Straight Dope Message Board

[septimus]

Perhaps the bots need to start another thread

I like to see cops kill blacks -- am i a racist? Is there racism in Amerika?

Meanwhile, I'll help with one example: The Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986 (passed 20 years after Civil Rights Acts eliminated racism in Amerika ) mandated a minimum sentence of 5 years without parole for possession of 5 grams of crack cocaine while the same penalty applied to powder cocaine only for half a kilogram or more. Why the 100:1 disparity? Powdered cocaine was a drug of choice for middle-class whites, while crack was used primarily by blacks. 5051

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Smapti

I am a liberal.

Liberalism: "a political philosophy or worldview founded on ideas of liberty and equality."

Now, which part of believing that it's right for a slave to behave is to obey his master do you think corresponds to liberty, or equality. 5052

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Obviously you have no idea what racism is, then. Historical issues or socioeconomic issues aren't unique to black people, the young, violent men are. You know why the problem won't be solved? Because even talking about it gets idiots like you screaming "RACISM!!!" rather than actually trying to find out what's happening.

You know why the problem won't be solved? Because vile fucking idiots such as yourself are so very keen to blame an issue with deep seated historical and social causes on "black culture". Nah, can't be generations of poverty, prejudice and a two tier society, it's purely their own fucking culture, right?

Of course, when repeatedly asked just which part of this culture you see as being the cause, you clam up completely, because you've got precisely fuck all. Not even so much as a Rush Limbaugh level "it's all that gangster rap those blacks listen to".

I really would like to know just what parental issues you're carrying to be so abjectly "White authority is good, blacks are bad" in your worldview. A white policeman can shoot unarmed people in the street, on video, and you'll defend that to the very hilt. A black kid is killed for fuck all reason, and that's fine, because after all them blacks are just violent by nature, that policeman had to defend himself.

You need to take a long fucking look at yourself in the mirror, and if you come back with anything other than self loathing and a desire to improve you're not doing it right. 5053

[MrDibble]

I feel it's incumbent on me to remind people who are talking about racism with Steophan that they are dealing with someone who believes "Blacks are subhuman" is a neutral statement to make.

A clueless nutjob, in other words. 5054

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, you astonishing half-wit.

None of those things actually happened, at least after 1865.

Also: Shorter Steophan: I'm not racist, there's just something about black culture that makes black men more violent.

(Maybe if he said it out loud to himself, he would be able to hear it.)

If I were racist, I'd be saying there's something inherent to black people that makes them more violent - you know, like was often said in the past. That you're too stupid to see the distinction is your flaw, not mine. 5055

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

You know why the problem won't be solved? Because vile fucking idiots such as yourself are so very keen to blame an issue with deep seated historical and social causes on "black culture". Nah, can't be generations of poverty, prejudice and a two tier society, it's purely their own fucking culture, right?

When none of the other groups subjected to poverty or prejudice react in such a way then yes, right. As for a two-tier society, that's not something that affected any young black men, having ended 50 years ago.

Of course, when repeatedly asked just which part of this culture you see as being the cause, you clam up completely, because you've got precisely fuck all. Not even so much as a Rush Limbaugh level "it's all that gangster rap those blacks listen to".

Gangsta rap is clearly a symptom, not a cause.

I really would like to know just what parental issues you're carrying to be so abjectly "White authority is good, blacks are bad" in your worldview. A white policeman can shoot unarmed people in the street, on video, and you'll defend that to the very hilt. A black kid is killed for fuck all reason, and that's fine, because after all them blacks are just violent by nature, that policeman had to defend himself.

I want to see more black authority. I want black people to join the police, and police their communities. I want them to vote - Ferguson according to statistics in one of the other threads had a turnout in the teens. I want to see members of majority black communities standing for political positions in those communities, not imported politicians (of whatever colour). They need to, in short, stop fighting the system and join it. Maybe democracy isn't perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than not being represented at all.

But guess what? Black policemen are as likely to have problems with violence from young black men as any other ones are.

You need to take a long fucking look at yourself in the mirror, and if you come back with anything other than self loathing and a desire to improve you're not doing it right.

If anyone looks in the mirror and doesn't have a desire to improve they're doing life wrong. That's one reason I spend so much time arguing with people who disagree with me. I'm not going to sit in a fucking echo chamber to feel right all the time, I'm gonna get my views challenged. And if they're shown to be wrong, I can change them. Happened due to things I read here and argued elsewhere to do with transgender issues, to pick one big example recently. 5056

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Thanks Steophan for clarifying your rascism. I've been sick to death with your protests of innocence.

You know why the discussions you are in end up with people shouting racism at you? Because you say hugely rascist things, you twat. 5057

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

Now, which part of believing that it's right for a slave to behave is to obey his master do you think corresponds to liberty, or equality.

The part where I believe slavery shouldn't be practiced in the first place. 5058

[Bam Boo Gut]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Bam Boo Gut was ridiculing the idea of blaming slaves for their own enslavement. Your next post was about Africans enslaving Africans, which had nothing to do with Bam Boo Gut's post (or any other part of this discussion).

Thanks!

Anyway apparently it's 'black culture' that's to blame. Why would black Americans even have their own culture? How did that happen? Would they not just assimilate into the mainstream American culture with all things being equal the great land of opportunity? They just want to be difficult? 5059

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Steophan

There were times when that many Native Americans were killed on a weekly basis.

You'll have to provide a cite for this, not that I don't agree that Native Americans were treated abominably.

Yes, there are problems with young Native men being violent or otherwise criminal, that would be a good baseline for the effect of poverty and bigotry. And yet young black men, despite being treated better, are far more violent.

The bolded part (my bolding) is a bullshit assertion.

Unless you're going to contend that the lynching of that many people is somehow worse than the attempted eradication of entire civilisations - an actual series of attempted genocides - in which case, I'd have to conclude you're either insane or literally retarded.

Hundreds of years of slavery (and associated daily rapes and brutality) followed by a century of near-slavery (and associated brutalization), segregation, lynchings, Jim Crow, housing discrimination, employment discrimination, criminal justice discrimination, mass incarceration, and various other forms of oppression, brutality, discrimination, and unequal treatment are absolutely comparable to the vile treatment of Native Americans. Yes, the Native Americans were treated abominably -- and statistically in terms of crime stats, education, economic stats, and other markers of well-being, they are at or near the bottom. African Americans were also treated abominably -- and statistically in all these markers of well-being they are also at or near the bottom.

It's not just a coincidence that the two groups that were treated by far the worst (in different ways) in America, Native Americans and African Americans, are also at or near the bottom in various indicators of well-being. 5060

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Steophan

So, when have black people been interned based solely on their ancestry?

During slavery and afterwards, when black people were routinely arrested and beaten for no reason. So for hundreds of years.

When have they been moved to reservations?

For most of American history, black Americans did not have the freedom to live where they want and were consigned to unwanted parts of localities. So, for hundreds of years.

When have their been attempted (and sometimes successful) genocides of them?

In the reprisals during the aftermath of slave rebellions, and in episodes of mass lynchings that literally destroyed entire towns and communities. And this is on top of centuries of brutal efforts to stamp out any attempt at a shared culture for black Americans. So for hundreds of years. 5061

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The part where I believe slavery shouldn't be practiced in the first place.

Wonderful. And in a world where it is practised what do you believe slaves should do. 5062

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The part where I believe slavery shouldn't be practiced in the first place.

Why do you believe slavery shouldn't be practiced? 5063

[Hentor the Barbarian]

This is twice in several weeks that we've had a racist assert that things after 1865 were just fine for African Americans. Is there some white supremacist website at which these guys are convincing one another that this is true? 5064

[Fear Itself]

Linked video depicts nude woman with only a towel, probably NSFW.

Illegal home invasion by Colorado police; woman wearing only a towel handcuffed, then released without charges. One victim records the encounter on a cell phone; the accused officer's body cam mysteriously has no video. Internal affairs determines there was no probable cause, and the home entry was illegal. 5065

[dasmoocher]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

For most of American history, black Americans did not have the freedom to live where they want and were consigned to unwanted parts of localities. So, for hundreds of years.

This article may be of interest:

The long, painful and repetitive history of how Baltimore became Baltimore.

And the really terrible irony — which brings us back to Baltimore today — is that each of these shocks further diminished the capacity of low-income urban black communities to recover from the one that came next. It's an irony, a fundamental urban inequality, created over the years by active decisions and government policies that have undermined the same people and sapped them of their ability to rebuild, that have again and again dismantled the same communities, each time making them socially, economically, and politically weaker.
...
In Fullilove's research on urban renewal, 67 percent of people displaced by such demolition projects nationwide were black. Those people who moved lost their social networks as well as their homes. Over time, deindustrialization took their decent blue-collar jobs, too. And because we never invested in the kind of education low-income urban communities would need to find work in a post-industrial world, low-skilled workers today are left with worse prospects today than they had two generations ago.
...
It's little wonder, then, that dealing drugs might look like a viable way to keep a family afloat in a neighborhood with soaring unemployment. It's no wonder that incarceration would follow, along with family breakdown. And it's no great surprise that Baltimore's deeply troubled neighborhoods today are many of the same ones that were deemed "undesirable" 75 years ago.
...
The historic scale of these forces also helps to explain why even a city with a black mayor and a black police chief isn't immune to racial unrest. Several minority elected officials in 2015 can't be a corrective to decades of compounding policy. Nor can a few pilot projects and fleeting government grants.

5066

[dasmoocher]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Why do you believe slavery shouldn't be practiced?

But it was fine in the 19th century, according to Smapti, right? 5067

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Hentor the Barbarian

This is twice in several weeks that we've had a racist assert that things after 1865 were just fine for African Americans. Is there some white supremacist website at which these guys are convincing one another that this is true?

There's a bit of a gap between "just fine" and "actual genocide". 5068

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by dasmoocher

This article may be of interest:

The long, painful and repetitive history of how Baltimore became Baltimore.

But all 'those people' need to do is change their "culture". Problem solved! 5069

[Bryan Ekers]

Originally Posted by Steophan

There's a bit of a gap between "just fine" and "actual genocide".

To be fair, what's being described isn't so much a Germany-style genocide, but more of a Yugoslavia-style ethnic cleansing.

It's like comparing apples to slightly smaller apples. 5070

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by dasmoocher

But it was fine in the 19th century, according to Smapti, right?

It was legal in the 19th century, protected by state and federal law, and upheld by the Supreme Court. Eventually, we as a nation decided that was not an acceptable state of affairs and amended the Constitution to change that. 5071

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Why do you believe slavery shouldn't be practiced?

Because it's not conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms.

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

Wonderful. And in a world where it is practised what do you believe slaves should do.

Attempt to gain their freedom to the extent that the law allows them to and in the meantime fulfill their obligations under the law. 5072

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Because it's not conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms.



Attempt to gain their freedom to the extent that the law allows them to and in the meantime fulfill their obligations under the law.

That is just evil. Why can't slaves defend their individual rights and freedoms like cops can? 5073

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Why can't slaves defend their individual rights and freedoms like cops can?

Slaves, by definition, don't have individual rights and freedoms, which is why I'm opposed to slavery. 5074

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Attempt to gain their freedom to the extent that the law allows them to and in the meantime fulfill their obligations under the law.

So as long as the law says it's o.k. to own people, those that are enslaved should just accept it? If it came to pass that you became a legal slave and were separated from your family, what would you do? 5075

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Czarcasm

So as long as the law says it's o.k. to own people, those that are enslaved should just accept it? If it came to pass that you became a legal slave and were separated from your family, what would you do?

Then I'd be a slave. 5076

[Hentor the Barbarian]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Slaves, by definition, don't have individual rights and freedoms, which is why I'm opposed to slavery.

This guy is like the horribly damaged Nomad probe from Star Trek, but with a fail safe mechanism that prevents him from encountering contradictory internal directives. 5077

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Because it's not conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms.

Accepting one's own enslavement (or the enslavement of others) is not "conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms" -- so why would you advocate that a slave accept their own enslavement and not try to escape to a slavery-free region? 5078

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Accepting one's own enslavement (or the enslavement of others) is not "conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms" -- so why would you advocate that a slave accept their own enslavement and not try to escape to a slavery-free region?

Because disagreeing with a law doesn't mean you get to ignore it. The law must be obeyed whether you like it or not - to believe otherwise would mean accepting that people who believe in things you don't like are free to ignore the laws that you support. 5079

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Slaves, by definition, don't have individual rights and freedoms, which is why I'm opposed to slavery.

So only government, by its laws, can confer human rights and freedoms? 5080

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So only government, by its laws, can confer human rights and freedoms?

Pretty much. You can certainly assert that you have any right that you want, but unless the government is willing to acknowledge and protect that right your assertion means nothing to anyone who disagrees with you. 5081

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Because disagreeing with a law doesn't mean you get to ignore it. The law must be obeyed whether you like it or not - to believe otherwise would mean accepting that people who believe in things you don't like are free to ignore the laws that you support.

So obeying laws is then much more important to you, and always takes precedence, over any actions "conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms", if there is a conflict between them? 5082

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

So obeying laws is then much more important to you, and always takes precedence, over any actions "conducive to promoting individual rights and freedoms", if there is a conflict between them?

The rule of law is essential to freedom. 5083

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The rule of law is essential to freedom.

But actual freedom, not so much? 5084

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

But actual freedom, not so much?

Without law, freedom is unachievable. You may as well ask if having an ice cream sundae is better than being able to breathe. 5085

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Without law, freedom is unachievable. You may as well ask if having an ice cream sundae is better than being able to breathe.

So if there was a law against breathing, what would you do? 5086

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The rule of law is essential to freedom.

Not when laws support slavery -- in these cases, the rule of (this particular) law is an enemy to freedom. 5087

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Without law, freedom is unachievable.

With laws supporting slavery, freedom is unachievable except by violating those laws. Freedom should be valued more highly than laws that restrict freedom. 5088

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

So only government, by its laws, can confer human rights and freedoms?

Obviously... Where else would they come from? Moral philosophy can tell you what the rights are, but that alone can't put them into practice, only the concentrated effort of people can do that. Said concentrated effort is what government is. 5089

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

With laws supporting slavery, freedom is unachievable except by violating those laws. Freedom should be valued more highly than laws that restrict freedom.

That's factually false. Freedom can also be attained by the laws being changed. 5090

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by Steophan

Obviously... Where else would they come from? Moral philosophy can tell you what the rights are, but that alone can't put them into practice, only the concentrated effort of people can do that. Said concentrated effort is what government is.

Is it morally right to overthrow a government to secure human rights and freedoms? 5091

[dasmoocher]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Pretty much. You can certainly assert that you have any right that you want, but unless the government is willing to acknowledge and protect that right your assertion means nothing to anyone who disagrees with you.

Huh. I remember reading this somewhere:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Sounds like these crazy guys wanted to abolish their government--the horror! 5092

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by Steophan

That's factually false. Freedom can also be attained by the laws being changed.

Then we're no longer in a situation "with laws supporting slavery". Further, sometimes it's necessary to break such laws in order to change them (as occurred in the US Civil Rights movement). 5093

[Czarcasm]

Originally Posted by Smapti

Because disagreeing with a law doesn't mean you get to ignore it. The law must be obeyed whether you like it or not - to believe otherwise would mean accepting that people who believe in things you don't like are free to ignore the laws that you support.

Here's the thing though-If all citizens are supposed to obey the law, if all fully recognized human beings are supposed to obey the law, then as property you are under no obligation to obey the law, are you? If a dog does something wrong it is not the dog that is changed with a crime, it is the owner-the dog is not obligated to follow any laws because the laws are not written for property to obey. 5094

[iiandyiiii]

Originally Posted by iiandyiiii

Then we're no longer in a situation "with laws supporting slavery". Further, sometimes it's necessary to break such laws in order to change them (as occurred in the US Civil Rights movement).

Such law-breaking also occurred during the abolitionist movement, and was very influential in actually ending slavery. 5095

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Smapti

The rule of law is essential to freedom.

And you were doing so well. Right up to this point your persona was plausible. Honestly, you were right on the edge but just keeping one foot in play. Kudos for keeping it spinning this long 5096

[Son of a Rich]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Linked video depicts nude woman with only a towel, probably NSFW.

Illegal home invasion by Colorado police; woman wearing only a towel handcuffed, then released without charges. One victim records the encounter on a cell phone; the accused officer's body cam mysteriously has no video. Internal affairs determines there was no probable cause, and the home entry was illegal.

That's a hell of a story. ISTM, in a case like this, the cop in question may have been guilty of a criminal offence and should subject to a grand jury investigation, as opposed to just procedural violations covered by IA. 5097

[Gary Kumquat]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Is it morally right to overthrow a government to secure human rights and freedoms?

Like where you're going with this but as Steophan is a Brit he might not get the irony 5098

[xenophon41]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Linked video depicts nude woman with only a towel, probably NSFW.

Illegal home invasion by Colorado police; woman wearing only a towel handcuffed, then released without charges. One victim records the encounter on a cell phone; the accused officer's body cam mysteriously has no video. Internal affairs determines there was no probable cause, and the home entry was illegal.

I do find it a bit hopeful to note the junior officer's reaction:

Originally Posted by the cited news article

After the incident, the other officer involved immediately contacted his supervisor to raise questions about Rose’s actions. The second officer was cleared of wrongdoing.

I know the other officer didn't take any action at the time, but it's a perilous thing on its own to go over your senior partner's head to complain even after the fact. I wonder how many officers are quietly forced out after either a) needing too many interventions by other LEO's or b) intervening "against" other LEO's. And I wonder which of these is more common. 5099

[Steophan]

Originally Posted by Fear Itself

Is it morally right to overthrow a government to secure human rights and freedoms?

Who gets to decide what's morally right, what rights and freedoms people should have? I don't think that's a trivial question. I would say that a democratic government probably shouldn't be, as by doing so you're asserting that you're objectively morally superior to the majority. Which is necessarily not true.

Originally Posted by Gary Kumquat

Like where you're going with this but as Steophan is a Brit he might not get the irony

One shouldn't overthrow legitimate monarchs either. 5100