Systemic / Institutional / Societal Racism

[B]

[B]

"how can we discuss the actual problem without embracing this lunacy?" And it is lunacy. The idea of removing the police is basically a gun to the head of the Republic.

I suspect there may be SOMEONE out there who thinks "Defund the Police" is about a police free society, but you'd have to dig really hard. That's why arguing against he elimination of police is a strawman argument. "We can't solve the problem because someone might believe that we should literally eliminate all police!" That's not an argument. That's a refusal to do anything.

[B]

OK.. sorry.. I take it back. I'm willing to discuss it. It's just difficult when I feel like I'm being piled on constantly for speaking my mind.. and when I feel I'm doing it very fairly and you're not being fair to me.

You tend to post weak arguments with weak falacies in them that you KNOW literally everyone on the board disagrees with and then make sarcastic comments or claim you don't actually have any idea what you're doing.

Expect to be met with anger.

[tree_]

"how can we discuss the actual problem without embracing this lunacy?" And it is lunacy. The idea of removing the police is basically a gun to the head of the Republic.

I suspect there may be SOMEONE out there who thinks "Defund the Police" is about a police free society, but you'd have to dig really hard. That's why arguing against he elimination of police is a strawman argument. "We can't solve the problem because someone might believe that we should literally eliminate all police!" That's not an argument. That's a refusal to do anything.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opin ... olice.html

That is what he was referring to.

[tree_]

OK.. sorry.. I take it back. I'm willing to discuss it. It's just difficult when I feel like I'm being piled on constantly for speaking my mind.. and when I feel I'm doing it very fairly and you're not being fair to me.

You tend to post weak arguments with weak falacies in them that you KNOW literally everyone on the board disagrees with and then make sarcastic comments or claim you don't actually have any idea what you're doing.

Expect to be met with anger.

I will try to make stronger arguments and be better. I did not think that "literally" everyone disagrees with my points, though. I'm sorry. Let's start over and be nice to each other now, OK?

[Bi_3]

I viewed a seminar / town hall type of thing yesterday and one of the panelists (who appears to be well educated and well respected in this arena) made the outright claim that homelessness simply would not exist if it weren’t for racism.

Thoughts?

What about white homeless people?

If you target services toward minorities, but allow anyone to use them equally, you'll scoop up a lot of homeless whites while you're at it.

I wanted to add to this.

Anti-racism doesn't mean "help black people." It means identifying and addressing the issues (homelessness) or policies (housing discrimination, punitive ex-con laws) that disproportionately affect people of color. Maybe in the reverse order of what I stated because your efforts to address homelessness will be less effective until you address housing discrimination.

Who decides what is an actionable disparate impact? Who decides what the addressing policy changes are? For example, you could say that "statistics show that black people have worse health outcomes" and one way to address that would be to make all healthcare for black people funded by the state. Would that be antiracist?

[Bammer]

one of the panelists (who appears to be well educated and well respected in this arena) made the outright claim that homelessness simply would not exist if it weren’t for racism.

One assumes that, if they were educated about and well respected regarding this topic, they said more than one sentence about it. Stripping the claim of all content leaves people with nothing but a contextless proposal and their own pre-existing suppositions.

Hey I'm not the one on trial here!

[B]

I viewed a seminar / town hall type of thing yesterday and one of the panelists (who appears to be well educated and well respected in this arena) made the outright claim that homelessness simply would not exist if it weren’t for racism.

Thoughts?

What about white homeless people?

If you target services toward minorities, but allow anyone to use them equally, you'll scoop up a lot of homeless whites while you're at it.

I wanted to add to this.

Anti-racism doesn't mean "help black people." It means identifying and addressing the issues (homelessness) or policies (housing discrimination, punitive ex-con laws) that disproportionately affect people of color. Maybe in the reverse order of what I stated because your efforts to address homelessness will be less effective until you address housing discrimination.

Who decides what is an actionable disparate impact? Who decides what the addressing policy changes are? For example, you could say that "statistics show that black people have worse health outcomes" and one way to address that would be to make all healthcare for black people funded by the state. Would that be antiracist?

That would be "antiracist," I guess, but only if you knew that they had worse outcomes because of lack of heathcare. If that's true, it's not true of ONLY black people. So, you'd address it by providing healthcare to people who currently don't have it, regardless of race.

[Bi_3]

I viewed a seminar / town hall type of thing yesterday and one of the panelists (who appears to be well educated and well respected in this arena) made the outright claim that homelessness simply would not exist if it weren’t for racism.

Thoughts?

What about white homeless people?

If you target services toward minorities, but allow anyone to use them equally, you'll scoop up a lot of homeless whites while you're at it.

I wanted to add to this.

Anti-racism doesn't mean "help black people." It means identifying and addressing the issues (homelessness) or policies (housing discrimination, punitive ex-con laws) that disproportionately affect people of color. Maybe in the reverse order of what I stated because your efforts to address homelessness will be less effective until you address housing discrimination.

Who decides what is an actionable disparate impact? Who decides what the addressing policy changes are? For example, you could say that "statistics show that black people have worse health outcomes" and one way to address that would be to make all healthcare for black people funded by the state. Would that be antiracist?

That would be "antiracist," I guess, but only if you knew that they had worse outcomes because of lack of heathcare. If that's true, it's not true of ONLY black people. So, you'd address it by providing healthcare to people who currently don't have it, regardless of race.

I totally left "COVID-19" out of that initial question. Apologies.

[Rob]

I suspect there may be SOMEONE out there who thinks "Defund the Police" is about a police free society, but you'd have to dig really hard. That's why arguing against he elimination of police is a strawman argument. "We can't solve the problem because someone might believe that we should literally eliminate all police!" That's not an argument. That's a refusal to do anything.

Agreed. And I would argue that we've been doing nothing for a long time, despite plenty of rhetoric. So when people get mad that things are going "too far" they should remember that nothing happened when things went "far enough".

[Bi_3]

I suspect there may be SOMEONE out there who thinks "Defund the Police" is about a police free society, but you'd have to dig really hard. That's why arguing against he elimination of police is a strawman argument. "We can't solve the problem because someone might believe that we should literally eliminate all police!" That's not an argument. That's a refusal to do anything.

Agreed. And I would argue that we've been doing nothing for a long time, despite plenty of rhetoric. So when people get mad that things are going "too far" they should remember that nothing happened when things went "far enough".

Not zero cop, I don't think anyone here is saying that, but the abolish this police movement is all over the place. just not the safe places you are looking. The SJW thread has a good example in the last few posts. What is happening is called code switching, where activists (not exclusive to any one identity or group mind you) use one phrase to not scare whitey ("defund the police") and one phrase for what they actually want ("abolish the police") depending on who is listening. Trump does the same thing when talking about "border control". China with "security" in Hong Kong.


Here's one now:

https://thegrio.com/2020/06/23/abolish- ... r-service/

Defunding the police, which is really just a provocative way to say re-distribute funds to programs that have a greater track record in reducing crime, like social workers, after school programs and drug intervention, is a good start but it has a fatal flaw.

Here's another one:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/12/opin ... olice.html

We can’t reform the police. The only way to diminish police violence is to reduce contact between the public and the police.

[Rob]

BI_3, I understand what you're saying, but disagree. You are suggesting a level of coordination that I don't think exists. Yes, there are some people out there who want to abolish cops. It's a small minority. However, that minority is part of a larger movement demanding reform, and they provide a controversial idea that gets people talking/acting. I would bet that even here, lefty liberal RM, no one believes in abolishing police. I would also note that since "defund the police" became a thing, a lot of progress on reform has been made.

[tree_]

The lack of coordination and leadership is precisely the problem. It's chaos.

[BurtReynolds]

Maybe when many say "abolish the police", they just mean "I don't like white people."

[McParadigm]

Yeah we hate white people Burt

[BurtReynolds]

Yeah we hate white people Burt

Lol you act like that couldn't possibly be the case.

[McParadigm]

Yeah we hate white people Burt

Lol you act like that couldn't possibly be the case.

lol yes I do

[BurtReynolds]

[Strat]

is burt scared of not being the supreme race and gender anymore

[BurtReynolds]

I just heard Mr. Weinstein say this and... yeah

We're beginning to be able to discuss just how preposterous the movement is. Which does not mean that the fuel that is driving it isn't based on something very important. The frustration about an economic system that is rigged against many people, millennials through debt, many populations, based on where you are born and grow up, what kinds of schools are there. The frustration is real. It is bewildering to everybody. It seems to be that either you land on the "I'm in favor of these protests" side and therefore "I accept their discussion of what has taken place and what should happen now", or "I reject these protests and I believe civilization is pretty fair and I'm not listening". The right position is in the space that has not existed until now, or has struggled to exist and so far failed to get a foothold, which is "how can we discuss the actual problem without embracing this lunacy?" And it is lunacy. The idea of removing the police is basically a gun to the head of the Republic.

OK now I'm done.. can't keep obsessing over this..

Jesus do they all have podcasts now?