Of course it was necessary. Terr needed a way to avoid the argument.
You figured wrong.
Tell you what- it’s going to be hard if not impossible to find survey data on this, although your reaction is proof you’re familiar with them. In the absence of data, I’m going to say magellan01’s posts in this thread are all the cite iiandyiii needs.
LOL.
Translation: it’s not true. It’s amusing to watch people justify stereotypes by insisting that “proportional” rates mean something, and that citizens and the police gain meaningful information from this. Apparently stores should proportionally follow black people around and police should proportionally shoot more black people. Does that make sense- or mean anything? No. It’s incoherent. It’s mostly just an excuse to repeat a piece of data that is of questionable value in the first place while ignoring the broader question that’s asked in this thread. You can see this in thread after thread, too. They cling to this kind of factoid like a life raft. Pages ago I posted a cite showing quite conclusively that black people are disproportionately charged with drug dealing. Has anyone engaged with that cite at all? No.
Is there a stereotype about certain groups of people being more likely to move goalposts?
Note that he’s not actually responding to that question and not really saying what he thinks. He’s trying to make a factoid into an argument, which it isn’t. It’s hardly a justification for discrimination.
Correct. To paraphrase an old saying, if everyone you meet denies saying what you think they said, maybe the problem is with your reading comprehension.
The argument is that those bigoted stereotypes iiiandyiiii stated are widely believed. You still have not showed any proof of that whatsoever.
As I said, familiarity does not equal belief.
No, in true leftie fashion, in the absence of data you just believe your own biases.
It is true for homicide and robbery. Funny how that study didn’t mention that it was, giving the impression that the respondents were wildly incorrect. They weren’t.
No. You made the deeply absurd claim that black people are not caricatured today.* He posted some caricatures, you and magellan01 both acknowledged that you’re aware of at least some of them, so you’re now demanding something else.
This is a non-started unless you think these caricatures are familiar because nobody believes them. This is another transparently absurd position, so you might actually believe it.
*Unless ‘facts counts as caricaturing,’ and the following count as facts even though you haven’t put forth any argument that they are factual:
This coming from someone who had to reverse himself in the claim that during slavery blacks were widely portrayed as violent? Moving goalposts?
As I said, it was obvious, but I had to spell it out for you. There are always some people who believe in bigoted caricatures of ethnic minorities (or majorities for that matter). Yet there is no evidence you can show that such beliefs are widespread today.
I said the view of black people you are advocating is the exact same view that has been advocated since slavery and Reconstruction. It turns out the slavery part was incorrect, and it dates to Reconstruction. I acknowledge it and it doesn’t alter the claim very much, so no, it’s not moving the goalposts.
It wasn’t, of course. You made a claim and repeated it a couple of times, and when it was demonstrated to be bullshit, you said you’d been saying something else.
Can you find evidence that they’re rare? I don’t believe there’s a whole lot of polling on how widely individual stereotypes are held, and while it’s easy to find people talking about those stereotypes or deploying them in a thread about policing (is there data for 'rapper type t-shirts getting people killed? I doubt it), actual data is lacking. I can show you this story about a poll where 51% of Americans express anti-black prejudices in the form of applying stereotypes or just reacting negatively to pictures, but I don’t see a breakdown showing how each term was applied to each race. The words, of course, are reflect the same sort of stereotypes that have existed in American social discourse for a century and which are also popping up in this thread. But if experience is any guide, you won’t accept that as a cite either. You can’t actually conduct a debate by demanding cites you know don’t exist. That’s the best tactic you have, but it’s a stalling tactic, not an argument.
You said these views are not widely held, and I’m asking if you can substantiate it. That’s not proving a negative. You’ve asked me to prove that they’re common, and if there’s data out there to do that, the same data could prove that these beliefs are rare.
Do you really think that any assertion that includes the word ‘not’ is somehow immune to needing a cite because its ‘proving a negative’? Tell me you don’t actually think that. Are these assertions also cite-proof?
the earth does not revolve around the sun.
4 quarters does not equal one dollar.
2 + 2 does not equal 4
Obama is not the president of the U.S.
Are you telling me that each of these assertions cannot be challenged for a cite because the word ‘not’ existing in the sentence means that it would be asking to prove a negative?
Maybe you’re the one unclear on the implications of the word ‘not’.
There’s plenty of evidence (that’s been cited) that these caricatures were widely believed in the past. In the absence of any evidence that these beliefs have ceased, the default position is that these caricatures are still widely believed.
