Who are you that anyone should care what you think? — Ennui Elucidator

I'm a no one, and I don't think anyone should care what I have to say on the matter, really. People of color are the only ones who can really do anything about this. The rest of us can only be allies, support movements like BLM, and try to end systemic racism.

I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall here.

It isn't about what you know or what you have read, it is about whether you are trying to be a part of the system of liberation for blacks from the unjust systems or just another person choosing to ignore the unjust systems in favor of focusing on the bad behavior of individuals. — Ennui Elucidator

I can be part of the system of liberation of people of color from unjust systems and also try to empower those people of color who feel the need to advocate for greater measures against black-on-black crime by bringing it up when it is relevant - even if I can only get a few progressive white people to recognize that it is not racist to bring up black-on-black crime in this context.

I mean, do you want to talk about the destruction of black lives and property? Do you want to talk about the most significant problems facing people of color? Or do you want to virtue signal?

Look, I have nothing but love for black people - I'm even in favor of some form of reparations. But abolition isn't enough.

And I find the suggestion that I haven't done enough reading a little condescending. How do you know I haven't seen these arguments? How do you know what I have or haven't googled?

As for BLM, at some point I begin to question your good faith. BLM isn't about telling someone's neighbor not to kill them, it is about reminding government (you know, a system) about something. Yes, it would be great of the racist next door also stopped being racist, but how about we start with our systems of power no longer perpetuating racism. — Ennui Elucidator

You didn't respond directly to the point I made about devaluation being fundamental to many people's arguments about systemic racism. And I have read about this, yes. I just wanted to start a conversation here even if it isn't breaking that much new ground.

Furthermore, I am arguing in good faith. While the everyday supporters of BLM might not be able to influence the actions of gang members and other criminals, the people of color who support BLM can at least make it possible to talk about black-on-black violence as as it is relevant without immediately being labeled a racist. And even if BLM wasn't formed for that, and they want to keep their message singular, there should be a coequal movement to stop black-on-black crime if we value black lives the way we value white lives.

And I believe we do not value black lives as much as white lives. I guarantee that if young white men were jailed at the rates young black men are for non-violent drug offenses, for example, there would be a significant change in the judicial and prison system.

And yeah, I want to tear down racist institutions as much as anyone, but I don't think it will solve everything.

The after-school alliance article made the same mistake. But it is a good point that people of color rarely kill each other because they are people of color; it is usually just people murdering those in proximity to themselves. But that is even worse, imo; there is not even any real criteria for who is murdered other than something arbitrary like that.

That Cleveland article was garbage; they cited the ratio of whites killed by whites to refute the preponderance of black-on-black violence.

The problem in the American inner city is not white supremacy but the failure to socialize young males—a problem that is a direct result of family breakdown. As businesses and apartment buildings in the nation’s big cities board themselves up in anticipation of postelection rioting, many Americans may decide that if being “racist” in the eyes of the media, academics, and other elites means worrying about their community being looted or their children being shot, they will simply have to endure that slander.

I can respect that, however.

Again, the people who are talking about systemic issues seem to be focused on systemic issues rather than eliminating the harms of specific violent crimes. They are also talking about the systems of government and not focusing on extra-governmental (private) behavior. If those talking about systemic racism (the sorts of people that you would consider informed on the issue) are not discussing black-on-black crime, do you suppose they are ignorant? If you aren't an insider to the conversation (or in a position of power to respond to the advocacy coming from the conversation), what difference does it make if you don't understand why people aren't discussing your preferred issue? — Ennui Elucidator

I understand that most of those who write or talk about systemic racism are specifically talking about systems of oppression, not private behavior. But people approach systemic racism from the angle that black lives are devalued and, if we are are talking about the devaluation of black lives, then black-on-black crime is relevant (a murder is a murder; murderers almost always devalue their victims by the very nature of the act). And it very much seems to me that the conversation is indeed about the devaluation of black lives. Why else would the slogan "black lives matter" have been chosen?

Lay out a narrative of how it is that you are privilege to this critical issue, the systemic racism folk are unable to identify critical issues to their values, and that your bringing it up is helpful to their agenda rather than a deflection from the agenda they are already advancing. — Ennui Elucidator

I think it is worth bringing up because it is difficult to acknowledge that many of the admittedly oppressed people you self-identify with are responsible - at least partially - for their own horrific behavior. Acknowledging this reality would do much to bridge the gap between some hardliners on crime and those more sympathetic to the plight of impoverished people of color. And, more importantly, it would save lives.

An ethically just system of power will likely have problems with people acting unethically - a situation it shares in common with ethically unjust systems of power. Indeed, as the social circumstance of entrenched racism is redressed, you may very well find that crime against all people (POC or otherwise) decreases. — Ennui Elucidator

Consider Ireland after it became independent. The Irish people were liberated from British control, but the state fell short of its aspirations to be an ethically just system of power; mere liberation was not enough; the Irish people were brutalized by internecine violence and civil war for years after writing up their constitution.

I don't believe, like I have said elsewhere, that we can just legislate this away; abolition is likely not enough, as in Ireland's case. Neither are good motives - which appear to be plentiful on the forum.

Furthermore, we are only a part of the problem if we refuse to accept the reality of the situation and act accordingly.

Great poem.

Again, why are you mentioning it? If it is to stop systemic forces legitimizing/creating the circumstance of power in which violence is unethically directed towards particular oppressed (or politically weak) groups, then black-on-black violence isn’t relevant unless you can directly tie it to the systemic forces being discussed. — Ennui Elucidator

I would say that if we are concerned with saving the lives of people of color, then black-on-black crime is far more relevant than police brutality, for example (something I believe is the result of both personal and systemic racism). We should target the largest source of these murders if all we care about is stopping them and giving black lives the value they deserve.

If I told you that I murdered another black man because of a legacy of racism, would you accept that? If not, would I not be devaluing that man's life by deciding to murder him of my own free will? It seems to me that many murderers of other people of color devalue each other's lives as much as any racist police officer. This might be a bitter pill, but I don't really care.

I seem to remember a certain man calling out another for not recognizing good intent, when really many people's well-intended actions lack any consideration for the wellbeing of those affected by said actions - which might be considered evil. I think many of the people who deny the relevance of black-on-black crime fall into this camp (although I would not say that they are evil; perhaps just confused).

I read some of that thread. I saw nothing in it that I do not agree with - especially some of the policies you outlined. That being said no attention is given to the reality that the bystanders cannot fix this alone. We can't just legislate away the preponderance of black-on-black crime in black communities - even if it may indeed be an expression of internecine violence stemming from a pseudo-apartheid state in which people of color are systematically oppressed. So while we can change some stuff - have some sense.

I agree that in a perfect world no one would integrate their race into their identity.

"Any grouping is arbitrary => groups other than the human mind do not exist" makes no sense to me. The items in a group do not have to be identified with themselves or be identical to be in a group. They must merely be classed together.

But people do indeed divide themselves into groups, even if they are based on somewhat specious connections. And some experiences are more common to people of color than whites. Your argument appears to be that groups don't exist because any grouping is fundamentally arbitrary and any statistics on said group, thus, are also arbitrary. Is this correct?

This non-deflection reminds of when someone says "I'm not racist or prejudice, but ..." or "Some of my closest friends are black, but ..." I'm one of those blacks far more "concerned" about communities of color exploited and discriminated against – ghettoed for centuries – by a white-controlled socioeconomic structure that reinforces the social pathologies in said communities (re)producing internecine violence. I elaborate further in the link in my first post but you don't want to read all that, toothless, do you? Typical. :shade: — 180 Proof

I'll read it and get back to you. No need to draw assumptions.

And if they don't "pick themselves up"? What is the solution? Lock them up? Do you know that the United States has the highest prison population the world? Do we really want to start a crusade locking people up? — Wheatley

We should start by releasing all of the non-violent drug offenders, institute some necessary police reform, and maybe increase the police in some particularly rough areas. That's what I would do.

crime is an act of individuals, not groups, so it would make more sense to look at individual circumstances rather than invent racial ones. — NOS4A2

I did emphasize that it is a choice for each murderer to murder at the end of my OP.

I can’t help but cringe when someone brings up “black-on-black crime” for the same reasons I cringe when I hear about “white privilege”. Two racist assumptions occur the moment we consider such propositions: that human beings can be demarcated on grounds of race, and that this arbitrary demarcation has some bearing on individual behavior. — NOS4A2

This arbitrary demarcation is useful because of the shared culture and experiences of people of color and how it affects the disproportionate amount of crime they commit. I would never claim that someone is automatically a criminal because they are black, or automatically likes F.R.I.E.N.D.S. because they are white.

From there it isn’t long before we’re talking about essences like “blackness” and “whiteness”, and other absurdities. But crime is an act of individuals, not groups, so it would make more sense to look at individual circumstances rather than invent racial ones. — NOS4A2

I agree that crime is an individual choice and that individual circumstances are most important, but the group becomes relevant when you see a disproportionate amount of crime coming from said group; it is likely that there are some commonalities that can be abstracted (whiteness, blackness, etc.).

You didn't even make an argument, bro. You just listed a bunch of examples of white-on-white violence

Systemic racism is, IMO, wholly different – higher level – topic, and thus perpetuated by rhetorically rendering it invisible by talking about "black-on-black crime" as if that is an aberration devoid of wider socioeconomic structures and stressors. :brow: — 180 Proof

Did I or did I not say that culture plays a part and that many cultural influences are affected by racism? Did I say black-on-black violence existed in a vacuum?

I mean did you even read the OP?

I find your comments to be self-indulgent and poorly written. I shouldn't have to deal with all of that unnecessary punctuation. And I never said there was no severe white-on-white crime; I'm talking strictly about the here and now in the US.

If we are paying attention to systemic racism, do you respond what about breast cancer? Surely breast cancer is something worth paying attention to. And what about feminism generally and the plight of children in Eastern Europe? Bringing something unuseful up in an unrelated context because that unseful thing is important is a waste of time, i.e. a deflection. — Ennui Elucidator

Some people do in fact dismiss all mentions of black-on-black violence as racist merely because it is sometimes a deflection, such as when discussing systemic racism, like you say. But even when it isn't dismissed outright as a deflection it is systematically down-played when it overlaps with systemic racism and other issues affecting people of color.

I think you’d find it unlikely that serious people exclaim that black on black violence is always a deflection, but that the only time they hear certain people talk about it is in response to a conversation about (or action against) systemic racism. — Ennui Elucidator

I'm talking about some somewhat serious people, and some very unserious people here - mostly college age and steeped in social justice.

If one is concerned with people of color being murdered, then black-on-black violence is relevant; far more black men die to other black men, for instance, than police officers. Insofar as systemic racism relates to people of color being murdered, black-on-black violence eclipses it and it is not a deflection to mention it.

In before someone accuses me of writing claptrap

I still believe that the reason for non-Asian minorities' average underperformance is likely to be genes rather than "systemic racism" — Xanatos

While intelligence is inherited largely, there is no evidence that people of color are actually genetically predisposed to being stupider. At all. You are probably trolling, so I don't know why I am bothering at all, but that's what the facts say.

I mean so much of the bible is both horrible and almost certainly literal, such as Deuteronomy 25:11-12:

If two men are fighting and the wife of one of them comes to rescue her husband from his assailant, and she reaches out and seizes him by his private parts, you shall cut off her hand. Show her no pity.

Difficult to interpret that metaphorically. While it isn't difficult to just pick out horrible verses and say that it reflects on the whole of the bible, the fact that it is so easy reflects on the whole. But that's just my opinion. Also: a different ancient text would probably be better; the bible has also been translated so many times in different ways (literal translation, idiomatic, etc.)

Better dust off the moldering texts (as tucker would say!).

In all seriousness though, what are you putting forward for discussion? Just any and all ancient texts and how we should interpret them lacking the knowledge of whether or not certain passages were literal?

I mean, surely you recognize that one sentence can have almost the same meaning as another? That a sentence can approximate the meaning of another sentence, or at least approach it?

Semantically your theory may work, but it is not tied to reality, and thus, it is not something that says anything. — god must be atheist

It's a heuristic, not a comprehensive theory.

Good point - as usual. Perhaps I should call them contingent facts.

Facts can't be argued. There are no such things as facts that are approximate. Our opinion based on our differences of observation may be approximations. But facts are never approximate. — god must be atheist

I expected this. We can get close to expressing a fact, and so it is an approximate fact. Never claimed they were beyond dispute. But I did say that there might be a way of using approximate facts to arrive at less approximate (or even real) facts given the approximate facts started with are within a certain range of their real counterparts. It is just difficult to say whether or not we can indeed approximate facts the way a computer can approximate things in a simulation.

Why I think there are approximate moral facts is that, according to a moral realist, there are objective features of the world that make the propositions contained in ethical sentences true. If we ground ethical sentences in such things it follows that we can approximate a moral fact if the approximate moral fact is sufficiently close to the actual moral fact such as that it functions no differently given a certain set of true ethical sentences; the approximate moral fact would also merely represent the features of the world that would make the corresponding moral fact true, without regard to whether or not it contradicts or represents other actual moral facts inaccurately.

Furthermore, to speak about moral facts, you need to know what they are. Do you have a description of what makes a fact a moral fact? A completely accurate conceptual definition that delineates moral facts from other facts? If yes, I'd like you to show what it is. Without a benchmark, you can't approximate. And the benchmark is missing. — god must be atheist

A moral fact is a fact that represents a facet of objective morality.
.

This paragraph begs the question. How do we know the statements reflect morality? There is actually no logical connection between "it is wrong to steal on the Sabbath" and anything wrong stealing on the Sabbath. Semantically your theory may work, but it is not tied to reality, and thus, it is not something that says anything. — god must be atheist

I'm presupposing that the statements are moral merely to show how the heuristic would work. I obviously don't actually think that I just made a universal law that governs when it is okay to steal.

Without a benchmark, you can't approximate. And the benchmark is missing. — god must be atheist

The benchmark is indeed the biggest issue: in order to apply my heuristic we would need a good idea of a few moral facts to begin with. But then again I already said that in the OP.

I will keep at it, thanks.

Don't take the sentence stating a rule as a single semantic unit and leave it at that. Also include the concepts/ideas that will obviously appear as phrases or words. — TheMadFool

The semantic units could be anything from a whole sentence to just a few words. Including the ideas/concepts that appear as words or phrases would complicate things because it is difficult to square the compatibility of a concept with another. Keeping it as basic as possible would allow for greater efficiency in the calculations.

See that the rule itself, as a whole, squares with the the parts, the constiuent concepts/ideas. — TheMadFool

As I wrote above.

The catch is this isn't new? It's the way it's always been done, not just with rules but every sentence that was, is, will be uttered. I don't get it! — TheMadFool

The best way I can think of this is that many sentences could potentially be compatible with a number of phrases, but they don't necessarily have to be understood in those terms to make sense. In my process the sentences/laws must accurately represent all of their pre-specified constituent parts to be valid (approximations).

I really need to read more about linguistics; I'm sure there are better words for what I am trying to say.

It would seem that the approximate moral facts started with would have to be within a certain range of closeness to their real counterparts so that the approximations built off of them wouldn't be drastically off the mark, however.

Removed my stupid joke. Sorry.

I do want Guantanamo closed down — NOS4A2

Well, great! Maybe you have a moral compass!

the CIA and FBI abolished, along with every other federal agency. — NOS4A2

No, I do not want to abolish every federal agency, that is crazy talk - even though I consider myself a left-libertarian. Guns are okay, all drugs should be legal, free speech, etc. All of that good stuff.

In my ideal world we’d help members of our community instead of delegating that responsibility to the state. — NOS4A2

Yes, but people, especially the ultra-rich, have demonstrated that they have a willingness to do precisely everything but that. The state obviously needs to take care of people sometimes.

For instance: what about the severely mentally ill? Should we leave them to fend for themselves? Just live off of the pocket change they scrounge off of the pavement?

So then it would be bad to reign in the military-industrial complex?

What if we just organized a vigorous infrastructure revitalization plan? Maybe that would drain enough to avoid the overproduction crisis?

Tough shit. Then you have the freedom to starve to death. That’s NOS’s ideal world, anyway. Government is the problem, free markets are the solution. It’s done wonders the last 40 years— especially the Friedman Doctrine. — Xtrix

I know five-year-old's with more thought-out worldviews; at least they believe they should share their stickers with people.

I mean, would you like to be detained and water-boarded for being a suspected terrorist? If you don't want the state to have a monopoly on violence or coercion you should want Guantanamo closed down.

By slavery I mean the thirteenth amendment of the constitution, which reserved slavery and involuntary servitude for prisoners. — NOS4A2

Then you should care about the incarceration and torture of suspected terrorists without due process.

Trump on torture:

Torture works. OK, folks? You know, I have these guys—”Torture doesn’t work!”—believe me, it works. And waterboarding is your minor form. Some people say it’s not actually torture. Let’s assume it is. But they asked me the question: What do you think of waterboarding? Absolutely fine. But we should go much stronger than waterboarding.

But if you don’t like the parameters, you can refuse to accept the terms or move elsewhere. They cannot force you to stay and work, and you are the ultimate arbiter of your employment. — NOS4A2

What if there is no better alternative? What if you have no education or qualifications for anything other than a retail job?

The state, on the other hand, particularly the American state, can force you into slavery. — NOS4A2

Oh sweet Jesus - don't tell me you think forcing doctors to care for people who don't have money is slavery. Who is a slave to the US government?

edit: other than people who lick Biden's boots

I'm going to flag your comment for triggering me. Triggered.

We have to look to who has the monopoly on violence and coercion. — NOS4A2

Then I guess we should tolerate mob justice?

No corporation or church can skim from my wealth or throw me in prison or regulate my activity. — NOS4A2

What about censorship on social media? And aren't corporations responsible for the wages they pay their employees? Maybe that isn't "skimming wealth", but corporations can decide whether or not you live in poverty - and many hard workers do merely because of the bottom line.

That is true. What many don't realize is that the USA would be in the middle of a long-long elongated depression, created by an overproduction crisis. This is counter-effected by the powers that be by draining the economy; they do it by building up a military. The military brings nothing to the table of the economy; but because it only takes away, it makes sure that whatever is on the table will get bought up. If things remain on the table, they have a poisonous effect on the economy. A bit like a real, food table: if you don't wash it and empty it of food every day, it will develop greasy dirt that attracts microbes, rodents and disease. — god must be atheist

I never would have thought such a thing. But wouldn't production naturally slow down if people weren't buying things and there was no tremendous military industrial complex draining the economy? I'm no economist (or really anything for that matter), so that question might be a bit naïve. But I understand what you are describing.