You haven’t presented any evidence that judges might be influenced to discriminate - the writers of the report say specifically that their report should not be used as evidence of discrimination by judges.
You haven’t presented any evidence of racism in the system.
You haven’t presented any evidence of racism in the system.
Is your assertion that the actual effect is significant a wild guess?
You haven’t presented any evidence.
Regards,
Shodan
Have you read the DOJ report on Ferguson, which concluded: in “nearly every aspect of Ferguson’s law enforcement system,” African Americans are impacted a severely disproportionate amount?
Actually, it seems to me you’d have to not read quite a lot more than that to not have seen any evidence of “racism in the system”. You’d basically have to go out of your way to not read things.
I haven’t watched the Maher video. Does he read out the URLs of scientific papers that studied the impact in the media, particularly the entertainment media of “intransigent, woke progressives” vis-a-vie “uncompromising Tea Party right wingers”, and conclude that “Intransigent, “woke” progressives are much smaller in number than uncompromising Tea Party right wingers. But the former group has much more sway in the media, particularly the entertainment media”?
No, they didn’t use the word “proof”, which you made a point to highlight. They didn’t say “it should not be used as evidence” – they said “should not be taken to suggest”, and only about judges, not the system in particular.
Are you of the opinion that “proof” is the same thing as evidence?
Further, again, I’m not making any particular assertion about judges in particular. Judges often make no decision other than accepting a recommendation from prosecutors or juries. If the recommendations are more likely to be higher for black defendants, then that is a problem in the system, right? Whether or not the judge decides to accept the recommendation?
If disparities in sentencing by race, unrelated to criminality or any other factors, aren’t evidence of racism, then what would be evidence of racism, in your opinion? Does the Ferguson report, for example, contain any evidence of racism? If so, I’ll present that. If not, can you give an example of what hypothetically would count?
My guess is you could find more ‘Intransigent, “woke” progressives’ in any random large metropolitan area than there are tea partiers in the entire U.S.
Do I have a cite for that? No I don’t. Unfortunately there is no polling data that I know of on ‘Intransigent, “woke” progressives.’
Ehh, I probably don’t need to continue this withyou, Shodan; you already (apparently, anyway, by your words) agreed that there are disparities in sentencing by race:
You just don’t care. We don’t need to continue with this; I can’t make you care about racial disparities in the justice system when you already agree they exist.
Except it isn’t the default way “people” are treated. It may be the way black people are treated occasionally, but it’s not the default way people are treated on the whole, and obviously black people know this, otherwise we wouldn’t be having this discussion. And, certainly, not every interaction, or even most interactions, between whites an blacks have a tense, if not sinister undertone. I do not believe that is the “default.” In a place with large black populations, there is simply too much black and white interaction for there to be teeth grinding all the time. That Starbucks incident? That’s the exception, not the norm. Downtown Philly as a lot of black people, the employee in question is a well known “SJW”, who had worked there for a year without incident.
I think perhaps you’re doing a little mindreading about how people perceive you. I certainly don’t see people “visibly relax” in my presence. But maybe I’m just not “doing white” properly. Maybe my teeth aren’t nice enough, or skin good enough, because apparently that’s a white person thing too.
No one has ever told me “It sure must be nice to be white”. That doesn’t sound like typical conversation. When that happens, I’ll get back to you.
See above.
Why do you think we’re having this conversation right now? Why has “white privilege” become a part of the collective vernacular?
People of color have spoken up and started describing their experience, how their white friends and peers seem to be treated better in all kinds of scenarios. The Starbucks incident is an extreme example that made national news, but what people of color are saying is that more minor examples happen on a daily, constant basis. Maybe nobody’s said it to you directly, but rest assured, we’re talking about it because people have said it.
I “fail to understand” that as well … to me it the quality of what we agree upon not the quantity. What’s in that 20%? What’s in the 80?
I have few litmus tests and can work on shared goals with the people I will fight with on others. I am for a big tent. Sometimes an alliance can be as basic as a common foe. But if someone demands that I not state what I believe as the price to get them in, or that I shut down a few others saying things that I disagree with but can tolerate to get them to come in … most often no. And OTOH there are some basic core values that the tent shares. Those inviolate ones may be less than 20% of all issues, but they are the ones that matter most.
Even the most vehement of political opponents can probably agree on 80%. It is that they take that other 20% very seriously, and refuse to compromise.
The evidence for structural and institutional racism could fill up several books and I am, from past experience on these boards, fairly sure that no amount of evidence will budge the beliefs of those who dispute it. “No structural racism” is statement of faith for some folk. Denial of any chance of implicit bias too.
Still, I’ll give a little bit from the area I know best, health care. A reasonable review here. I like the way they introduce the concept:
The examples that follow help flesh it out.
Yeah, too long for those who don’t believe it to read.
The basic concept. We are still often segregated in where we live and access to health care follows those divides. Social structures that are the result of generations of discrimination in housing and education persist in various inequities even if the providers of the care had no biases, and despite the most noble explicit beliefs most of us have implicit biases that impact our thought processes.
It is true in health, and it is also true in other spheres, education, judicial, and more.
I don’t often see Bill Maher mentioned in any media. Most often, references I see on-line are by people complaining about him.
Bill Maher has exactly zero influence on me or any liberal I know. I have never watched his show, I think he’s an arrogant troll and is not in any way representative of my side.
But isn’t using the term “white privilege” forcing the issue to be looked at from the perspective of white people? It’s right there in the name. I agree that what is being described as white privilege exists and is a real problem, but I simultaneously think that this phrasing is counter-productive and not effective at raising awareness and changing views of those that do not already buy into the idea. Because really the focus isn’t on how white people are treated, it’s how non-white people are mistreated. This formulation is easily seen as divisive.
If I were to talk about this issue, I’d use the term “racial injustice” or racially disparate treatment. That last one doesn’t roll of the tongue as well, and it doesn’t associate with the ever so sneering ‘check your privilege’ dismissive phrasing, but at least racial injustice is accurate.
I see your point and I don’t disagree, but I also think that it’s a bit like “all lives matter” – technically accurate but not as effective. I understand why white people might get defensive when told they’re privileged because of their skin color, and I understand that for some white people that might not even be true. On the other hand, “racially disparate treatment” is too easy to dismiss as an obviously bad thing that I don’t need to do anything about.
Yes. It is asking us as white folk (mainly those who are middle class and above) to be conscious of and to consider our role in the structural factors that occur without any conscious racist intent from us. It is acknowledging that addressing these issues is not just something for minorities to solve but that we are all part of what occurs by virtue of the inertia of structures and history.
I’d be willng to bet a relatively large amount of money that the same people who today complain about the phrase “white privilege” will find a problem with the phrase “racial injustice”, or in fact with any substitute phrase. It’s not really the language they’re complaining about.
It is also a recognition that the problem really is mainly of we white people’s conduct and attitudes, and that defensiveness and denial about it are counterproductive. It isn’t up to black people to raise themselves out of secondary citizenhood, it’s up to us not to keep them there. Dismissing any attempt to point that out as “sneering” or “contempt” or suchlike is projection, and helps only to perpetuate the problem.
Yes, of course the situation with white people’s attitudes and conduct has to be looked at from the perspective of white people. That’s where the problem lies and where the solution has to come from. That it’s (for most of us) unintentional and even unconscious does not make it unreal.
And unfortunately, a significant percentage of white america is absolutely racist and doesn’t want to improve the situation.
And oh holy shit am I tired of hearing some of them claim that if we just stop talking about racism, it won’t exist.
But it’s racist to talk about race… :rolleyes:
I’m not sure it’s correct or useful to assume everyone who disagrees with you is lying about their motives and completely unreasonable.