you continue to use race as a crutch for your argument, then say I can’t respond using race, only to end up saying race means something. It takes incredible mental gymnastics to even attempt to walk something that significant back, but kudos to you for trying.

MMC
06-24-2020, 03:26 PM
No, I just wanted you to dig yourself a little deeper in the hole....you say you “used” my definition from Merriam, then you accuse me of not comprehending what I read, yet this..... negates your premise that “assumption” is required. See how you like to cherry pick stuff only when it allows you to claim it means something it doesn’t?

Now here you go again attempting to double speak your argument, whereas you brought up race, next you accuse me of bring race into the discussion, then you continue to use race as a crutch for your argument, then say I can’t respond using race, only to end up saying race means something. It takes incredible mental gymnastics to even attempt to walk something that significant back, but kudos to you for trying.

a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles" and "a political or social system founded on racism."


LOL the assumption of racism, and Note that "and' designed to execute is principles.....and.....a political or social system founded on racism.


Assumption.....from assume.


assume - suppose to be the case, without proof.


synonyms:presume (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+presume&FORM=DCTRQY) · suppose (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+suppose&FORM=DCTRQY) · take it (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+take+it&FORM=DCTRQY) · take for granted (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+take+for+granted&FORM=DCTRQY) · take as read · take it as given


Oh give it a break.....you started it with that crap about Sowell, Elder and others being Black. Never once taking on what they said. Then you down played Sowells first hand experience. Deny the Academy of Sciences findings. Police and Public research and everything else that debunks your false belief and or idea. Which doesn't mean much when it comes to your assuming. Especially about unintentional racism.


That is what you do. Assume about systemic racism or any other issue. Then you start with who you are posting too. Assuming what they think. What they interpret while having comprehension issues with what you read. There is no systemic racism in todays, day and age and like I have said. The best you can come up with is.....there are people that are racist. Which you already know.

Safety
06-24-2020, 03:37 PM
a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles" and "a political or social system founded on racism."


LOL the assumption of racism, and Note that "and' designed to execute is principles.....and.....a political or social system founded on racism.


Assumption.....from assume.


assume - suppose to be the case, without proof.


synonyms:presume (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+presume&FORM=DCTRQY) · suppose (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+suppose&FORM=DCTRQY) · take it (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+take+it&FORM=DCTRQY) · take for granted (https://www.bing.com/search?q=define+take+for+granted&FORM=DCTRQY) · take as read · take it as given


Oh give it a break.....you started it with that crap about Sowell, Elder and others being Black. Never once taking on what they said. Then you down played Sowells first hand experience. Deny the Academy of Sciences findings. Police and Public research and everything else that debunks your false belief and or idea. Which doesn't mean much when it comes to your assuming. Especially about unintentional racism.


That is what you do. Assume about systemic racism or any other issue. Then you start with who you are posting too. Assuming what they think. What they interpret while having comprehension issues with what you read. There is no systemic racism in todays, day and age and like I have said. The best you can come up with is.....there are people that are racist. Which you already know.

You almost had it, then you let it slip away...yes, a definition can have qualifiers, that does not mean you can just use one part AND substitute the rest for whatever you want it to be. Let’s deal in facts...YOU brought up the race of Elder and Sowell, YOU made it part of your argument that their race played a role in your use of their opinion, YOU even compounded it by saying leaders of other races, but when I challenged you to name one, you balked and deflected. Now you are here chasing yet another squirrel thinking that because you use one part of a definition, that it somehow debunks the premise that systemic racism exists. I LoL.

MMC
06-24-2020, 04:25 PM
You almost had it, then you let it slip away...yes, a definition can have qualifiers, that does not mean you can just use one part AND substitute the rest for whatever you want it to be. Let’s deal in facts...YOU brought up the race of Elder and Sowell, YOU made it part of your argument that their race played a role in your use of their opinion, YOU even compounded it by saying leaders of other races, but when I challenged you to name one, you balked and deflected. Now you are here chasing yet another squirrel thinking that because you use one part of a definition, that it somehow debunks the premise that systemic racism exists. I LoL.


Nothing slipped away. And I substituted nothing. It was your own definition. That you did not fully comprehend. Which starts with the assumption of racism. Now lets look again at what they are talking about today. Those of you with the widely false belief or idea and just where that comes from.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Wikipedia


That which Sowell destroyed and still cant find any of your kind that can step up to the plate and take him on. Oh and didn't balk or deflect. I didn't let you go tangential since you don't know any Latino Civil Rights leaders without looking them up. Nor Latino Historians nor Social Theorists.


So once again.....all you got is some people are racists and a false belief in unintentional racism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCxI-kzcDc8

Safety
06-25-2020, 07:17 AM
Nothing slipped away. And I substituted nothing. It was your own definition. That you did not fully comprehend. Which starts with the assumption of racism. Now lets look again at what they are talking about today. Those of you with the widely false belief or idea and just where that comes from.


Rooted in this foundation, systemic racism today is composed of intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip~


Wikipedia


That which Sowell destroyed and still cant find any of your kind that can step up to the plate and take him on. Oh and didn't balk or deflect. I didn't let you go tangential since you don't know any Latino Civil Rights leaders without looking them up. Nor Latino Historians nor Social Theorists.


So once again.....all you got is some people are racists and a false belief in unintentional racism.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCxI-kzcDc8

Oh, did the "social theory" derive from a definition from Merriam Webster? No it didn't, it was an opinion created by someone in which you now use as a crutch for your argument. You may feel empowered to assert that systemic racism can only exist by "intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip", but it would be like you asserting that rape only occurs when it is nighttime and after dinner. LoL @ you didn't want to go "tangential". Is that what you say when you get caught in a position with no escape? Go back and look at that thread, you asserted that Sowell was a leader for blacks, but when I pressed you for naming a leader for other races, you pressed the power button on your screen. That is because you know you f'ked up by going down that road, not only in the absurdness of implying that Sowell is a leader, but also by acknowledging one race even having a "leader", but being unable to characterize one for other races. That speaks volumes.

MMC
06-25-2020, 07:38 AM
Oh, did the "social theory" derive from a definition from Merriam Webster? No it didn't, it was an opinion created by someone in which you now use as a crutch for your argument. You may feel empowered to assert that systemic racism can only exist by "intersecting, overlapping, and codependent racist institutions, policies, practices, ideas, and behaviors.....snip", but it would be like you asserting that rape only occurs when it is nighttime and after dinner. LoL @ you didn't want to go "tangential". Is that what you say when you get caught in a position with no escape? Go back and look at that thread, you asserted that Sowell was a leader for blacks, but when I pressed you for naming a leader for other races, you pressed the power button on your screen. That is because you know you f'ked up by going down that road, not only in the absurdness of implying that Sowell is a leader, but also by acknowledging one race even having a "leader", but being unable to characterize one for other races. That speaks volumes.

LMAO.....your Social Theory was taken directly from the Definition of what Systemic racism was. Then some of your ilk tried to correlate it to today. Failing miserably.


Ah once again here you are talking about me.....and even then you still get it wrong. I never said I didn't want to go tangential. I said I wasn't going to let you go tangential about other Leaders. Which you don't even have a clue as to who are leaders and who aren't. Such as yourself. Once again you validating that you don't know how to read and comprehend what you read, accurately.


No I didn't fuck up. I knew you couldn't name one Latino Civil Rights leader, Historian, Social Theorist, or Political Leader without looking them up. The only think that speaks volumes is your inability to stay focused on your widely false assumption/idea. Which is why you are desperate to turn the substance against systemic racism into some bullshit about your assumptions.....of and with me. Which even in that useless endeavor you fail miserably.

Safety
06-25-2020, 08:18 AM
LMAO.....your Social Theory was taken directly from the Definition of what Systemic racism was. Then some of your ilk tried to correlate it to today. Failing miserably.


Ah once again here you are talking about me.....and even then you still get it wrong. I never said I didn't want to go tangential. I said I wasn't going to let you go tangential about other Leaders. Which you don't even have a clue as to who are leaders and who aren't. Such as yourself. Once again you validating that you don't know how to read and comprehend what you read, accurately.


No I didn't fuck up. I knew you couldn't name one Latino Civil Rights leader, Historian, Social Theorist, or Political Leader without looking them up. The only think that speaks volumes is your inability to stay focused on your widely false assumption/idea. Which is why you are desperate to turn the substance against systemic racism into some bullshit about your assumptions.....of and with me. Which even in that useless endeavor you fail miserably.

Because you call it a social theory, doesn't make it my social theory. Oh, tell me you are not attempting to whine about anyone "talking" about you, when you opened that door to ad hom. Here you are once again talking about "leaders", saying how I do not know who they are or aren't, while still missing the point that whether "leaders" exist, who gets to decide whom a leader is, and the biggest point...whether one exist for white people. That was my entire point I was making, in which you failed to grasp, then noticed your error in how even implying a leader exists for a race, but not for the majority, only further proves the point that systemic racism exists.

I mean, brah, not only have you completly argued your case in support of my position, you did so without noticing it was in my favor...LoL

I think that will be one for the tPF record books. :laugh:

MMC
06-25-2020, 08:45 AM
Because you call it a social theory, doesn't make it my social theory. Oh, tell me you are not attempting to whine about anyone "talking" about you, when you opened that door to ad hom. Here you are once again talking about "leaders", saying how I do not know who they are or aren't, while still missing the point that whether "leaders" exist, who gets to decide whom a leader is, and the biggest point...whether one exist for white people. That was my entire point I was making, in which you failed to grasp, then noticed your error in how even implying a leader exists for a race, but not for the majority, only further proves the point that systemic racism exists.

I mean, brah, not only have you completly argued your case in support of my position, you did so without noticing it was in my favor...LoL

I think that will be one for the tPF record books. :laugh:

Its not me that called it a Social Theory.....that was your ilk that gave it the meaning. So once again you start off with being wrong.

Oh see there you go again. First off when it coms to your ilk. I don't whine. As a Matter of fact that lives and breathes daily, is I welcome your affront. That way I get to treat as you deserve. Then increase it tenfold and make you run off. Just like you always do have done for over a year.


Oh and its not me that don't have the brain capacity to know all Ethnicities have Leaders. Or who decides whom a Leader is. So your crap about the biggest point on whether one exists for White People. Is a mute point. As well as just a dumb point. That allows you to go tangential. While not focusing on your Myth of Systemic Racism today.


There you go again. Believing in your own mind because of some statement that you proved Systemic Racism exists. Truly that is how pathetic you and your so called debating skills really are. Better yet.....that is just how you are with any and all issues. Always validating that you don't have what it takes to come with a prepared mind. Quite the limitation you have there. But then I guess that should be expected coming from one that tried to push unintentional racism. http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gif

Safety
06-25-2020, 09:15 AM
Its not me that called it a Social Theory.....that was your ilk that gave it the meaning. So once again you start off with being wrong.

Oh see there you go again. First off when it coms to your ilk. I don't whine. As a Matter of fact that lives and breathes daily, is I welcome your affront. That way I get to treat as you deserve. Then increase it tenfold and make you run off. Just like you always do have done for over a year.


Oh and its not me that don't have the brain capacity to know all Ethnicities have Leaders. Or who decides whom a Leader is. So your crap about the biggest point on whether one exists for White People. Is a mute point. As well as just a dumb point. That allows you to go tangential. While not focusing on your Myth of Systemic Racism today.


There you go again. Believing in your own mind because of some statement that you proved Systemic Racism exists. Truly that is how pathetic you and your so called debating skills really are. Better yet.....that is just how you are with any and all issues. Always validating that you don't have what it takes to come with a prepared mind. Quite the limitation you have there. But then I guess that should be expected coming from one that tried to push unintentional racism. http://www.debatepolitics.com/images/smilies/lmfao.gif

Ah, there's the M.O. that appears whenever your point gets crushed. I know you are frustrated and upset, but here in the one-on-one debate forum, insults and ad homs is not the venue for such antics. If I didn't call it a social theory, then you are not able to make the argument that it is attributable to me, because I am the one debating you, not any of my "ilks". The rest of your screed is just as easily dismissed as frustration for being cornered and annihilated since post #1. It is not my inclination nor is it in my nature to take pity or give rumination for anyone not serious, so while I sit back and watch your deterioration into a public meltdown, just remember that you completely failed to make your argument that systemic racism doesn't exist.

MMC
06-25-2020, 10:07 AM
Ah, there's the M.O. that appears whenever your point gets crushed. I know you are frustrated and upset, but here in the one-on-one debate forum, insults and ad homs is not the venue for such antics. If I didn't call it a social theory, then you are not able to make the argument that it is attributable to me, because I am the one debating you, not any of my "ilks". The rest of your screed is just as easily dismissed as frustration for being cornered and annihilated since post #1. It is not my inclination nor is it in my nature to take pity or give rumination for anyone not serious, so while I sit back and watch your deterioration into a public meltdown, just remember that you completely failed to make your argument that systemic racism doesn't exist.

LMAO you didn't crush anything. Another figment of that bloated imagination of yours. You did manage to come up with another dumb issue like unintentional racism. That would be your inability to figure out who are leaders and how do they become Leaders. What a fucking joke.

Oh I made the argument....and all the material I have presented makes the argument. All those final conclusions of there being no Systemic racism validated my argument. You lost before you even tried this debate. You ran from the open thread on it crying about others, despite that I was taking on any and all of your kind. Leftists. Then you whined about a Poll over this thread. Then tried to go tangential. Then fell back to talking about me. Then to taking a week off only to come back and still talk about me. Not your myth of systemic racism in todays day and age.


Since most people, including people on the left, acknowledge that there is no law or government entity explicitly discriminating minorities in modern America leaves you looking like a fool. Then back to you assuming about my alleged deterioration into a public meltdown. Not knowing why you look like the joke of the neighborhood. Its like some said.....you don't have what it takes to hold an honest debate. Nor the decency.


There is no system racism in Modern America.....Period. No matter how much butt hurt you return to display. No matter how emotional you get. You still lost this debate!

Safety
06-25-2020, 10:35 AM
LMAO you didn't crush anything. Another figment of that bloated imagination of yours. You did manage to come up with another dumb issue like unintentional racism. That would be your inability to figure out who are leaders and how do they become Leaders. What a fucking joke.

Oh I made the argument....and all the material I have presented makes the argument. All those final conclusions of there being no Systemic racism validated my argument. You lost before you even tried this debate. You ran from the open thread on it crying about others, despite that I was taking on any and all of your kind. Leftists. Then you whined about a Poll over this thread. Then tried to go tangential. Then fell back to talking about me. Then to taking a week off only to come back and still talk about me. Not your myth of systemic racism in todays day and age.


Since most people, including people on the left, acknowledge that there is no law or government entity explicitly discriminating minorities in modern America leaves you looking like a fool. Then back to you assuming about my alleged deterioration into a public meltdown. Not knowing why you look like the joke of the neighborhood. Its like some said.....you don't have what it takes to hold an honest debate. Nor the decency.


There is no system racism in Modern America.....Period. No matter how much butt hurt you return to display. No matter how emotional you get. You still lost this debate!

No, the material you presented, the data it sources, confirms that systemic racism exists. I have shown that throughout this thread. Just because you cherry pick selective points from the data, does not negate the existence of systemic racism, another point I have shown throughout this thread. I specifically didn’t engage in your thread on the open board because I wanted to show everyone here how your premise is not only false, but how you degrade any debate into petty insults and ad homs. The icing on the cake is how you continuously refer to one or two “black” people, because (in your own words) they are “leaders” of black people. When I challenged you to name any other races “leaders”, you immediately recognized your f’k up and tried to deflect from the ridiculous assertion you made. The very fact that you even attributed black people to have “leaders” while ignoring the “leaders” of other races, shows the existence of systemic racism, for why would blacks/hispanics need “leaders”, but not whites, if systemic racism did not exist? LoL.

Then the fact that you delve into rants about “leftists”, or talking about me, only proves you know you lost this debate. My accurate characterization of the degradation of your posts in this thread is only proven by your responses, in which the only person that has any responsibility to address it is you.

Sorry, the only people that claim no systemic racism exists are those that have ideological constraints that prevents the acknowledgement of it. The data, the studies, and even law enforcement themselves recognize it is an issue, which is why it is laughable for anyone to deny it. It is the same as you trying to argue the Earth is flat...no matter how many times you say it, no matter how many “leaders” you identify to say it, doesn’t make it true.

MMC
06-25-2020, 10:58 AM
No, the material you presented, the data it sources, confirms that systemic racism exists. I have shown that throughout this thread. Just because you cherry pick selective points from the data, does not negate the existence of systemic racism, another point I have shown throughout this thread. I specifically didn’t engage in your thread on the open board because I wanted to show everyone here how your premise is not only false, but how you degrade any debate into petty insults and ad homs. The icing on the cake is how you continuously refer to one or two “black” people, because (in your own words) they are “leaders” of black people. When I challenged you to name any other races “leaders”, you immediately recognized your f’k up and tried to deflect from the ridiculous assertion you made. The very fact that you even attributed black people to have “leaders” while ignoring the “leaders” of other races, shows the existence of systemic racism, for why would blacks/hispanics need “leaders”, but not whites, if systemic racism did not exist? LoL.

Then the fact that you delve into rants about “leftists”, or talking about me, only proves you know you lost this debate. My accurate characterization of the degradation of your posts in this thread is only proven by your responses, in which the only person that has any responsibility to address it is you.

Sorry, the only people that claim no systemic racism exists are those that have ideological constraints that prevents the acknowledgement of it. The data, the studies, and even law enforcement themselves recognize it is an issue, which is why it is laughable for anyone to deny it. It is the same as you trying to argue the Earth is flat...no matter how many times you say it, no matter how many “leaders” you identify to say it, doesn’t make it true.

No they don't confirm your argument. Not even close. Just because you ignore the conclusions doesn't change the reality from what it is. Your assumption failed the test. Just a myth, a widely false assumption/idea.

You got crushed by the overwhelming facts. Links, reports, research, Videos, got crushed by Black Conservatives/Leaders. None of them confirm anything about your assumption.


Just because your comprehension is lacking with reality. Doesn't change reality from what it is. Moreover several times you validated that your comprehension can't even figure out what you are reading. Systemic racism use to exist. Not in todays day and age.


Also one other thing, if you could have backed your play. Then this thread would have shown it. Not you saying this and that confirms anything. Not you talking about your assumptions about me. Once again you failed. You should be use to it. Instead you don't have the comprehension to even know you failed.


Oh and your point about the Earth is flat. That is you and your uhm…..so called woke crowd. The one that keeps changing the definition and the concept of systemic racism. If the concept was correct and true. It wouldn't have to be changed over and over by those that believe in the concept.


I know I know.....next you will blame the white man's public education and how they kept the truth from you.

Safety
06-25-2020, 01:14 PM
No they don't confirm your argument. Not even close. Just because you ignore the conclusions doesn't change the reality from what it is. Your assumption failed the test. Just a myth, a widely false assumption/idea.

You got crushed by the overwhelming facts. Links, reports, research, Videos, got crushed by Black Conservatives/Leaders. None of them confirm anything about your assumption.


Just because your comprehension is lacking with reality. Doesn't change reality from what it is. Moreover several times you validated that your comprehension can't even figure out what you are reading. Systemic racism use to exist. Not in todays day and age.


Also one other thing, if you could have backed your play. Then this thread would have shown it. Not you saying this and that confirms anything. Not you talking about your assumptions about me. Once again you failed. You should be use to it. Instead you don't have the comprehension to even know you failed.


Oh and your point about the Earth is flat. That is you and your uhm…..so called woke crowd. The one that keeps changing the definition and the concept of systemic racism. If the concept was correct and true. It wouldn't have to be changed over and over by those that believe in the concept.


I know I know.....next you will blame the white man's public education and how they kept the truth from you.


I rest my case. Thank you for your concession.

MMC
06-25-2020, 01:21 PM
I rest my case. Thank you for your concession.

LMAO.....you have no case, no concession. Nor much of an argument. Let me know when you figure out why Systemic racism doesn't exist in todays day and age.

FindersKeepers
08-01-2020, 11:21 AM
I see this is now open to the members.

It's relatively simple to prove systemic racism does not exist--the first step is to define the term "systemic," which means something that affects an entire system.

Before this private debate, there was a debate on whether systemic racism existed in law enforcement. It does not as evidenced by a large number of minorities who serve in various positions in law enforcement, from flat-foots all the way up to Sheriffs and Chiefs.

But, some will say it MUST exist because the prisons are disproportionately populated with minorities. However, in order to show racism is systemic in the justice system, one first needs to show that the minorities in question did not commit the crimes they're accused of committing. They can't do that. Some will say studies show that minorities who commit the same crimes as whites get shorter sentences. When you hear this, ask them whether they're taking into account prior arrests and convictions, because a number of studies that came up with that claptrap were not.

Okay, then some will point to disparities in school funding, and I admit inequality exists here but is based on racism? No. It's based more on the fact that local funding for schools is very diverse. Parents in wealthy communities have more money to ofer school districts, but federal funding typically goes on a heavier scale to low-income districts. Again, no racism is involved.

So, where else does inequality exist? In many areas of life, for whites and blacks, but not based on systemic racism. In some cases, localized racism might be at play, but not systemic racism because our laws do not allow it. Would we see systemic racism if our laws permitted it? Maybe, we know racism was systemic in decades past, we really can't predict if it would still be here had our laws not ended it.

Okay, we still have people thinking racism is systemic, but inequality is not systemic, it's often a by-product of one's own actions. For example, if two young men apply for a job working for me, the first thing I'm going to look at is whether they have any prior construction experience. Suppose neither one does, then I'm going to try and figure out whether they have an aptitude to learn a construction trade. Let's say both seem to want to learn but I can only pick one. At that point, I'm going to listen to how they present themselves, their language usage, and the way they dress. If one has on a pair of jeans that hang off his rear end, I'm going to judge him down for that. If one gives me attitude, I'm going to judge him down for that. By the time I choose the better-dressed and better-spoken young man, the other one (white or black) may think I'm not treating him equally, but the truth is that he set the stage for not getting hired. If he happens to be black, he may think he wasn't hired based on his race, when in reality, it was based on his behavior. He will likely have trouble getting a job anywhere, and that may make him feel as though he's not being treated equally, and while it's true that his chances of getting a job are not equal to the guy who dresses and speaks better, that inequality is due to his behavior, no one else's.

If racism was systemic in our nation, we would not have black doctors, lawyers, scientists, officers, mayors, congressmen, and, yes, even a black president.

Calling someone a racist doesn't even mean anything anymore.

JustJack
08-23-2020, 05:03 AM
So:
1. An absurd premise that flies in the face of two centuries of history
2. A conservative radio loudmouth
3. A researcher who was busted by real researchers for fudging analysis on - wait for it - racial discrimination. And then was tossed out of Harvard for sexual harassment.
LOL How did you think this debate was going to turn out?