A dip for the wealthy hits a lot harder than a dip for the poor. That's what your statistics don't show you. — Wheatley

Which is shown with the gini coefficient or the gini index, as I stated.

And the real question is, when has this income inequality gone down? It has you know, in the US from at least 1850 to 1960.



And to understand what that gini coefficient means (if you didn't read the link I gave) it is that if everybody has the same amount of wealth (true communism), it's 0 and if Bill Gates has everything and everybody else nothing, it's 1 (or 100, if we use percentages). And of course the history is that dirt poor farmers and urban dwellers have gotten more prosperous since 1850 in the US, but then after 1960 or so wealth hasn't been distributed is similar fashion as before. Yet with income inequality you have to take into account actual absolute povetry. You see, if Bill Gates moved to Finland the gini coefficient/index would spike up, but we wouldn't be worse off from that.

They’re saying that the numbers being similar DESPITE the black populations being smaller SHOWS that they are target more; the numbers targeted COMPARED TO the population number is where the “more targeted” claim comes from, and that’s why people are mentioning populations. — Pfhorrest

And the reason for that, as I was trying to say, is for the same reason that men are killed 7 times more than women DESPITE populations of men and women being the same.

The group with the higher violent crime rate ends up having a higher death by cop rate per capita, because they encounter police more often in a violent context.

Some cities with high rates of violent crime have fewer police killings than those with higher violent crime rates, a situation that can make police killings feel wanton and baseless. — StreetlightX

This is data on cities and states - that's not the same as the relationship between the violence of a group of people and their rate of getting killed by cops.

Cities and states have laws and procedures which affect the way police behave. A reason why a city with a high violent crime rate but a low police kill rate may be that the high level of violence in that city has caused people to adapt, for example by adopting regulations like banning certain chokeholds, or simply just police becoming more experienced with subduing violent people. The same reasoning applies on a state level. Likewise, a city or state with a low violent crime rate can have a high police kill rate, if those police aren't inducted on how to handle bad situations and they're allowed to do whatever they like to bring people under control. Then, when an uncooperative (or even cooperative one like Floyd or Tony Timpa) suspect comes along, the situation can result in a death. In either of those two scenarios, higher rates of violent behavior from an ethnic group or sex resulting in a higher rate of being killed by police is still perfectly consistent with the trend you are pointing out with cities bucking that same trend.

Just to recap, here's in a nutshell a good clip on just what is the problem with policing in the US compared to other countries from CBS news. Many of the issues that have already come up in the discussion a) amount of firearms in the us b) police being heavily armed and ready to use weapons c) lack de-escalation tactics in training d) lack of other services than police e) politicized police unions.

Yes, they're both Coopers. :)

Woman who called cops on Black man birdwatching in Central Park faces charges
Melanie Schuman, Theresa Waldrop; CNN; Jul 2020

Amy Cooper Faces Charges After Calling Police on Black Bird Watcher
Jan Ransom; The New York Times; Jul 2020

There is something refreshing about this. Denial of privilege. That "enough is enough already".
I'd (personally) temper my balefire on the offender a bit, but hopefully this will tell the privileged to f__k off.

It's in a sense baffling that the political creativity in the US is so stunted that their solution to most social ills is "police". It's not as if the policy research isn't available what other solutions are available to combat poverty, community health and crime prevention.

What causes that? Lobbying?

I think it is blamed on the right wing policies when it is the abomination that is today's left wing that's providing a poor education to masses and setting bad examples (media propaganda, corrupted politicians, segregating social power to statistical figureheads, emotional breakdowns, publicity stunts, etc). This is what the right wing is fighting against and more Africans would benefit from all devotion to right wing politics

It is fair to fear immigration if you have different skin color to the immigrants, as they might over populate; this is anticipating future racist attack and defending yourself. If you choose to hang your head to this - I ask that you don't - the right wing is the cure that you're asking for.

It is fair to fear immigration if you have different skin color to the immigrants — noys

This is the very definition of racism - discrimination based on skin color.

it is, in essence, racism - but that is in the thought it was not too graphic for you.

And with regards to your sight, I didn't say the wrong words.

but that is in the thought it was not too graphic for you. — noys

What?

I thought that you would be able to discuss racism with a greater understanding of the concept. A more adult association.

I'm not sugar coating the term race or using it to insult; though the policies on race may insult you, it possibly can be taken seriously, but I'm not performing the mysticism to suppress race mixing tensions, no.

Race - ism, like Tour - ism, the nature of tourists, is the nature of races.

The mere concept of racism, wouldn't be too graphic for your senses, without additional insults that may bring you down.

[Noys is now banned, in case anyone was considering replying to him. Zero tolerance for racism on these boards].

It's in a sense baffling that the political creativity in the US is so stunted that their solution to most social ills is "police". It's not as if the policy research isn't available what other solutions are available to combat poverty, community health and crime prevention.

What causes that? Lobbying? — Benkei

The US has a problem in adopting social programs as they are seen as outright socialism and the preference is that various voluntary organizations giving charity is enough. Anything "collective" done by the government reeks of socialism. In other countries programs combating poverty and alienation are seen as smart ways to prevent crime, but not so in the US.

Given that you're a mod and the topic is dead serious, I just couldn't continue to allow myself to let this reply go unanswered. Weird that it looked quite different the second time around...

My 'motive' is that you literally have no idea what you are talking about. The attempt to frame systemic racism as a matter of belief is so ignorant as to defy serious conversation. — StreetlightX

A quick condescension into personal attack following a rather sly introduction of a straw man is never a good sign.

Rhetoric drivel is unimpressive, especially when coming from someone in charge of ensuring people do philosophy according to some conventional norms. Fallacious retorts do not qualify as acceptable rejoinders.

Here's one suggestion, do with it what you may...

Get what you're talking about right to start with. You're conflating your imagination with reality I'm afraid to say. What you've called a 'pet theory' is one that you clearly do not understand, for if you did you would be forced to admit the sheer brute strength of the justificatory ground supporting it. It is it based upon knowledge of what all thought and belief consist of. But that's just a red herring to begin with... your diversive attack on what you mistakenly think about my position, I mean. Your opinion of that does not matter.

Racism is belief-based.

Systemic racism as well as it's affects/effects are the result of codes/laws written by racists(those with racist belief systems), and as such it founded upon and/or borne of racist beliefs. That is the case whether you like it or not. I'm not alone here either.

My 'pet theory', as you say, has the broadest possible scope of rightful sensible meaningful application, since it is based upon our knowledge regarding what all thought and belief have in common such that having that commonality is precisely what makes them thought and belief... racist belief notwithstanding.

My advice to you is to acquire some knowledge of what all belief have in common... then... and only then will you be able to know what makes racist belief different from all other kinds of belief. Simply put, if you do not know what all belief have in common such that that commonality is what makes them belief to begin with, then you cannot possible know what racist belief is. If you do not know what racist belief is, then there is certainly know fucking way for you to know what institutional, and/or systemic racism is.

I'm capable - thanks to my good ole pet theory - of perfectly and clearly explaining the inevitable role that devaluing another person based upon race has to do with the current problems with the American justice system as well as much of what passes for common 'understanding'.

More particularly speaking, since you seem to basically misunderstand the position I'm advocating, I'll put it in elementary terms. Racism is; as exactly, as narrowly, and as broadly speaking as possible, when an individual devalues another individual and that devaluation is based upon the fact that that other individual is, or sometimes is at the very least believed to be... X(insert racial descriptor of your choice. Currently, it's black).

Systemic racism is based upon, it is an extension of, an entire history of individual beliefs about what ought and/or ought not be done when concerning black Americans. These range from all the early segregation laws, through Jim Crow laws, through local, county, and state laws regarding what black people are allowed to have when it comes to the freedoms, rights, and benefits that are supposed to be granted to all United States citizens... blacks notwithstanding.

All codified systems of what we ought or ought not do consist of - in very large part at least - of moral belief... albeit the penned variety. Systemic and/or institutional racism are the result of those beliefs concerning what we ought to do about black people being turned into the law. Perhaps it is better put like this... Institutionalized racism is the result, the consequence, of racist beliefs being practiced everyday by those powerful enough to write the rules governing the behaviour of American citizens... again blacks notwithstanding.

...the actual practice of racialized group-making and inter-group competition is more fundamental than the popular discourses and ideologies which frame them. Yet many contemporary antiracist efforts -- especially among highly-educated, relatively well-off, white liberals – focus primarily on ‘hearts and minds’ (beliefs, intentions, attitudes, feelings), symbols and rhetoric. Antiracism has largely shifted from a sociological project (focused on institutions, behaviors, the distribution of resources, etc.) into a psychological one. Even sociologists seem to be increasingly adopting psychologized frameworks for understanding.

...Awareness of systemic racism does not cleanly translate into actual behaviors that reduce inequality -- neither does supporting racial egalitarianism through words, beliefs or feelings. Indeed, among the primary beneficiaries and perpetuators of systemic racism today are whites who are already convinced of their privilege -- who both understand and lament the disadvantages people of color face. It is precisely these convictions that blind them to their own role in reinforcing racialized inequality, thereby pushing them to look externally to identify culpable parties (i.e. the problem must be the ‘bad’ people who say, feel, or believe the ‘wrong’ things about others from historically marginalized or disadvantaged groups)." (my bolding)

The position I advocate for is at direct odds in many important respects to conventional psychology... just so you know. Understanding the belief aspect is imperative to widening the bridge upon which the coalition fighting for the basic rights of black Americans walks across... together.

Oregon Public Broadcasting has been focusing on the causes of racism and has been broadcasting explanations of the different movements and the actions of people in power that made racism such a terrible problem. I have purchased DVD's of the programs and hope to share them in my community.

A program about the fight for women's suffrage explains what women of color did in the fight for the right to vote and what White women did to exclude them because they did not want racism to be a competing issue.

We could all contact our schools and our school boards requesting updated history books that include the efforts made by native Americans and people of color to manifest a better reality that is compatible with the values of democracy. By working together we can have a stronger democracy than the one we have now.

edit: deleted reply. respondent already banned. (Good job there!)

I'm capable - thanks to my good ole pet theory - of perfectly and clearly explaining the inevitable role that devaluing another person based upon race has to do with the current problems with the American justice system as well as much of what passes for common 'understanding'. — creativesoul

(insert racial descriptor of your choice. — creativesoul

I credit you with knowing there is no such thing as race, and your uses of "race" and "racial" were just oversights, a convenience of perhaps habituated usage. In my opinion we-all have got to a place where the word itself has got to be called out. I've noticed some main-stream media is also moving away from the word. Why don't we join them.

I credit you with knowing there is no such thing as race, and your uses of "race" and "racial" were just oversights, a convenience of perhaps habituated usage. In my opinion we-all have got to a place where the word itself has got to be called out. I've noticed some main-stream media is also moving away from the word. Why don't we join them. — tim wood

Seems to me that doing that does nothing to end racism and it's residual effects/affects.

Thank you for the offer, but I have to politely decline.

Thank you for the offer, but I have to politely decline. — creativesoul

Why would you attribute causation to something that does not exist? Implicit is that "race" grounds racism. Now the question to you: if there is no such thing as race, what do you say racism is?

I would suggest that you re-read the post you originally replied to. The answer is there.


Another thing...

There's no causation being attributed. It's a matter of elemental constituency and existential dependency. It's a bit more helpful to think of it like ingredients... not causality.

Apples do not cause apple pie. Racist beliefs do not cause systemic racism.

Apples do not cause apple pie. Racist beliefs do not cause systemic racism. — creativesoul

Referring to apple pie when there is no such thing as an apple - that's a problem, wouldn't you say?

Referring to apple pie when there is no such thing as an apple - that's a problem, wouldn't you say? — tim wood

Are you saying that there is no such thing as racist belief or systemic racism?

That would be a problem.

Race, racism. Two different words. To use your analogy, apples, apple pie. Now we have apple pie - or that's what it's been called. But it turns out that there's no such thing as apples, as you know because you watched the two videos referenced several times in this thread. And the science on this is around 50 years old.

If apple pie is not made of apples, what is it made of? And it makes no sense to keep calling it apple pie, especially when that reinforces something wrong. I can think of other examples, but why go there, and I'm sure you can to.

Usually when anyone refers to race, for any reason, they're either ignorant - they don't know any better - or almost certainly vicious, Actually probably vicious either way. That viciousness is institutionalized and has led in the US to among other things a holocaust of police killings/murders of mostly black people.

Calling out the use of a word or the ideas the word represents isn't much, but it's something. And now you know better.

This is really too simplistic. Race is a social construct. Race is an idea, not a fact. Saying there is no factual basis for the distinction doesn't make the idea go away and it doesn't make the associations and classifications based on how someone looks go away. It's therefore neither a solution nor the beginning of one.

You want to pretend there are no apples, where clearly there are apples.

Or to put it differently you're suggesting that we should stop talking about unicorns because there's no factual basis for them. Next time I see a picture of one, I'll call it a horny horse.

Race is a social construct. — Benkei

The so-called science behind race is exploded. So it morphed somehow into a social construct. Based on what, exactly?

And the problem with your unicorn is that too many people think they're real. And this crosses over into racism, which by any name certainly exists. But racism needs a new name, because as it is, it's based on unicorns.

And that will solve what, mr. Word Police? Oh right...

Call it xenophobism or discrimination, people are still going to do it based on how other people look.

So it morphed somehow into a social construct. — tim wood

Also, come to think of it. I take issue with that as well. It has always been a social construct.

Call it xenophobism or discrimination, people are still going to do it based on how other people look. — Benkei

Indeed they will. Observe and consider, though, the difference in weight in the justification: "I hate him because he's one of those Xs and everyone knows Xs are inferior, or devious, or evil, because they're Xs.

Compare to, "I hate him because I'm just a hateful ignorant person unable to adjust myself to the world as it is, so I will just go on hating and hurting others until I and everyone like me is dead, although then you shall have to deal with my children."

Also, come to think of it. I take issue with that as well. It has always been a social construct. — Benkei

It was taken for and accepted as a science.

Now, I'm pretty sure you also watched the two videos referenced, or maybe you already knew their substance. Therefore I do not suppose you defend any substantive notion of race. Race really is a unicorn. But a unicorn given a semblance of reality by usage.

People are going to dislike other people. Isn't it an improvement to move language on this matter towards accuracy? Or are you a unicornist?

Race, racism. Two different words. To use your analogy, apples, apple pie. — tim wood

That's a misuse of the analogy. Racist belief and systemic racism. Both exist, The latter is existentially dependent upon the former. The latter consists of the former. The former doesn't just stop existing because it's based upon a notion of categorization that is currently unsupported by genetics and the science involved. Nor does the latter.

The thrust of your approach here misses the boat entirely.