|
Obdicut posted:So basically, we need to sneakily help out black people because racism is so huge in this country that if we do it directly, racists will react badly to it? While I don't necessarily agree with what he said (about more explicit help for black people creating resentment), it is worth considering the possibility that there isn't a good solution to these problems. That being said, the fact that there may not be a good solution doesn't mean that we shouldn't attempt to find and implement one; many people use the possibility that these ideas won't work as an argument against them, and that isn't reasonable.
|
#
¿
Jan 23, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 27, 2024 17:23 |
|
|
Obdicut posted:I don't know what you mean by there not being a good solution. There aren't any solutions without struggle and cost; that's true for anything. I'm just talking about the possibility that, even with effort and cost, a solution might not be possible just due to some combination of human nature and the world we live in. For example, the nature of human psychology combined with our capitalist economy might mean that it is literally impossible to ever achieve a society where resources are distributed in a reasonable/fair way and poverty is eliminated in the US. Either way, I'm not arguing with you. As I mentioned, it's a trivial point since you should still pursue such a solution regardless. And racial reparations - at least in the form of social programs that target minorities - should be possible. I mean, we already do it; we just need to greatly expand the scope.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 25, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Most of the FBI stats I've seen Did you get it from that misleading infographic that misleadingly cites various FBI statistics
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 23:37
|
|
|
Secular Humanist posted:Yes but only if both races commit crimes at the same rate per capita. Statistically blacks commit more violent crime per capita, but the reasons for that are heavily debated and could easily be due to the police targeting black communities more often and more heavily. Thus more encounters with police, thus more shootings of suspects by police. I don't think it would matter whether the crimes were violent or not, since all that is really necessary for an unarmed police shooting to occur is for the victim to be accosted/arrested for some reason. Also, since stuff like traffic stops (which I'm assuming aren't counted as crimes in that per capita statistic) can result in a shooting, per capita crime rate may not be that relevant. That isn't to say that there isn't a relationship between per capita crime rate and police encounters (there probably is), but that it isn't necessarily a causal relationship in the "higher crime -> more encounters" direction. For example, it could be that police seeking out more encounters (for any reason) leads to more arrests (and thus recorded crime).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 19:53
|
|