Certainly not. Dr. King talked about this. But we cannot forget what contributed to such a state, the immortality of race relations in this country. Most black crime is economic in origin. When you deny people legal means of success, they will turn to illegal means. When the police are tools of oppression, people will refuse to cooperate with them. Conditions are slowly changing and now there is a growing black middle class, but all of us as a society have a moral responsibility to fix racism and not perpetuate myths like the only thing required of our government is to promote personal responsibility. We can make it easier to be a moral citizen. And that goes for everyone. It sounds like you are using some theoretical moral argument to justify ignoring the great moral failings of the United States. Where was that moral agency when it came to treating people equally under the law?
It sounds like it, perhaps, but the problem with your subsequent question is that it has nothing to do with what our neighbor is on about. If we count back three or so days↑, we find Vociferous responding to Iceaura's↑ point about murders "directly by white supremacists explicitly so motivated" by pointing to general crime statistics. Thirty-two posts and three days stalled out without actually addressing the maneuver equals some pretty successful trolling. Notice how the lack of any resolution about anything just keeps the discussion wandering off through whatever distractions he comes up with. And if we follow it back yet another day↑, we find Vociferous interjecting with fallacy. Four days and forty-five posts later, the mistake seems to have something to do with regarding his posts as genuine, or as good faith, or some such. We've seen how many of these over the years? And, yeah, I mean this really bland version. A weird bit of advice nobody need take seriously: Thus disclaimed, I would suggest people go get a free blog, and then watch what spammers get through the hosting service's filters. The point of this suggestion, why it is a figurative suggestion, a rhetorical matter, is simply to note that you would eventualy come to wonder why this or that apparent spam gets through compared to the thousands that got filtered before. And in that spam corpus there are several obvious signs of spam, but the really curious ones lack certain characteristics. A seeming change of subject: Thus obliged to return and close the circle, I would also recall the annual contest between humans and AI bots to fool human judges on a chatline. The point here is that the AI does not always lose. Actually, as long as enough rules hold, they're really, really good. Ouroboros: The thing is that certain botspam is simply incomprehensible, virtually exclusively poorly written, and never really on topic except under pretense of sales pitch. Like the one reading like a lorem ipsum email between two veterans recalling that day in Vietnam, you know, the when everything looked like it was gonna be okay again; it had nothing to do with the post detailing a comic strip. The really curious ones are the perfectly coherent ones that have nothing to do with the topic. I saw a relationship note written by a bot that was simplistic, realistic, and had nothing to do with the post it was attached to. (The other consistent criteria, for the record, albeit one that has nothing to do with anything at hand in the moment, is the user email addresses are particularly formulaic, and accounting for the occasional spam comment that gets through for some reason and actually posts, it is quite clear that someone, somewhere, is testing botware, as well as ostensible network defense.) So ... uh ... what, then? We've seen this kind of troll before. It's not that our neighbor is some manner of bot. Rather, his lazy posts are exemplary of why AI is able to fool judges; artificial intelligence pursues a very high standard, at present, while humans attend a very low one. We know certain people are people because bots would do a better job trolling. The question, however, only exists in any potential because, like I said, how many of these have we seen over time, challenging not with argument but disconnected questions ne'er applied to anything, offering no particular utility, and no particular place to go. And that's kind of the point of behaving as our neighbor does.
I don't think he's a bot, more like your typical YouTube racist, MRA, alt-right, Trump fanboy. But I hold out some hope that people try on this point of view for it's selfish appeal, and that someday they will come to a realization that society is a collective responsibility. Even intellectual infants have the capacity to grow up. Unless he's just a Russian troll, then maybe he will get fired for wasting his time here.
Evidence? So you think it is a "racial structured society"? And that culture is bound to skin color? The only smoke is your avoidance of simple questions, that indicates the fire of your racism. Simple definition. Null hypothesis - "default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena." Here, the phenomena would be the beliefs about Obama and racism. You just keep repeating the same unsupported claim, I guess thinking repetition alone somehow adds credibility. These "everyone knows" arguments ad populum are fallacies, not null hypotheses. No one is lacking legal means of success. Evidence all the black people who are successful. Or don't you believe there are any? Still sounds like you're making excuses for personal responsibility and morality. Do you really think it's that hard for a black person to keep from murdering someone? Why do you think they are so morally lacking? People are generally treated equally under the law. Not all people commit crimes at the same rate.
Laws on the books are not the same thing as prevailing conditions. And your argument is that black communities suffer no negative effects from racism because Oprah is ridiculous. Have you read Les Misérables? Did you ever have to make a choice between stealing a loaf of bread and watching your children starve? Such difficult moral choices go way back, and are not limited to poor blacks. People are not treated equally under the law. Rich people hire lawyers, poor people plea out, even if innocent. Plea bargains are the new Jim Crow. In fact using the justice system to oppress blacks and destroy their families has been a white supremacist tactic since the end of Reconstruction. Grow up dude, learn some history. I guarantee if you got sent to prison, you would be making choices for your own survival and pride that you would not find ideal.
Wagons seem to circling. Sorry. I really didn't mean to scare so many people. In 2016, race was reported for 5,770 known hate crime offenders. Of these offenders: 46.3 percent were white. 26.1 percent were black or African American. https://www.theroot.com/fbi-releases-hate-crime-statistics-for-2016-majority-o-1820422472 Still under represents the percent of white population (by about half) and over represents the percent of black population (by about double). 15% of white murders are perpetrated by blacks, while only 8% of black murders are perpetrated by whites. http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-m...mp/trump-tweet-blacks-white-homicide-victims/ There's also a bias that claims black people can't be racist.
Completely fabricated straw man. Does theft account for the murder rate? Who are richer than 80% of the world? Yep, ghetoization, eugenics, etc. are still part of the Democrat playbook. Where's your evidence on plea bargains? Wouldn't that have to include exonerating evidence to be valid?
Nope, that was your argument. There are successful black people, therefore we can stop caring about racism. This coming from a clearly racist person. You aren't fooling anyone. It's a fucking metaphor. I heard this racist trope too. It's goes, lets deny racism (a form of racism) because poor Americans have TVs, refrigerators, and McDonald's. If it were, you would vote Democrat.
In part, yes. Given that republicans are the ones arguing for walls, supporting white supremacists and calling for registration of Muslims - that's pretty funny. See if you can guess the party of the person who said this: There is a “precedent” for creating a registry for Muslims. “We’ve done it based on race, we’ve done it based on religion, we’ve done it based on region. We’ve done it with Iran back — back a while ago. We did it during World War II with Japanese.”
Well, apparently that's enough. Not "lacking legal means of success" is pretty different from "no negative effects from racism". The latter is a straw man. Seems you equate the two. Bit histrionic. Calm down. I realize your argument just fell apart, but chill. Where has anyone denied racism? Aside from your fevered inferences. It is, and you do. Cute bare assertion. How is national sovereignty and security racist? What support of white supremacists? What registration of Muslims? Never heard of Carl Higbie. I assume you think he as appointed as a known racist, instead of out of ignorance of his views. You're prerogative, I guess.
Nobody's stupid enough to actually deny it. Of course. This entire argument of yours is standard, boilerplate, KKK level racism. No. 1) The null hypothesis is that one's measured correlations, if any, are due to chance. 2) Those are not the measured phenomena being compared. The measured phenomena being compared are 1) Voting for a Republican candidate such as Trump, and 2) holding of racist beliefs such as birtherism or "secret Muslim Obama". That is yet another racist belief - ludicrous in its obvious falsehood, but held firmly nevertheless. No, they are not. Not in the US. Black people are treated much worse than equivalent white people, at all levels from police tactics to the wording of legislation.
Argumentum ad populum fallacy. A racial structured society seems to assume all people are racist. A culture bound to skin color seems to assume they cannot overcome their culture. Ad hominem instead of arguing those facts. Telling. You have yet to correlate those beliefs about Obama to racism. Hence no correlation other than chance. I see no facts there. Just unsupported claims. All what killings? Do police track crimes by culture? No, no stats on that?
There's no argument involved. Nonsense. Again: no argument involved. You seem to be having trouble with very basic stuff here - what is an argument, what does "ad hominem" mean (or ad populum, or "fallacy" itself). Not my job. I just took that well-established fact for granted. You need evidence for that extraordinary claim. You provided nothing but unsupported claims - and yours were ridiculously false, in exactly the way racism produces false claims in the US. Perfect match. Cliché racism. Stereotypical stuff.
Then it's just a bare assertion. You're right. Not much argument. Right again. No argument in sight. You've yet to establish anything. You still don't seem to know what the null hypothesis is. Null hypothesis.
It's the same thing. Racism causes lack of legal means of success. Of course, there is statistical variation, but when you can't get a business or home loan because you're black, those avenues of success are that much more difficult. In the town where I live, it was illegal to be black after sundown... until the 1920's. That's within the lifetime of people still living around today. It didn't. Appeals to your compassion failed. Not that surprised. You mean like, "People are generally treated equally under the law."? I assume you mean public housing and abortion rights? Study Finds Racial Disparity in Criminal Prosecutions
Really? So there couldn't be any "negative effects from racism" shy of "lacking legal means of success"? Sounds histrionic. Seems there would have to be, to account for successful black people. Or do they magically avoid any racist effects? Are you saying people with the exact same credit and financial history can't get loans others can? Like business loans in neighborhoods equally susceptible to crime? Home loans with similar property values? Oh, so compassion is supposed to excuse murder? Or equate murder and theft? Null hypothesis unless shown otherwise. See, you do know what racism looks like. But race was not the sole factor, the study’s authors said. A number of legal considerations were found to be more important in predicting a defendant’s fate, among them the seriousness of the charge and the defendant’s arrest record. Nicholas Turner, the president of the institute, said researchers could not determine what caused the unequal treatment. “It could be implicit bias,” he said. “It could also be race-neutral policies that end up having a particular disparate effect.” https://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/09/nyregion/09race.html?src=twrNotice no mention of racism to support you plea bargains equals Jim crow claim.
That is correct. Black people with the same credit and financial history cannot get loans that others can. From Fortune: ===================================================== Blacks Are Still Significantly Less Likely to Get Approved for a Mortgage than Whites Black Americans in areas like Ferguson, Missouri don't have access to the same lending as white Americans. By SY MUKHERJEE July 19, 2016 Black borrowers in cities like St. Louis, Missouri, and Milwaukee, Wisconsin, are less likely to get a mortgage than their white counterparts in similar economic situations, according to a new study by advocacy group the National Community Reinvestment Coalition (NCRC). The study’s authors looked closely at St. Louis and found that lending activity was highly correlated with race in the most segregated regions of St. Louis. “The City of St. Louis and its inner ring suburbs like Ferguson show strong indications of hypersegregation,” they wrote. “There are many census tracts in which the population is 75%-to-98% African American—concentrated clusters of segregated neighborhoods. Within these areas less than one percent of homes received a home purchase loan for the 2012-2014 period.” . . . “This lack of lending is not fully explained by differences of income, meaning that credit is flowing more to neighborhoods with higher percentages of white residents with the same income profile,” the report continued. The study examined banks’ lending habits for low- and moderate-income borrowers irrespective of race in St. Louis and surrounding areas. The level of both mortgage applications and approved mortgages steadily fell as the percentage of minorities in a region grew. =======================================================
That would be all the killings you referred to in post 65. That is not an ad hominem. There was no attack on you the arguer; the attack was on your argument.
