What convinced women to smoke? — boethius

Oh those pathetic women who can’t think for themselves.

I’m interested in definitions of Besorgen and Sorge and the use of “care” and “concern”. These seems to me, in spirit, more like engagement. Any thoughts?

I was just going through a book that’s a guide to philosophers and their work, not one mention of Heidegger. Is it that bad?

Edit: on reflection I think it might have been a matter of space and that they chose Kant over Heigegger.

the job of the police is to put themselves out of a job. — StreetlightX

This is nonsense too. The police are responders. How many police respond to domestic issues every day across America or any other country? How could they create an environment where there is no domestic violence. Your posts are beginning to look like ideology pitted against common sense in an effort to achieve some other agenda. I’m happy to be corrected but I sense real Marxist undertones to your posts. Which is fine, but it helps in understanding where you’re coming from to know.

This is absolutely right. High police performance should reduce crime, and reduced crime should result in fewer needed police. — VagabondSpectre

That just makes no sense. Police arrest people who are suspected of committing crimes. The courts determine the sentence. It’s the consequence of breaking the law that’s the deterrent. Though it obviously is not the most successful theory.

What exactly do you mean by “ higher police performance” and how would it reduce crime?

Will reply more in depth later but the first substantial step in abolishing racism is to abolish capitalism yes. — StreetlightX

I knew that was coming.

It seems to me that the past dropped a very big problem on our doorstep. We, being the present Capitalist system, already had policies of neglect and abuse in place that affected people in a negative way and both failed to help those of the white population in poverty or drove others into it. When the black population was integrated into this population they represented a far greater proportion of people in poverty than the poverty stricken white population. Those policies applied to poor whites had the same affect on blacks but in greater numbers. The numbers were possibly so big that they created a worse situation for those same people, a situation they would find hard, if not impossible, to get out of.

I think that is exactly what systemic racism is like. Policies that "happen" to impact people differently along racial lines. — Echarmion

Well I would call that neglect. One might call it racism if they were inclined. However, whatever it is the result is the same, which is poverty.

But there seem to be real factors besides racism that have contributed to black poverty.
— Brett
— Echarmion

Aside from the vicious cycle of poverty, driven by capitalism, what real factors are there? — Echarmion

This is your position then, that Capitalism created racism.

If I am not mistaken, school funding in the US is based on the tax income of the school district. The obvious result of that is that poor districts have little money while having higher needs (poor families can supply less homeschooling). — Echarmion

That appears to be true about school funding. But you would need to persuade me that the government consciously created that system to deprive blacks of an education. The OP is why is systemic racism happening? That means now. If the restrictions governments have towards education is poor policy that impacts on blacks that have found themselves in circumstances created by past actions that does not equate to systemic racism now. The policy of education budgets based on taxable income is obviously absurd, but as I said, I don’t imagine it was implemented as a racist act.

Actually I might know the problem. Refer here and here. Let me know what you think, — StreetlightX

“Seven of the 10 states with the highest poverty rates in the U.S. are in the South ... These areas have a long history of poverty and there are many factors contributing to it, but the most obvious are that they were agricultural economies first and foremost with light emphasis on education and innovation.

High school graduation rates for African-American and Hispanic students are almost 20 percentage points lower than for other ethnic groups ... Without the knowledge and skills required for well-remunerated work in the modern workplace, each succeeding generation of undereducated adults merely replaces the one before it without achieving any upward mobility or escape from poverty”. https://www.debt.org/faqs/americans-in-debt/poverty-united-states/

From what I’ve read the biggest contributors to poverty for all people is: low education, teen births, imprisonment and poor health.
This creates low opportunities for employment or better paid work which leads directly to poverty, which leads to breakdown of the family, crime, neglect of education, dependency and unemployment. It’s the vicious cycle of poverty.

Racism may contribute to some of this, but does it contribute to a failure in education, teen births and family breakdown? Everyone who is uneducated gets low wages or fewer opportunities.

Would blacks be deprived of access to education? I don’t know. If they were I would regard that as racism.

In response to your posts about a Marxist point of view I understand the relationship of poverty and race to class issues.

“If you help all poor people equally regardless of race, you disproportionately help black people automatically because the poor are disproportionately black.
— Pfhorrest

Who could argue with this? I don’t doubt that systemic racism existed in the south. But there seem to be real factors besides racism that have contributed to black poverty.

Okay. I’ll read them a bit more closely.

because poverty disproportionally affects black people, this means that class issues are directly race issues. — StreetlightX

Is this what you’re directing me to?

That the injustice is specifically racial. But then you add but not only racial, which suggests there are injustices against blacks that aren’t racial. So whatever those other acts might be they are not racial, therefore, it seems to me, that the injustices cannot be specifically racial.

The fact that the injustice invovled is specifically racial (which is not to say only racial). — StreetlightX

This confuses me. Is it poorly written or do you mean it?

I already did.

Well I think we’re going in circles now, don’t you think?

Because that would be denying reality. — StreetlightX

Which part is denying reality?

It's hard to deny that the protests are at least achieving something. — Echarmion

I don’t think you’ll see much change. There will be changes in the police force because that’s the flashpoint. But the shops in Manhattan will claim their insurance and as a result they might have a better month than they might have had otherwise. But those who have a small business in the worst hit neighbourhoods will struggle to recover, some will some won’t, but that means no profits for some time.

People all around the world are hurting, but you could not claim that racism is behind it. People throughout America are hurting but again you could not claim that racism is the cause. The fact that blacks might hurt more than whites doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s the result of racism.

There are groups who will not be hurt: the rich, academia, the media, religious institutions and probably a few more I haven’t considered. They have nothing to lose. Look at those who lose nothing then look at those who do. Is there a divide there? When there’s a gap you don’t fall in between the two sides, you end up on one side or the other.

Blacks may be more affected than whites, I don’t know enough to prove that one way or the other, the symptoms may take different forms with different groups, but to assume that it’s racism removes the focus from the real problem that affects all people, not just Americans but all people across the world. It seems to me that “systemic racism” would be a very convenient deflection from those who remain untouched.

Why not remove the word racism and instead say "systemic injustice", "systemic greed", "systemic corruption"?

No, it's a nation divided.

Have you ever considered this; that Trump voters and Sander’s voters might both be against the same thing.

Problem found. — StreetlightX

Do you mean that people like me are the problem?

It’s possible that you’re playing into the hands of the real problem.

the protests, the media publicity, the anguish, — StreetlightX

Does any of this contribute to revealing the real problem?

I understand that if you believe racism is institutionalised in America that you find it abhorrent. Who in their right mind wouldn’t? But if that’s incorrect and we all go down that road in an angry mob then we miss the real problem and by missing the real problem, or source of the problem, then we may contribute to it.

I don’t know. Do you? Incontrovertible truth is what we’re after, no?

If you want. You may be right but so far I don’t think you’ve proved your point.

I think you know what my point is. These incidents may not be issues of race but of circumstances.

But wait a minute, he wasn’t black.

You are simply trying to derail this conversation because obvious truths threaten your identity and you believe power should be enough to determine what the truth is. So you want to flex your trollish power here to frustrate good faith analysis and virtue signal to your cause. Maybe my diagnosis of your fascist psychology is off topic, but I'm glad you don't have a problem with that. — boethius

I wasn’t going to reply to this then I decided to, largely because I wanted to clarify my position to myself.

I was not trying to derail the conversation. Nor was I doing it because the obvious truth threatens my identity or that power determines truth. What I was referring to was the idea that a truth had been assumed and was unquestionable. How can a statement or truth be tested, which it should be, unless there is room for dissent.

What I meant when I said that I could prove there was no systemic racism easily if I had no disagreement was that proving something in an echo chamber with everyone agreeing with me would be easy, I would simply ban everyone who disagreed and remove any evidence that questioned my premise. Obviously to someone interested in truth the questioning would be welcome, it tests your ideas and opens you up to different perspectives, which helps you peel away the layers needed to reach the truth, which may or may not exist. My questioning of Baden’s reply to Nos4r2’s was because of this. On that OP you assume the truth of systemic racism without question and then look at this to address it in an effort to overcome it. Then many presented their evidence for systemic racism. Some were not convinced that there was systemic racism, which does not mean there is no racism. I don’t think any of my posts denied systemic racism anyway. But I was questioning whether that really was the basis for addressing racism in America. If you were interested in finding some truth to formulate a response to racism wouldn’t you want that bedrock idea you base everything on tested, made water tight. Maybe you’re convinced but that still doesn’t mean you’re right. That’s not a personal insult, it’s just that we can rarely be sure we’re absolutely right, not unless our point of view has been tested and survived. I think Baden was shutting down that essential element to a discussion, which is dissent.

Now you either support dissent or you don’t. If you refuse it then you do yourself a disservice and probably others you support.

Finally you refer to my fascist psychology and suggest that I’m virtue signalling. Is dissent now a sign of being a fascist? Does it mean you’re right wing because you question something or do I have to go along with everything to be accepted? And is that what you want from others?

Baden, you just proved me right.

Baden, if I had no one disagreeing with me I could easily prove it doesn’t exist.

That doesn’t work. If I start an OP saying the opposite, that the OP assumes it, then only those who agree with it can post because otherwise they’re off topic?

the OP presumes its existence. If you want to participate you'll need to do so on that presumption — Baden

Interesting how the mods dominate this discussion. Baden, you’re basically saying that one can’t disagree with the OP, that if you want to participate then you must agree with the OP. Very totalitarian. I think your true colours are showing. You’re probably one of the bigger instigators of tension on this forum these days. You want it one way only, no dissent. You’ll get your way in the end.

Great post. Thanks.

Your right of course, if systemic racism is a fact. But I’m just referring to the research and the fact that you viewed it only in terms of statistical shootings. I’m not saying it proves anything, only that you had viewed it narrowly.

Edit: though I don’t see how a black cop shootings a black could be regarded as an act of racism.

Then maybe you’re thinking of things in terms of a collective. Which I had considered, but I don’t think that works in terms of the state today. It’s likely that there’s a faction within a state, like Permanent Secretaries in government, bureaucrats, careerists, that feed information to politicians and government and are interested primarily in their career. The CIA is primarily careerists, as are all other state departments. This is a monopoly on power, but is it the monopoly people mean when they talk about the state?

To be fair that research is not just about fatal shooting numbers but about the race of officers involved in incidents and how that relates to issues of racism.

That’s interesting research, but it doesn’t address the permanent, general harassment of blacks and black neighbourhoods by the police, which may be unquantifiable.

Edit: what I mean is the manner in which the two interact with each other on that level.