|
I recently got into a debate about racism in the justice system. I brought up the usual statistic about racial population ratios. (Blacks being 12% of the total population, but over 50% of all prisoners.) This is, in my mind, the single most demonstrative stat of the entire phenomenon, since it would be absurd to claim blacks are literally 5 times as likely to commit crimes. His response was to cite an FBI report showing that roughly 50% of all homicides in 2010 were committed by blacks. Now, I recognize the report can't account for things like judicial bias or eyewitness error, and that a systemically disenfranchised group of people is going to skew criminally regardless, but these things aren't going to sway a person who believes the justice system is totally fair anyway. What is the most succinct way I can point this out? I assumed my first argument made it self-evident, but hey, apparently not.
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 04:35
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
Greatly appreciated, euler, and PokeJoe! Those reports were very helpful in compiling my response. I'll let you know what happens next.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 17, 2012 23:52
|
|
|
Overcompensation. Meanwhile, My debate with "the justice system isn't racist" guy continues. The Decades of Disparity study posted earlier was quite helpful in making my case, especially the 35% arrests / 46% convictions ratio. If only he would acknowledge those numbers in any way. He's using a bunch of points from these two articles, basically saying that blacks are exactly as criminal as the rate they are incarcerated. A few of the numbers don't seem to match up with the study I've been using, like point 2 of the first article, and there appear to be some flat-out lies in the second one. This stood out as particularly dishonest: "Next, critics blame drug enforcement for rising racial disparities in prison. Again, the facts say otherwise. In 2006, blacks were 37.5 percent of the 1,274,600 state prisoners. If you remove drug prisoners from that population, the percentage of black prisoners drops to 37 percent—half of a percentage point, hardly a significant difference." So I need help fact-checking, if anyone can. The second article is pretty long but seems to make far more erroneous claims than it has evidence for (like attributing the drop in crime in the 90s to higher incarceration, rather than, say, economic prosperity). This is an argument I expect to keep having in the future, so I'd really like to know how to address these points from now on.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 20, 2012 20:39
|
|
|
[snip]
Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Mar 4, 2013 |
|
#
¿
Jan 30, 2013 18:36
|
|
|
Magres posted:Anyone got a source on Chris Rock regretting his PSA on 'how to not get the poo poo beaten out of you by a cop as a black person' and his "black people vs niggas" bit? I've heard it repeatedly around the internet that he's said he regrets doing them because they get used by white racists to justify being racist, but a source would be super helpful. I couldn't find the clip itself, but it has a wikipedia article. Chris Rock, on 60 Minutes posted:By the way, I've never done that joke again, ever, and I probably never will. 'Cause some people that were racist thought they had license to say friend of the family. So, I'm done with that routine. Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Dec 8, 2014 |
|
#
¿
Dec 8, 2014 21:30
|
|
|
I have a question. I'm trying to understand the Libertarian's Ideal Utopia Scenario. I'm specifically interested in hearing their rationale for why/how it would work, would create more prosperity, would ultimately improve everyone's lives, etc. (assuming that last item is even a concern for them). At least I can feasibly see why someone might write-off the underprivileged segments of society with a Just World, "they'd-be-better-off-if-they-weren't-so-lazy" rationalization. But I have a harder time understanding what they expect would happen after, say: enormous environmental/finance/banking/trade deregulation and (most likely) a massive expansion of corporate power in government. We take it as a given that most CEO's, investment bankers, and 1%-ers don't have our best interests at heart, and seek only to hoard greater and greater shares of the wealth, stupid proles be damned. So why do Libertarians see this as a desirable scenario? Corporations, totally free of accountability, would wreck havoc with the world economy. How else could it possibly work out? Imagine how much of our workforce could be moved overseas to wages slaves in India. Imagine an actual "Fair Tax" being implemented. Imagine the total rape of the environment. Holy Hell, I just can't understand why someone would advocate for this, the logical conclusion of their ideology. Jrodefeld is an interesting case, but he never adequately explains himself, especially on these points. Does anyone have some insight into the Libertarian perspective on this stuff? Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 19:53 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
I'll clarify that the "Ideal Scenario" I'm thinking of is basically the one I see most realistically happening. Spearheaded by the Kochs and others like them, planned exclusively to enrich and empower its architects, packaged and sold to the population through TV News. None of the "Will of the People" "Invisible Hand" nonsense you hear them always talking about.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 20:04
|
|
|
Disinterested posted:- Enormous tax cuts, principally on high earners. Possibly the creation of a flat rate income tax, with limited taxes that effect the accumulation of capital (inheritance tax, cap gains). Disinterested posted:- Repeal of obamacare; totally privatised and deregulated healthcare sector Disinterested posted:- Possible bombing of Iran; firm support for Israeli military action in Iran, as well as continued military action against Palestinians
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
I guess it's not fair of me to conflate the ideas of True Believers with the intentions of the forces that cynically exploit them. I just find it more important to focus on the ultimate result of the "Libertarian Agenda" as it exists in current politics. I feel like if we could successfully separate the rhetoric from the destruction it creates, it would be much easier to reach out to logically-minded conservatives.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
I think it's important the only way that situation resolves (somewhat) happily is if Bob is fully informed of the pollution in time to save himself from getting sick. This is something I find less than plausible. Furthermore, it assumes that Bob and the company have equal bargaining power, and that the company couldn't, for example, use the media to discredit Bob and his fellow pollution victims as opportunistic scam artists. This reasoning is baffling to me because it seems to ignore really basic givens w/r/t motivation and behavior. Why do they give so much benefit of the doubt to people who would only lose out by being honest? Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 22:27 on Jan 4, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
If they really, truly believe in the Invisible Hand always arbitrating the best outcome, then it all circles back to "Just World" rationalizing. This is again strange to me, because systemic injustices are so apparent everywhere. It seems impossible to hold these beliefs without totally ignoring how stacked the economic deck really is. That is, unless you're one of those with the deck stacked in your favor. It's just that the fraction of people who actually stand to benefit from the previously listed policy goals is so small I don't understand how they have any popular support at all.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 4, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Jerry Manderbilt posted:I dunno if this answers your question, but it might help. In short, a lot of the popular support doesn't give a gently caress about whether or not they benefit from it; what's important is that they can sense that it fucks those they see as lower, or those coastal elites whom they hate, but whom the likes of the Kochs and Adelson can avoid being associated with. Wow. This article makes me fundamentally sad.  I realize I'm guilty of "most folks are good at heart" thinking all the time. The prospect that what's actually fueling the conservative movement is simply spite, nothing more, is terrifying to comprehend. It makes all my hopes for a better world seem foolish. If the opposition is so vehemently hate-filled that logical arguments are irrelevant, how do you even proceed? If the Right is an enemy that can't be reasoned with, and can only be overpowered, what hope is there for progress?
|
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 00:40
|
|
|
That was an incredibly interesting, helpful answer and I want to thank you for taking the time to type it all out.Cognac McCarthy posted:It's essentially an 18th century ideology, based on 18th century philosophy and assumptions about "human nature", shoehorned into debates about problems facing the post-industrial US. Cognac McCarthy posted:It's better to see power as a pattern of interaction, habits, and practices between people and institutions, a pattern from which it's basically impossible for anyone to fully escape. This approach to understanding power requires one to accept that people are rarely if ever "free" even in the absence of the State, and that eliminating the State won't reduce the "amount of power" to which people are subjected, because you can't just remove a "source" of power from society. Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 14:34 on Jan 5, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 5, 2015 14:08
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:Literally anyone who isn't a sociopath could tell you with just a few seconds of critical reflection that "morality = liberty = not breaching my property rights" is a cartoon villain's morality. Like it isn't hard to understand at all. There's no point in engaging with the more complex extrapolations of this, like what to do with Native Americans or how to set up a military. The entire foundation of the ideology is rotten. Don't legitimatize these people by dealing with them. This is what I'm trying to move past with my questions. Both the moral and the technical foundations of Libertarianism seem so flawed as to be obviously unworkable. What I hoped to achieve was an understanding of why a disproportionate amount of people espouse such a strange ideology, so that in arguments I might address their core principles more directly. The libertarians I know are intelligent, considerate people. Nothing like the hateful wretches described by Jerry Manderbilt's article. What I see when I look at my conservative friends is people who admire success, and feel the current system de-incentivises it. I'm looking for ways to explain to them why this is wrong, why they are equal beneficiaries in a society that grows when everyone does well. How would you explain this to your free-market buddy, in a way he couldn't deny? Morton Haynice fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Jan 7, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 02:55
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ Apr 28, 2024 12:47 |
|
|
OwlFancier posted:"Do you really need a billion squillion dollars? OwlFancier posted:Wouldn't that billion squillion dollars be better given to people who could use it to become healthy, educated people who can then offer more to all of society, including you and all future generations? "Prove it. Public Schools are demonstrably flawed, and healthcare is the privilege of the productive. The incentive alone should be enough to motivate people." OwlFancier posted:Or on public works like better infrastructure to facilitate more and increasingly productive business? "Business is the reason for the infrastructure in the first place. Makers pull and the system compensates. It should never be the other way around." OwlFancier posted:Or is it better spent on spare mansions and making even more unspent profit and increasingly inefficient megacorporations? Do you really believe that success is a good goal? Considering the idea of success is generally not having to work or contribute to society and instead spending your time consuming and experiencing things? Do you feel this is a desirable goal-state for a society which is not post-scarcity?" This one I can't argue as well without going into specifics, but the response seems to be a combination of "It's the CEO's right to spend where he sees fit," and "businesses don't hoard wealth. They always reinvest. What are you talking about?"
|
|
#
¿
Jan 7, 2015 03:24
|
|