What is the controversy surrounding #takeaknee

[John V]

It isn't about  reading links to respond to a post.

Yes, it is.

It's about reading material to to challenge your own position that suspiciously looks like it was pulled directly from your ass.

But hey, if you care not about educating yourself, you're hardly in a position to argue against those who are.

Pretty ridiculous when liberal atheists on a liberal atheist site claim to be the ones open to challenging their own positions.

[henryp]

I think the trick with oppression, is that nowadays, it's a side-effect of practicality.

I agree with Alpha that black people are shot more because black people commit more crimes. If you live in a neighborhood with a lot of gang-violence, it's just common sense to expect less restraint from the police than if they're pulling over a white lady in a nice car with a Bernie bumpersticker in the suburbs.

But that justification doesn't do anything for decent black folks who are essentially collateral damage. "Sorry I shot you for reaching for your phone. There's a lot of gang activity in this area, and you look similar to the people committing the gang activity, so I feared for my life" makes sense. But that doesn't do the guy who just got shot any good.

I think it's a fair argument to say in America, if you are a decent enough black person, you are likely subject to unjust treatment or control.

The flaw in both sides arguments, is the continued lumping together of all black people and talking about them like they are one guy.

[The Grand Nudger]

Ah, the subtle bigotry of lowered expectations.

[Jackalope]

It isn't about  reading links to respond to a post.

Yes, it is.

Your opinion.

It's about reading material to to challenge your own position that suspiciously looks like it was pulled directly from your ass.

But hey, if you care not about educating yourself, you're hardly in a position to argue against those who are.

Pretty ridiculous when liberal atheists on a liberal atheist site claim to be the ones open to challenging their own positions.
[/quote]

Non-responsive.

We're done.

[Thumpalumpacus]

But just so you don't feel all hurt and stuff, I'll take a few minutes. The fact is, the definition you provided fits the bill precisely: "burdened with unjust restraints" ... that is the black experience in America. The one that you say doesn't exist. You know, how blacks can get jobs just the same as whites, or how blacks have no problem finding housing without discrimination rearing its ugly head,

As you note yourself, these are discrimination, not oppression.

or how blacks receive harsher criminal sentences -- a fact the federal government itself admits.

The study doesn't claim that racism is the cause of disparity:

We find it difficult to attribute racial disparity to skin color alone. While it is an obvious
distinction, in the United States race is bundled with a large number of unobserved characteristics. We
have observed that blacks are more concentrated within circuits that impose harsh sentences compared
with more lenient circuits. It is possible that blacks receive the same sentences as whites within every
circuit, but that blacks receive harsher sentences than whites nationally. After we account for these
circuit differences, racial disparity remains, but the point is that race is correlated with other
characteristics that may account for different sentences among whites and blacks. For example, we
know that blacks sentenced in the federal justice system are, on average, less educated than are whites
sentenced in the federal justice system. Therefore, if judges take education into account (along with
correlates such as earnings and demeanor), then racial disparity could be explained by factors that
might be deemed to be reasonable desiderata when imposing sentences. A study of disparity is not a
study of bias. Our study cannot get at the ultimate reasons why black males receive harsher sentences
than do white males, after accounting for the facts surrounding the case.

But before you do that, make sure you read the links I've given. I'm not really interested in having discussions with the uninformed.

You don't seem to have read the last one yourself.

Oh, hey, since we're talking about race and wealth, I'll just leave this here:

And the reason for this is?

Read Guns, Germs, and Steel. Diamond's hypothesis makes a lot of sense to me, without appealing to racism.

Or you could summarize, rather than expecting me to read an entire book.  

Yeah, heaven forbid you should learn something! Or, maybe you could, you know, read the Wiki article on it? Do you really need me to hold your hand through this process? Seriously, dude. Read a fucking book. It won't kill you.

As for racism not being the cause of sentencing disparities, you should remember what i wrote upthread -- a complex problem is most likely multivariate. Furthermore, the authors did indeed note that racism is one of those factors.

Regarding "discrimination" vs "oppression", reread the definition you yourself provided. Oppression need not be violent.

[John V]

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Rac...bc?ie=UTF8

Read that and tell me what you think. 

[Thumpalumpacus]

Why should he bother?  When you refuse to read it yourself, and given history, there's a huge likelyhood that you're just going to dismiss his summary.

Also - it's *really* unlikely you read all three of those reports for comprehension in the 38 minutes between the time Thump posted his sources and your response.

So again, why should he bother?

People should summarize a link, or quote the most relevant passages, precisely because people are unlikely to spend hours reading links just to respond to a post on the internet. Linking to a long web article without summarizing is a tactic to appear to be making a point without actually making one, and linking to a book is just ridiculous.

ETA:  Also, considering the last report is 124 pages I doubt you read it at all.

I went straight to the conclusion section to see if it even supported his position. It didn't, which means he probably didn't even bother reading the conclusion.

Oh, I read it.

Additionally, my claims were fairly straightforward, and the links were provided support. I can make my point without summarizing the evidence, and certainly don't feel like writing an essay for your benefit when you've shown yourself unwilling or unable to follow facts to conclusions.

---

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Rac...bc?ie=UTF8

Read that and tell me what you think. 

Sure, why not?

---

You see, alpha male, facts don't matter to them...youll notice how they keep asking pointed rhetorical questions rather than state their case openly.

Maybe you should learn to read. I've stated my case plainly.

The pointed questions, well, that's just gravy.

[Amarok]

https://www.amazon.com/Intellectuals-Rac...bc?ie=UTF8

Psedo intellectual garbage no wonder the review section is full of right wingers masturbating all over it . 

You see, alpha male, facts don't matter to them...youll notice how they keep asking pointed rhetorical questions rather than state their case openly.

Nope the counter case has been clear . Maybe you should stop looking at that non evidence for god and look at it ?

The issue isn't that I refuse to see it, it's that no one is even giving me anything to look at.

You have been given all you need  

Of course, the fact that rich black American is an option speaks against the oppression argument.

No it fucking does not . 

Internet meme versus article loaded with FBI statistics...hmm.. I'll go with the FBI statistics.

Generic fallacy . Yeah statistics you fucks manipulate for your own ends.