Where in this sentence: “No, my argument is that black people are disproportionately criminal, and thus are disproportionately suspected” do you talk about neigbourhoods?
So you agree that black people are disproportionately criminal, and thus are disproportionately suspected?
I don’t think I’ve misinterpreted anything. I asked for clarification: and you’ve confirmed you stand by what you said. So what is it you think I’ve misinterpreted?
But according to what you said earlier, black people would also be “disproportionately suspected” in low crime neighbourhoods as well would they not? And if not, why not?
Its not about “white crime” or “black crime”. Its about who would be “suspected.” You’ve stated that because black people commit more crime they would be disproportionately suspected, and I’m going to assume they would be disproportionately suspected regardless of whether the actual crime was committed by black people or white people correct?
So do you accept that innocent black people will be disproportionately suspected for no other reason but the colour of their skin?
Do you accept that guilty white people will be disproportionately not suspected for no other reason but the colour of their skin?
…I’ve followed the “thread of an argument.” Are you standing by what you said earlier or not?
Nope. What did I get wrong?
And because the latter is disproportionately high, black people are disproportionately suspected correct? That is what you asserted earlier was it not? That is the statement you stand by?
So you accept that innocent black people will be disproportionately suspected?
Do you accept that white people will be disproportionately not suspected?
They are assertions. This is great debates, and I’m debating you.
It won’t change a thing about the way I treat a random black person I’ve never me before. It’s just a check, to see if Kimstu and I are operating from a shared view of reality / common facts, or if we each have our own ideas about what constitutes reality.
Is Dr. Campbell white or black? They let both black and white people be doctors.
You seem to be claiming two contradictory things. That white neighborhoods are being protected better than black neighborhoods and that the police let white people get away with crimes they don’t let black people get away with. Crime victimization surveys show that there is not an epidemic of white crime that is being ignored. Peopleare arrested and the same rate that they commit crimes.
Are you saying that you would treat them differently? Why is important to you know the race of the person that has called to complain about minor vandalism outside his $1.5 house
You keep bringing up white and black, this is high crime vs low crime neighborhoods we are talking about.
And yes, absolutely, the don’t let the people in “high crime” neighborhoods get away with the same exact stuff that those in “low crime” neighborhoods do. The low crime areas get police protection when and where they want it. To keep people from speeding though their neighborhood, to keep them from running the stop sign at the corner, to keep an eye on things if there’s been vandalism or car break ins recently. They show up and are polite and courteous when someone calls about all the non-crime related issues that they have need of talking to a police officer about.
They aren’t going to be pulling over the rich kid in his beemer, even though if they did, they’d find he has a small pharmacy of illegal drugs that he is selling like candy. They don’t bust up groups of kids for playing or even just travelling on the streets.
They do do this in areas they have decided are “high crime”.
As I personally know quite a number of people that have committed crime and have never been arrested for it, I can say that any statistic like that cannot fail but be effected by observer bias.
Put it this way. If 90% of drug dealers are not caught and arrested, and drug dealing was done at the same rate by two different sample populations, do you think that you would find more drug dealers in the population that you are looking at more closely, or the population you are looking at less closely?
I don’t know. To answer that question accurately we’d have to know how much street crime is being committed (and exactly how “street crime” is defined) and who is committing it.
We have some proxy metrics for that information, such as number of arrests and number of convictions, but I don’t know how accurately they represent the actual commission of criminal acts of the sort(s) that you’re classifying as “street crime”.
I am sure that these people would agree that blacks do a disportionate amount of crime, which is why they were put under a disproportionate amount of suspicion.
No, quite the opposite actually. A properly selected sample would contain only 1 black marble for every 10 white marbles.
Or so it is claimed.
Doesn’t matter. All topics relate to racism when you have the bigot bee in your bonnet.
Yes, 19th century American slavery was horrible and related struggles from the Civil War onwards have been frustrating and punctuated with horrors of their own. Everybody that’s not been living under a rock somewhere recognizes this and strives for better, with the exception of the most badly brainwashed hardcore racists. It will be a few more years before the baby boomers are gone. It’s a generational thing that can only be worked out over time.
Get over yourselves already. Don’t make it worse with the incessant whining. Wake up to the simple fact that you cannot make people do what they do not want to do - that’s called slavery, for chrissakes! You want white supremacists to be your slaves? Counterparts to the boomers and their ilk alluded to above will foment hatred until their enemies are screaming Black-Mexican-Irish or whatever-the-fuck Privilege. That’s just the way it goes between people that hate people and things not like them or they don’t understand, for WHATEVER reason. Get with the program of your choice, but don’t expect much sympathy on the racist bullshit any longer. And when I say “bullshit” I mean all of it, no matter who you are. It’s all just different flavors of the same old bullshit.
Calm down. Not every act of compulsion is literally slavery. There is nothing wrong with making it legally compulsory for people to pay taxes, for example, or to refrain from racial discrimination in certain circumstances, or to wear clothing in public, or a whole host of other things that some people do not want to do.
Comparing that kind of compulsion to actual chattel slavery, especially in this context, comes across as rather, shall we say, tone-deaf.
Splitting hairs on semantics is of course expected. I’m open to suggestions on what word or words might be best used to characterize compelling racists to not behave like racists.
meh
Sullivan raised some interesting points, but he really was not talking about and did not actually address white privilege. (For that matter, despite the title of the thread, the OP did not actually address white privilege, either.)
White privilege is not a reference to any and all occasions or events where blacks are harmed and whites are not. That would tend to be either overt or institutional racism. White privilege refers to the daily, pretty much unconscious, actions and thoughts that treat whites as superior to blacks. I have not heard any folks crying “white privilege” in every other sentence. It is usually employed in specific contexts and it then becomes a rallying cry for people who want to decry its use while implying or saying that blacks actually deserve any poorer quality treatment that they incur.
The only thing I have ever said regarding white privilege is that people should be aware that it exists and look for ways to purge it from their own beliefs and actions. There is no way to legislate against it and I have never called for any action to do so.
The article was specific to the court of Cuyahoga County, surrounding Cleveland, OH. At the last census, it was 63.6% white, 29.7% black, making studies of how other groups may be treated rather irrelevant.
While this tangent is silly, I will answer it anyway. White privilege simply addresses an issue of a majority population being treated better than another group even when there is no overt effort to do so. It tends to display unconscious behavior. Some people get all upset when they hear the phrase, taking it as an attack on their persons, when it is no such thing. If different groups were able to join the majority or were excluded from the majority in the future, the ways in which they were treated would probably change.
More silliness. White privilege is probably not recognized by the overwhelming number of people who benefit from it. The privilege is not that of having money or honors bestowed on someone, but simply the freedom from poor treatment that most people accept as normal without even realizing that they are free of such negative treatment while others with different appearances are not so free.
That is the point of raising the issue in the proper context, (and not throwing it out as a complaint that one is being accused of evil when one is not). It is simply a call for people to look around to recognize when they have been given the privilege so that they have a better understanding of the feelings of those who do not have that freedom.
If one can drive through any neighborhood in the nation without being followed by or pulled over by the police, if one has a better chance of being hired simply by being named John or Martha and not DeAndre or Shanice, if one has a better chance of exoneration or parole for identical crimes by being white than black, then one is enjoying white privilege. It does not mean that if one is white, one should be ashamed or do penance. It simply means that one will have a better understanding of one’s place in American society if one is aware of the situation.
Denying that white privilege exists is a sign that one enjoys white privilege.
What a strange request. See definition #1here, particularly where the synonym “Experience” is given. Would you agree that you can experience something without being aware at the time that you’re doing so?
Imagine, as an example, that you’re wearing an all-blue jumpsuit while visiting a town where the residents all worship the color blue. Everyone wants an opportunity to greet you, you’re given superior service, all the stops are pulled out for you. But since you don’t have either the occasion or awareness to see how they treat people who aren’t wearing blue, you don’t know that you’re getting an advantage. You just think the people in town are really nice. You’re enjoying the benefits of your clothing choice without being aware of it.
Objecting to major semantic abuses like the use of the word “slavery” to characterize forms of legal compulsion that are very dissimilar to actual slavery doesn’t seem to me like “splitting hairs”.
Depends on the context. If the context is legally compelling racists not to racially discriminate in the workplace, in housing, in places of public accommodation, etc., the words would be “enforcing antidiscrimination laws”.
If the context is government suppression of, say, racially bigoted publications that don’t actually promote or facilitate criminal actions, or peaceful protests by racists in favor of racist causes, the words would be “unconstitutional infringement of racists’ civil liberties”.
If the context is racists encountering non-racists who openly criticize, shame or mock them for their racism, the words would be “suck it up, little racist snowflakes, it’s a free country”.
And what would you suggest should be the response when the alleged non-racists/SJWs, ever eager to virtue signal to friend and foe alike, take it upon themselves to criticize, shame or mock others for things that aren’t, in fact, racist (and often not even remotely racist)?
I only ask because this is what happens roughly 98.573% of the time.
It is the subconscious bias of “Only White” can do bad, and “everyone else is inherently great and being kept down by whites” attitude and elephant in the room that nobody ever addresses. It is in fact racism, the “White Privilege” idea is a racist idea in itself. It is shameful that so many refuse to recognize it, likely for fear of being labelled a hypocrite when they come to that realization.
