What is the controversy surrounding #takeaknee

[Joods]

Actually, I believe I posted that pic in this thread earlier. I dunno. I'm on my phone sitting outside work waiting for my boss to show up.

[Neo-Scholastic]

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

Oh and by the way, the evidence for God's existence is all around you, it's obvious, just open your eyes.

[John V]

Look around you. Watch the news. How many times have black people been the target of police brutality? Do you remember that picture I posted in another thread? Probably not because not many people acknowledged it so I'll post it again. If you don't think there is oppression going on then tell the families of these people that were killed by the cops. Notice the similarities?

As noted, since blacks commit a disproportionate amount of crimes, it's logical - not oppressive - that they would be disproportionately killed by cops. Got anything else?

[Thumpalumpacus]

I'm asking you questions because my goal here is not your education (I've already seen how difficult that be) but to let you demonstrate yourself how shallow your understanding is.

I'm on my phone right now, anyway, which makes linking pretty difficult. If I have the time and inclination I'll throw some stuff up later.

Seems more like you've now seen the definition of oppression and know you don't have anything that fits the bill.

Nah. My girl's flying in for a week, and getting ready for her is a little more important than you and this disucssion <shrug>

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

But no, it doesn't exist, to you. As I quoted earlier, "living is easy with eyes closed / misunderstanding all you see". Tell us more how you believe you benefit from white privilege, how you think affirmative action is a good thing, but how blacks don't labor under unjust restraints. Why do you hold those views you claim to hold if blacks are not suffering injustice in finding jobs, homes, or quality schools?

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.

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

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



http://www.pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/2...ains-large

@Thump - why have white men been able to oppress everyone else?

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

Now, I may not get back to you for a few days. Don't get lonely, eat your vegetables, and make sure you read the provided links.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Is there a correlation between race and income? Yes. Not sure how that relates to crime. Unless perhaps the suggestion is that poor people are more likely to be morally corrupt. I don't believe that. Is the relationship an obvious sign of current oppression? No. Just because a certain demographic is less successful doesn't necessarily mean that another group is actively working to keep them down. It seems much more likely to me that the gap can be adequately explained as a legacy of actual oppression in the past and not active oppression today. As such the current correlations are accidental effects not essential ones; whereas in the past they were essential and not accidental.

[Whateverist]

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

Oh and by the way, the evidence for God's existence is all around you, it's obvious, just open your eyes.

Are you sure?  All I see is evidence for UFO's in these parts.  What are you seeing, giant socks and underwear lying all around?

[John V]

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.  

[Jackalope]

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

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?

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

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

You're splitting hairs, and you're wrong to boot.

One definition of oppression is the "the state of being subject to unjust treatment or control". Another is "prolonged cruel or unjust treatment or control."

Discrimination is unjust.

[John V]

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.

[Jackalope]

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.

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