Prejudice and Bigotry in Law Enforcement

[pjdude1219]

No, to what? "Lies to boot", WTF? You guys are like someone rooting for their favorite team, facts be damned.

Have you ever actually been out of the house and met a real cop? I thought not.

i have. sold him some luggage in fact. my next door neighbors are DEA agents. again just because your piss ignorant doesn't mean non of us have met a cop.

 

[Seattle]

you did that you lack the wit to understand the implications of your own argument is not my problem. my brain is operating fine. yours is in doubt if you cant understand that replying that cops feel threatened for there safety in a thread about police brutality focused on race implies that you feel they feel threatened by the nonwhiteness of their victims.

It's "their" and not "there". Maybe you can wrap your brain around that?

The cops are operating in an area where there is a lot of violence committed by people of color. They have to be aware that there may be a gun around. They don't have to shoot unarmed victims but they do have to be aware that those committing violent acts are a largely black in that community and that they are largely armed.

 

[Seattle]

i have. sold him some luggage in fact. my next door neighbors are DEA agents. again just because your piss ignorant doesn't mean non of us have met a cop.

Again, I didn't ask if you had met a cop. I asked if Tiassa had. By the way, it's not "non", it's "none". It's hard to use "piss ignorant" in a sentence where you misspell "none" unless your brain isn't working.

 

[Bells]

No one implied that people of color are threatening.

Really?

You have been implying that repeatedly throughout this thread. Just a few examples:

Of course more black people commit violent crimes so their chances are higher.

There are more whites, blacks are over represented in violent crime as well. It does show that cops shoot unarmed white people and it does show that more cops are shot by black people than the other way around.

They don't have to shoot unarmed victims but they do have to be aware that those committing violent acts are a largely black in that community and that they are largely armed.

All of which is based on your racism. And we know it is based on your white supremacist ideology and racism because you fail to account for racism (such as structural racism which leads on to the next point), poverty, unemployment, over-policing, etc.

And that's just for your first point.

Black people are over-represented in violent crime - not because they commit more crimes - but because of the factors that lead to said crimes - such as over policing, which means that whites who actually commit more crimes, are rarely charged when they commit said crimes, because so much attention is placed on "black crime".

And as was linked above, white males in particular are more likely to shoot police officers than black people and the facts actually support that (as was linked above in a previous post).

So what does this mean?

You posting these racist stereotypes simply continues to out you as the racist bigot that you are. Not to mention you have failed to support any of your arguments with actual studies or facts - and have instead relied on the tried and true racist stereotypes one sees with people like you.

And before you start whining about name calling, you should be mindful of just how you have spoken to people in this thread.

 

[Seattle]

Really?

You have been implying that repeatedly throughout this thread. Just a few examples:







All of which is based on your racism. And we know it is based on your white supremacist ideology and racism because you fail to account for racism (such as structural racism which leads on to the next point), poverty, unemployment, over-policing, etc.

And that's just for your first point.

Black people are over-represented in violent crime - not because they commit more crimes - but because of the factors that lead to said crimes - such as over policing, which means that whites who actually commit more crimes, are rarely charged when they commit said crimes, because so much attention is placed on "black crime".

And as was linked above, white males in particular are more likely to shoot police officers than black people and the facts actually support that (as was linked above in a previous post).

So what does this mean?

You posting these racist stereotypes simply continues to out you as the racist bigot that you are. Not to mention you have failed to support any of your arguments with actual studies or facts - and have instead relied on the tried and true racist stereotypes one sees with people like you.

And before you start whining about name calling, you should be mindful of just how you have spoken to people in this thread.

 

[iceaura]

and then if they make a mistake (trying to stay alive) you prosecute them with no benefit of the doubt given to them, no one would become a cop. No one needs a job that bad.

So that line about most cops being good cops was just for temporary consumption?

The problem under discussion is that the police use that excuse - they feared for their lives - to justify beating on black people (and red and brown, depending on availability). They fear for their lives when black men are running away from them. They fear for their lives when black children in the toy department of the local store are playing with toys the cops think look like guns. They fear for their lives when they kick in innocent black people's doors and wake them up in their own beds.

Fear of someone because they are black is racism - and using that as an excuse for beating on black people is proof that the police can count on racist fellow policemen, DAs, judges, supervisors, and general public, to buy in. It's not a bad apple problem.

Meanwhile: There are dozens of jobs more dangerous than police work. Most of them pay less, and very few allow the jobholders to beat up black people at will and then claim entitlement due to fear.

The district attorney (prosecutors office) works closely with cops so they are more lenient when it comes to pressing charges where cops are concerned.

So when the cops beat up on black people, they know they aren't going to suffer consequences.

It does show that cops shoot unarmed white people and it does show that more cops are shot by black people than the other way around.

And it's completely irrelevant (Nothing there excuses the way US police departments abuse black people out of obvious racial bigotry).
And it's one of the stereotypical bullshit items one hears from white racial bigots - right along with the comments about whether or not the latest black victim of police abuse had a criminal record, etc. Your project of checking every box for self-identification as a white racial bigot is going smoothly.

Re that last litany of flagrant Republican media memes, try looking at the obvious: for example, the ratio of blacks murdered by police to police murdered by blacks would be near zero, if the police were doing their jobs right - same as any other crime. It's the same reason many more cars should be stolen from the police by black people than stolen from black people by the police. The police are getting paid to enforce the law, remember?

 

[Seattle]

OK Iceaura, I have an honest challenge for you. I don't see it going well but I'll try.

I'm going to post an article from Forbes. Don't let the fact that it appeared in Forbes dissuade you. I'm not sure why it was in Forbes and there was no critical analysis, just more or less reposting a "study" from a liberal think tank.

My challenge to you is to read it from a logical point of view as an analyst and not as a person with a political agenda to push. Think of it is a class room exercise in a logic class where it's not about proving a point but rather about judging the logical conclusions of a study.

Tell me if after reading this study you see any problems with these conclusions based only on what is written.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauras...times-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/#743b4cc01f45

 

[iceaura]

OK Iceaura, I have an honest challenge for you.

No, you don't.
But carrying on:

I'm going to post an article from Forbes. Don't let the fact that it appeared in Forbes dissuade you.

? If you were capable of reading my posts, you would have noticed long ago that I identify and evaluate sources according to their product, not vice versa.

My challenge to you is to read it from a logical point of view as an analyst and not as a person with a political agenda to push. Think of it is a class room exercise in a logic class where it's not about proving a point but rather about judging the logical conclusions of a study.

It's not an exercise in logic at all. There is no study, and no overall logical conclusion, in that article. It's a description of a situation, with some brief and incomplete allusions to historical context.

That is: There is no argument presented by the writer, and no conclusions drawn, unless you count the writer's assertion of growing (average) wealth inequality between black and white Americans and its substantial arithmetical accounting in the different distribution between blacks and whites of three particular sources and stashes of wealth

- or maybe one could mistake the various mentions of factors such as redlining for items of evidence in an otherwise absent argument? -

all of which I regard (and have posted here, over the strident objections of those who claim American racism disappeared some time in the past and has no present influence) as observed and long established facts not in need of argument. The writer (like me) has bigger fish to fry.

You appear to have been misled by the title, which is misleading. In magazines the titles of articles are often provided by editors, or even marketers - not the writers. Since I suspect that is what happened there, I do not hold it against the writer that the article does not actually deal with why a typical white household has 16 times the wealth of a typical black household in the US, or even deal with the various problems with that statistic
(It's a significant underestimate, failing as it does to recognize several forms of wealth that are difficult to measure. And household wealth is almost never the key factor - individual earning power, opportunity, and wealth is usually more directly significant).

The article describes a perfectly ordinary and normally assumed fact of American life that would be news to nobody who had ever considered the matter - although it appears (from the reactions I get when I assert it) that it's news to lots of Republicans, and the victims of American rightwing corporate media ( the Tribe, as some lefties call it, because when you have a funny truth you have something) generally.

Tell me if after reading this study you see any problems with these conclusions based only on what is written.

I don't see much in the way of "conclusions".

As I have been posting similar statistical descriptions (although better ones than "household") and describing (somewhat more completely) the same situation (as a preliminary to drawing the conclusions that article avoids), for literally years on this forum, I obviously have no significant problems with that article. It's obviously simplistic, tame, and carefully diplomatic in its descriptions (does not mention law enforcement, the drug war, the military, domestic terrorism, interest rates, corporate deregulation, anything Reagan or other Forbes readers's favorites did, etc etc etc), but it's short and directed at Forbes readers (skimpy backgrounds, wingnut politics, short attention spans for stuff that does not pay them). It can't afford to be other than basic and shallow.

What exactly is this "challenge"?

 

[Tiassa]

I didn't refuse to explain anything.

Well, PJ asked—

i get to someone like you a unarmed, handcuffed, and prone black man is a lethal threat, but for someone with a functional brain(me) could you please explain it?

—and you chose to not answer—

Your brain isn't fully functioning as I recall. I wasn't talking about George Floyd obviously. No one is justifying that one and they are being prosecuted. In general being a cop is a dangerous job and for that reason they get some leeway. They don't get to kill people for no reason however.

Are you sure your brain is fully functioning? You're not very tolerant are you? That seems to be a common trait these days in certain quarters.

—and when asked↑ if that wa a refusal—

No, to what? "Lies to boot", WTF? You guys are like someone rooting for their favorite team, facts be damned.

Have you ever actually been out of the house and met a real cop? I thought not.

—you changed the subject to Bells↑.

So let's make this part clear:

Do you honest thinking I'm limited in my ability to think and communicate?

Well, okay, we can pass that over: It slays me that Skitt's Law doesn't apply in this case.

Do you honestly think I'm an uneducated person?

We can only work with what you give us, so much of which is uneducated trash. Like your old dullardry↑ about the psychoanalytic meaning of history, and maybe you actually thought you were being clever about redundancy↑, but you wreck your own point by pushing witless white supremacist tropes about baby daddies and other such idiocy that trades in ignorance. Ignoring or subordinating the psychohistorical context is an essential component in promoting ahistorical narratives.

As to answering you more directly, the lack of subtlety about your rhetoric and discourse suggests explaining it would be difficult. History is rife with educated people saying ignorant, uneducated things.

 

[pjdude1219]

Well, PJ asked—



—and you chose to not answer—



—and when asked↑ if that wa a refusal—



—you changed the subject to Bells↑.

So let's make this part clear:



Well, okay, we can pass that over: It slays me that Skitt's Law doesn't apply in this case.



We can only work with what you give us, so much of which is uneducated trash. Like your old dullardry↑ about the psychoanalytic meaning of history, and maybe you actually thought you were being clever about redundancy↑, but you wreck your own point by pushing witless white supremacist tropes about baby daddies and other such idiocy that trades in ignorance. Ignoring or subordinating the psychohistorical context is an essential component in promoting ahistorical narratives.

As to answering you more directly, the lack of subtlety about your rhetoric and discourse suggests explaining it would be difficult. History is rife with educated people saying ignorant, uneducated things.

it shocks me that people don't understand the context in what you are saying and replying to effect meaning. like seattle not getting that saying officers need to stay safe when in a thread about the police literally killing POC who aren't a threat is saying POC are inherently a threat.

 

[pjdude1219]

It's "their" and not "there". Maybe you can wrap your brain around that?

its an internet forum not a phd dissertation at harvard. if you have to complain about spelling you damn well know yuou don't have a pot to piss in regards to your argument.

The cops are operating in an area where there is a lot of violence committed by people of color. They have to be aware that there may be a gun around. They don't have to shoot unarmed victims but they do have to be aware that those committing violent acts are a largely black in that community and that they are largely armed.

so you are doubling down on people of color are inherently threatening. Please explain if you honestly believe this(you don't) why then a drunk redneck can waving a longarm gets talked down and live but an uppermiddle class black man gets gunned down with his wife next to him in his car after taking a wrong turn? how does your bullshit theory explain that. why is it these "mistakes" you refer to happen so much more to people of color?

 

[Tiassa]

it shocks me that people don't understand the context in what you are saying and replying to effect meaning. like seattle not getting that saying officers need to stay safe when in a thread about the police literally killing POC who aren't a threat is saying POC are inherently a threat.

Here's a plot twist: Did they never figure it out, at all, or did they convince themselves?

When I was young, there were racists, but there also emerged over time a faction that wanted what the racists wanted, but demanded they weren't racist. Compared to the open, once-upon-a-time racism that seemed rather proud of itself, how long have we known that notaracist argument that one simply disagrees with a particular response to supremacism? Because what those people meant was that they didn't want to be seen as racist, but wanted the benefits that racism brought. And it's one thing to try to stumble down the rabbit hole of anyone's confusion, but in recent years, a small handful among supremacists I've known have become unable to follow discussions. I had a discussion with one supremacist, once, and he tried to justify another person's argument with that appeal about someone just asking questions; when I pointed out that other didn't actually ask a question, the one was apparently genuinely and utterly confused, quite literally asking me, "Why are you telling me this?"

I mean, sure, we've seen that as a cheap maneuver before, but when it's sincere, it's more than a little creepy. You know, just nod carefully, back away slowly, don't make any sudden moves.

(That came not real long after he stopped in the middle of a discussion to ask, What is this [___] you speak of? and the answer was, Same as it's been through the entire thread. Surely, he wasn't putting on a chldish troll show, right, so that left us with the option that he had argued for days without knowing what he was on about. And, yes, we're supposed to take that prospect sincerely.)

I can think of at least four people around here who don't like being seen as supremacists, but make and justify supremacist arguments, and have displayed difficulty following even their own posts one to the next. It's been going on for a while, now.

 

[Seattle]

Well, PJ asked—
"i get to someone like you a unarmed, handcuffed, and prone black man is a lethal threat, but for someone with a functional brain(me) could you please explain it?"


—and you chose to not answer—

An unarmed, handcuffed, and prone black man isn't a lethal threat to me. How's that?

Let me ask you a question that is not directly related to this topic. If you turn off the TV and don't follow the media (any media) does politics affect your life, regardless of who wins any election?

 

[Seattle]

OK Iceaura, I have an honest challenge for you. I don't see it going well but I'll try.

I'm going to post an article from Forbes. Don't let the fact that it appeared in Forbes dissuade you. I'm not sure why it was in Forbes and there was no critical analysis, just more or less reposting a "study" from a liberal think tank.

My challenge to you is to read it from a logical point of view as an analyst and not as a person with a political agenda to push. Think of it is a class room exercise in a logic class where it's not about proving a point but rather about judging the logical conclusions of a study.

Tell me if after reading this study you see any problems with these conclusions based only on what is written.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/lauras...times-the-wealth-of-a-black-one/#743b4cc01f45

There was a study, "The Racial Wage Gap: Why Policy Matters" by Demos.

"“Huge subsets of the population are excluded from accessing the avenues toward wealth,” says Catherine Ruetschlin, senior policy analyst for Demos and a co-author of the report".

The study didn't include Asians (or Jews) supposedly because there weren't enough of them to be statistically significant? Had they been included of course it would show that they have assets that are even higher than white households.

Are those groups not discriminated against? If they are higher than white households does that indicate that white households have been discriminated against? No, of course not but it does indicated that black households aren't being discriminated against regarding this category.

It's not racism that houses in some black areas are worth less than in some white areas. That's not racism. Would you pay more for a house on the southside of Chicago?

Blacks have more student loan debt than whites. I don't recall whether it was this study or another that I recently looked at but the difference was $3,000. That's $14,000 vs $11,000. That's not significant when talking about a "16 times" wealth gap. A part-time job on the weekends for a month would erase that "gap".

Another argument is that blacks who go to college earn less than whites who go to college. Do you think there are more black studies majors in one group and STEM majors in the other? Wouldn't that be important to point out? Yes, of course it would.

Is the stock market limited to whites only? Do blacks who work in corporate America not have access to 401k's just like everyone else? Yes, they do.

The narrative is that they have more people to take care of and somehow that's racist?

The differences in income and wealth were much closer together in the 60's and diverged after the 80's. Yes, you can put in your Reagan rant here but it doesn't point to racism if the divergence started largely in the 80's.

The difference is largely between who put money in the stock market and who didn't. Those who didn't aren't worse off. Those who did are just now better off. The 1% people talk about so much is a recent thing as well for the same reasons, lower tax rates and the performance of the stock market.

You disagree with those policies but they aren't racism and all that is happening is that some people (1%) are really well off. Everyone else is closer to where you would expect them to be. There is no "problem" in other words and it's certainly not "racism".

The "16 time" gap also goes way down when you look at the median rather than the average. Many of the billionaires are white although at that level race really doesn't mean anything. Yet, those billionaires wealth is included in "white wealth" which is why when you use the median it goes way down. That would be a significant factor to mention don't you think?

If one is just looking for any slight micro-aggression or promoting concepts like "intersectionality" you can always find "racism". I see that some also now spell "woman" as "womxn" in order to take "man" out. Never good to be a white cis-gender male now is it? They bad.

Of course if anyone really cared about the black/white asset gap they would do more to educate/encourage moving out of the "ghettos" and putting some funds into the stock market instead of looking for slights.

 

[billvon]

Tell me if after reading this study you see any problems with these conclusions based only on what is written.

The conclusions are pretty reasonable:

Black or Latino kids with families that "were steered into a low-income neighborhood with a low-quality school has decreased chances of obtaining a four-year degree, which also then cuts off future job opportunities." - likely.
"discrimination on the basis of race or national original endures" - definitely.
"black and Latino families earn a lower return on their incomes, meaning they are less able to turn each additional dollar of income into wealth." - the article didn't substantiate that well but that's not unlikely.

All seem to support the thesis that there are several factors working against black and Latino families - institutional racism, a cycle of poverty and permanently lowered opportunities.

 

[Seattle]

The conclusions are pretty reasonable:

Black or Latino kids with families that "were steered into a low-income neighborhood with a low-quality school has decreased chances of obtaining a four-year degree, which also then cuts off future job opportunities." - likely.
"discrimination on the basis of race or national original endures" - definitely.
"black and Latino families earn a lower return on their incomes, meaning they are less able to turn each additional dollar of income into wealth." - the article didn't substantiate that well but that's not unlikely.

All seem to support the thesis that there are several factors working against black and Latino families - institutional racism, a cycle of poverty and permanently lowered opportunities.

"Steered into a low-income neighborhood"? Otherwise they would be in a high-income neighborhood, right?

If you live in a part of the country with more affordable housing, you get less appreciation whether you are white or black.

If you have an inexpensive house and you leave it to your kid, they still got a house in the area in which they live.

Every outcome isn't the same and the reasons aren't racial.

 

[billvon]

"Steered into a low-income neighborhood"? Otherwise they would be in a high-income neighborhood, right?

??? No. They would be in slightly better neighborhoods - ones with better schools, and one where they owned a home with a little more value in the long term. This in turn would help them save more for the future (for most people, their house is their #1 investment) and help their kids become more successful.

Did you read the article?

 

[Seattle]

??? No. They would be in slightly better neighborhoods - ones with better schools, and one where they owned a home with a little more value in the long term. This in turn would help them save more for the future (for most people, their house is their #1 investment) and help their kids become more successful.

Did you read the article?

Yes, it isn't logical. You don't "steer" people into neighborhoods. You live in the neighborhood that you can afford.

Having different outcomes doesn't imply racial factors.

 

[billvon]

Yes, it isn't logical. You don't "steer" people into neighborhoods. You live in the neighborhood that you can afford.

Yes, you try to.

But if the bank won't offer you good enough terms to afford the house in the good neighborhood because you are black (as Wells Fargo did) then that will steer you into a lower income neighborhood.

And if you are trying to sell your existing home to be able to purchase that new house in the good neighborhood, but your existing neighborhood was "redlined" by the government because it was mostly black, then you won't be able to get as much for the house - and so you will again be steered into a lower income neighborhood, with your race being an underlying reason.

Having different outcomes doesn't imply racial factors.

Per the article, it does. It shows that black and latino buyers are "steered into a low-income neighborhood with a low-quality school has decreased chances of obtaining a four-year degree, which also then cuts off future job opportunities." That is evidence that "discrimination on the basis of race or national original endures."

 

[Seattle]

Yes, you try to.

But if the bank won't offer you good enough terms to afford the house in the good neighborhood because you are black (as Wells Fargo did) then that will steer you into a lower income neighborhood.

And if you are trying to sell your existing home to be able to purchase that new house in the good neighborhood, but your existing neighborhood was "redlined" by the government because it was mostly black, then you won't be able to get as much for the house - and so you will again be steered into a lower income neighborhood, with your race being an underlying reason.


Per the article, it does. It shows that black and latino buyers are "steered into a low-income neighborhood with a low-quality school has decreased chances of obtaining a four-year degree, which also then cuts off future job opportunities." That is evidence that "discrimination on the basis of race or national original endures."

Yes, per the article it does. That's my point, it isn't logical or factual.

Redlining was outlawed 50 years ago.

I'm aware that Wells Fargo employees were selling unwanted services to try to hit unrealistic sales figures. They lost a lawsuit about that. What you are talking about is still in the courts. Part of the accusation is that black customers were given higher cost loans and part of the accusation is that black customers were given loans that they didn't actually qualify for and were risky for that reason.