No one tries to cross party lines any more. — Harry Hindu

And whose fault is that? Surely this can be attributed to the voters as much as the politicians.

The democratic system, on every level, is not serving the people. — Aleph Numbers

The US is not a free, democratic country. — StreetlightX

Part of living in a democracy is that your team doesn't always win. If one unpopolar president is all it takes for citizens to go into meltdown then I guess the veil of civilization was truly thin indeed.

Alas, every country ends up with the government it deserves.

To violently riot in a free, democratic country is beyond pathetic.

"An ignorant person is inclined to blame others for his own misfortune. To blame oneself is proof of progress. But the wise man never has to blame another or himself." - Epictetus, Enchiridion

Moral importance, NOT responsibility - we correct past and current injustices not by standing with the perpetrators, but by standing against them, regardless of skin colour. Not by assuming culpability for the actions of others, but by assuming a share in the suffering of those unjustly treated. — Possibility

By that I understand that participation in this act of correcting is entirely voluntarily and people should never be forced, since there exists no moral responsibility?

On another topic, what exactly determines whether one should feel this moral importance, and on the basis of what? Does it extend to all forms of injustice?

The moral importance of correcting past and current injustices committed against races outweigh alternatives. — Judaka

A moral responsibility by virtue of sharing the same skin color as the perpetrators of racial injustices, historical or otherwise? Perhaps you'd care to elaborate some more on this.

Most governments in history have not been shaped by its people, rather shaped by a select few, or just one person. — Harry Hindu

The lack of choices, misinformation in the media, and the ability to buy your way to the top are definite obstacles to the people having real voting power. — Harry Hindu

Let me give you an example.

Why do politicians tell lies and make promises they know they cannot keep? Why do politicians focus on throwing mud at their competition instead of presenting voters with solid, future-proof policies?

They do these things because it is what gets them votes. If it gets them votes it means it is what the voters want to hear and see. Thereby the behavior of politicians is directly influenced by the voters' preferences, in accordance with the quote "Every country gets the government it deserves."

What would happen if the voters were less gullible that they weren't so easily swayed by false promises? Or if they would immediately reject any politician that engaged in mud throwing as 'unfit for leadership' (which they should)?

Of course one may argue that there are plenty of people who disagree with the politcians' behavior, however as long as that number is not significant enough to affect election results one must still conclude that the majority of voters either like the politcians' behavior or is apathetic towards it.

Since pain and suffering exists — Zg3TWbIqgz7

If one would like to provide a counterargument for "the problem of evil" I'd ask whoever is defending it to prove either of these things exist. One may add evil in that mix as well.

It is a mistake to regard government as something external, as so many like to do. A government is shaped more by its people than vice versa, even though some governments in the past have tried. We see imperfect, authoritarian government, because it is governing imperfect people who require authority to be kept functioning.

Society needs authorities to be kept from devolving into chaos. People need, and in many cases desire (even if they would deny this, it follows from their actions), to be ruled. Therefore, a discussion about anti-authoritarianism cannot be held without regard for what it would require from the people to live as such. A society without laws would rely on people's personal integrity to behave in a cooperative fashion.

In short, the need for authority is a result of mankind's imperfect nature, and living in a society without authority would require mankind as a whole to make significant steps forward in terms of its intellectual development.

I think western society is rapidly running away from enlightenment, despite all of the education being in place to show the way towards it. Isn't our infatuation with pointless leisures and extravagance only growing? Education seems to play no role in this process. Indeed some of the simplest minds may have come closer to enlightenment than others who have worked for a university degree and dedicated their lives to it.

If one believes they weren't born with enough priviledge, perhaps they should have a stern conversation with their parents about it.

Can't say that I do, but a quick glance at Google ("monastery retreat Scandinavia") shows plenty of choice, from Christian to Buddhist to secular.

One doesn't have to be religious in order to spend time in a monastery. Many open their doors for all who require a break from modern living. Perhaps you will even find some souls facing a similar predicament.

Have you ever thought about spending some time in a monastery?

Humans are imperfect, and humans make up "the system". We are all a part of it and we voluntarily decide to reinforce it every day through our behavior, whether we are aware of this or not (and whether one thinks of themselves so selfrighteously that they consider themselves 'not part of the system': they are). All this finger-pointing hides ignorance and possibly a guilty conscience.

As long as humans are imperfect, there won't be a perfect system. Attempts at creating one are likely to produce an outcome worse than the original, not in the least because those who strive for change often lack any insight into their own human (and thus flawed) motivations. Be very wary of those who see no issue in forcing people to part with their wealth in search of a 'perfect' system'. It's indicative of the totalitarian mindset, and sadly it is well-represented here. On a philosophy forum, paradoxically(?). I guess that can be attributed to the arrogance of intellect, even though any real intellect seems to be lacking.

How does helping orphans benefit society as a whole? — Benkei

Every child can become an orphan.

Second, since when does alleviating poverty not help society as a whole? — Benkei

Reparations do not alleviate poverty, because it does nothing to address the root causes of poverty.

Third, since when is that a criterium to begin with? — Benkei

It's a criterium for anyone who seeks to justify why states are allowed to force people to part with their money in the first place.

Roads only benefits people who drive cars. — Benkei

The vast, vast majority of people will drive a car in some point in their life, and good infrastructure is an important factor in economic prosperity. For example, roads also make sure your grocery store can be stocked with food every day.

Courts only benefit crooks, lawyers and victims. — Benkei

I don't think I need to explain the benefit to a society for having a working justice system. Besides, everyone can become a crook or a victim, so again there is no exclusion.

Healthcare only benefits the sick. — Benkei

Same thing. There is no exclusion here.

In other words "what benefits society" is a totally arbitrary measure you pulled out of your ass to avoid actually having to think about how to solve systemic racism. — Benkei

As you know, I don't believe the existence of systemic racism follows from whatever data has been presented.

Now we are talking about reparations which you brought up. I'll gladly talk about why I believe it is a terrible idea.

And then to top it off we get the "totalitarianism" faux shock cum straw man. — Benkei

Your mindset is totalitarian, even if you don't realize it. Being in favor of forcing people to pay for a crime they didn't commit, because of some misplaced sense of justice. You believe justice for some is more important than justice for others. You discriminate, based on personal preference, and think it would be good government policy.

Nobody partook in a crime either except for the criminal and his victim, yet we go out of our way to pay for police, find the culprit, — Benkei

Dealing with crime benefits the whole of society, and crime takes place, for the most part, in the present.

Making Americans pay reparations for slavery would be no different from forcing someone's grandson to pay compensation for a crime their grandfather committed. Unthinkable! And sadly, indicative of the totalitarian mindset that plagues much of the left nowadays.

Previous bad policy is no excuse to not pass good policy now. Totally irrelevant. — Benkei

As irrelevant as learning from past mistakes, no doubt.

I don't think people who never partook in slavery owe anything to people who were never slaves. Notions that such would be the case have no place in a free society. In fact, putting people in historical categories based on nothing other than their skin color is, ironically, quite racist. To then distribute some type of shared blame and entitlements based on generalizations of literally millions of people, is foolish.

Not to mention, the US government has already tried this through various programs and they have all had adverse effects, mostly benefiting those who didn't really need it and destroying the chances of those that did.

I like Baldwin. Especially what he says here.

Quote (7:15-8:02):

"I have said in effect that white men must give up what is in effect a crutch. So must I. This is entirely true. There is something very safe about being a Negro, in a way, because you can blame anything that happens to you on it. And this is the worst thing about being a Negro - quite apart now from New Orleans, race riots, lynching, etc. etc. The worst thing about it is at one point, somewhere in yourself, you need to realize that, "Alright, you are a Negro and this is all true - but before that you are a Man, and your life is in your hands." You are responsible for what happens to you. You cannot blame anybody for it. There is no point. There is no one to blame."

A man ahead of his time, though sometimes overly verbose and preachy. From the way he speaks I sometimes inferred that he found it inconceivable for a Caucasian to not be racist. Regrettable, but perhaps a sign of the times.

This is different from systemic racism because...? — Benkei

Because it has nothing to do with beliefs of racial superiority or inferiority. They're circumstances that came about, some explainable through history, some explainable by well intentioned but faulty policy, some explainable through human nature, others explainable by randomness. I don't believe any of these things were meant to purposely hurt African-American communities (but if you suspect as much, I suggest turning your suspicions towards the Democratic Party).

What's actually misused in these debates is the inability for people to make a coherent argument and instead of that post videos from which their interlocutors are apparently to derive their point. — Benkei

Full disclosure, I'm not an expert. So why not let someone who knows a lot more about these issues than I do make the point better than I ever could? The videos I linked were quite clear, in my opinion. But fair enough, since you seem genuine I'll make an effort.

Are blacks disproportionality killed by police and incarcerated in the US or not? — Benkei

This is what the data shows.

What's the cause or causes according to you if not one of the two options I provided? — Benkei

Likely, there are many underlying causes and I don't pretend to know the exact cause.

The higher crime rates are almost certainly linked to the higher poverty/lower income rates among African-Americans.

The question then becomes, where does the income disparity come from?

According to Thomas Sowell, a lot of this can be attributed to failed government policy. Programs like the welfare state and affirmative action did more to hurt the communities they were intended to support. Unintended effects were, for example, the subsidizing of poor life choices. African-American communities were hit especially hard by these government failures.

Furthermore, he questions the link between systemic racism and the current situation by pointing out that in the past, when systemic racism was real, overt and widespread, African-American families were doing better in many ways than they do now. (marriage/divorce rates, unemployment, illegitimacy rates, etc., mostly indicators of stable family life).

An apt display of simple-mindedness. From a moderator, no less. Bravo!

Show some maturity of mind and judge the man on what he says rather than his affiliation.

You cannot infer what you wanted to infer about systemic racism within the police in their interactions with suspects from the way police treat victims. That's not an issue with the study, it's an issue with using the study for a conclusion it doesn't support. — Benkei

I make little in the way of conclusions, other than that numbers often quoted to prove systemic racism, such as various statistics related to police bias, do not seem to prove much when put into context. This is the point that was made in the video I linked.

You need to be careful with this too due to Simpson's paradox. — Benkei

Everyone needs to be careful with statistics, and in my experience many who partake in this sort of debate misuse statistics to a criminal extent.

In any case, I think it's irrelevant as to the question if there is systemic racism in the US. We know blacks are disproportionaly killed and incarcerated in the US. Let's assume the police are not biased. Let's assume the criminal justice system is fair. Blacks are still disproportionally killed and incarcerated. So either that's

a) due to race essentialism because blacks have a propensity for crime, or
b) something about the way society works or has worked causing the disparity (eg. systemic racism). — Benkei

I don't think those are the only two options, and this type of binary thinking (e.g. "you must agree systemic racism exists or you must be a racist") is typical for this debate. It's polarizing, but most of all it's anti-intellectual, since reality is almost universally more complicated than we like to assume.

And in any case you do not appear to be serious about the discussion, as evidenced by your refusal to engage in any way with studies showing precisely what you claimed (without evidence) that there was no evidence (amusing irony, btw). — Enai De A Lukal

I actually tried to access the studies, but was greeted by a pay wall.

Actually it is how it works. The studies are rates of police violence by race/ethnicity, not totals. And yes, if you assert, as you did above, that the cited studies do not show what they claim to show, then you absolutely need to back that assertion up, in this case by showing why the data doesn't entail the conclusions the authors claim. Sort of how this whole thing works. If you're unable/unwilling to meet your burden of proof, that's your prerogative. But it means you've effectively retracted your claim. — Enai De A Lukal

Obviously if certain ethnicities are overrepresented in certain crimes like homocide, that needs to be taken into account when judging the numbers, even when it is a 'rate'.

And the claim here is that systemic racism exists in the USA, and you will need more than statistics without context to make that claim. That is essentially what I (and Larry Elder in the video) take issue with.

Wrong. So you put out a blurb referencing a survey, which I then look up and read, share with you, you allege I haven't read and then you don't even now the universe of respondents after I literally quoted it word for word from the latest survey? Disingenuous much? — Benkei

No, simply not a native English speaker.

Please make your point about the study, if you have one.

most of them are based on rates not totals — Enai De A Lukal

That is not how it works, but you seemed to have already understood this:

and in any case you would have to actually show that the math works out as you claim (that the disparities disappear when account for rates rather than totals) — Enai De A Lukal

I would have to show no such thing, since I assert nothing other than that the data the people claim to exist does not seem to be there. Those who wish to conclude from studies such as the ones you linked that systemic racism exists need to provide proof.

what's the universe of people questioned as part of the PPCS? — Benkei

Depends on the survey.

When crime rates are taken into account, those studies show very little.

I recommend you read some of the reports before making assumptions about their faulty methodology.

Yes.

There seems to be little evidence to suggest any racial disparity in police violence.

Please respond.

Please watch this and share your thoughts.

One (man or woman) who dresses up with the intention to sexually entice others is in the first place objectifying themselves. That they are then also objectified by the beholder is the natural consequence.

After all, wouldn't the choice for such dress imply we seek to exchange the enticement of the other for whatever attention, drinks, sexual favors. One is using their body as currency to get what it is they want.

Of course, wanting to look 'good' and wanting to look 'sexy' aren't necessarily one and the same.

Comments, please.

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

James Baldwin makes two points in the fragment between 7:14-8:04.

Baldwin thereby shows a sense of self-awareness that is utterly lacking in today's protests.

This was never the subject of discussion. You're dodging the point.

It's so fucking stupid. — StreetlightX

Solid argumentation.

I'm guessing the two of you were told something you didn't like to hear, and now feel the need to resort to... whatever this is?

Why would Morgan Freeman think it is worth our all changing our language for the sake of a few nutters? — unenlightened

Because he understands that all of this chasing ghosts is putting more and more emphasis on skin color. It polarizes. It makes people more aware of race.

In fact, I'm convinced that continuously telling people they or others are secretly racist would sooner create racists than solve any problems.

It's saying "Look, those people over there may seem nice, but secretly they hate you and they're the reason you cannot get a job/didn't finish school, etc."

Converse it's saying "You may think you're not racist, but <insert statistic without context here> shows that you are. Not only that, everyone around you, they're racist too! And everything you worked for in life? All paid for by racism!"

Of course, "racism" in this context only applies to the "black vs. white"-narrative. Never mind all the racism perpetrated by people of all colors, because apparently that doesn't matter.

This current 'black vs. white' nonsense does nothing but create racial tensions where there were none. It serves to polarize and it has nothing to do with justice. It manipulates people by telling them exactly what they want to hear, while holding up the carrot of moral superiority. The only question we should be asking is who profits from a polarized society filled with hatred for the other?

What would convince you? Not media, obviously. Statistics? Is there something short of a declaration of white supremacy? — unenlightened

Not really.

Somehow racism is poorly hidden, and those racists I have met in my life often had no problem telling me so.

An event occurs, and the immediate conclusion is that it must be because of racism. What if the skin colors of those involved had nothing to do with any of it?

Media loves to frame things to fit a narrative. Media loves outrage, because outrage draws attention. It's all about language, because it so deviously manipulates us.