No, they’re not. Skin colour is irrelevant. You’ve accepted that treating an 85 year old woman differently to a young man is acceptable, because it’s expected they’ll act differently. That’s neither ageist nor sexist, because it’s based on fact. Same with treating the black man differently, as it’s based on fact.
Except there’s nothing to support most of those statements. But if there was, it wouldn’t be racist to say it.
It’s no more racist to say young black men are more likely to be violent than it is sexist to say women are more likely to get pregnant than men. So, it’s no more wrong to take more precautions when questioning young black men than it is to use more contraception when sleeping with a woman.
Your whole argument is that people shouldn’t treat young black men differently from others, despite the statistical difference, because it’s racist to do so. I’ve already quoted one post, but the totality of your argument is that.
Racism is a form of prejudice. If you are acting on facts, it’s not, by definition, prejudice. Prejudice is acting without the facts.
That’s an utterly ridiculous statement, and the only reason you could possibly be making it is because you want to see more white men killed to even up the statistics. The police being more wary of young black men doesn’t harm society, young black men being violent harms society. As does anyone else, of course, it’s just that young black men are many times more likely to be violent than anyone else.
What an enourmous FAIL. You said I stymied discussion by falsely claiming racism. Yet, not once did I claim anything was racist. The only time I used that term was saying “pointing out that racist claims are racist isn’t stymieing discussion”. I didn’t call a single thing you said “racist”.
So your accusation is bunk, and you can’t support it. I’ll keep that in mind.
When did I accept this? For one thing, a cop loses nothing by approaching a car with an old woman in the same way as he approaches a car with a young man. And for another thing, this discussion isn’t about old women.
It’s not based on facts, because most black men are not dangerous, and because treating them differently makes society worse and puts cops at greater risk.
How far can we take this? Is it appropriate to have special cops with extra training, and only these specially trained cops can deal with black suspects? We could have a “black patrol” with extra armor and weapons and training? How about black people have to live in certain areas with greater monitoring by police? Aren’t these just the same sorts of reasonable precautions that you’re advocating? If not, what’s the difference?
Wrong. You failed to show that I called any of this “racist”. You said I was stymieing discussion with false claims of racism. Where are these claims? How can I be stymieing discussion if I’m not calling anything “racist”?
If you’re judging someone based on the actions of others, that’s acting without facts. It’s not behaving factually to treat someone differently because he has the skin color of others who have done wrong.
No, it’s because I want to make society better. Treating black people worse harms society, including the police. Treating black dads poorly in front of their kids makes kids more likely to be criminals.
It is a fact that young black men are 6-14 times more likely to commit violent crime, and it is perfectly reasonable to act on that knowledge, either as a private individual or a policeman. Frankly, not to do so would be idiotic, and would be putting yourself in unnecessary danger.
So, you going to bring those statistics that show that non-violent black men get killed by the police more often than non-violent white men, then? Or just continue to post nonsense and irrelevancies?
Most black males are decent and non-violent. They don’t have to change anything. You’re advocating that cops treat these decent, non-violent people worse, because they share a skin color with others who do bad things. This makes society worse. This puts cops at risk in the future. This harms the community. This does nothing good.
Treating people based on their own actions is fine. Treating people based on the actions of others is not. It’s both wrong and foolish. It’s counter-productive.
It’s not 6 to 14. It’s 6 to 9. And they’re killed at a 21 times greater rate. You doubled the numbers for some reason, but that doesn’t make any sense.
Why is 21 times different acceptable? Would 100 times the killings be acceptable? How about a million? Is there any disparity that would make you think “maybe the cops are too quick to kill young black males”?
If the dads weren’t criminals in the first place, they’d be left in peace to bring up their kids properly. Put the blame where it’s due.
Yes, racism exists. Yes, black people are in many ways treated despicably. However, they are not being killed disproportionately by the police, and no matter how badly you are treated, you don’t get a pass for acting badly in response.
But please, bring me the statistics that show that innocent, non-violent black people are being disproportionately mistreated by the police.
Most black dads are not criminals. Are you seriously advocating treating decent black dads more poorly because they share a skin color with others who act badly?
They are killed at a 21 times greater rate. You tried to double the violent crime statistics to fit this, but it made no sense. I guess you’ve abandoned that argument.
Would any disparity be acceptable to you? If young black males were killed 1000 times more than young white males, would you think this is absolutely fine?
No, it’s 6 to 14. You provide a cite that estimated 6-9, someone else one that said 14.
Because it’s bang in the middle of 12-28, the expected amount of times more likely it is for the police to encounter a violent young black man than young white one. As I’ve explained. Learn statistics before talking about them.
Yes, either of those figures would make me think “maybe”. In fact, 21x made me think “maybe”, so I followed this thread with interest to see whether it was, in fact, the case. It isn’t, it’s (rather shockingly, I’ll admit) a reasonable amount to expect, based on the increased likelihood of young black men coming to the attention of the police, and the vastly increased likelihood of them being violent.
You continue to utterly miss the point. iiandyiii said it’s wrong to stereotype minorities as beneficiaries of affirmative action. You just keep saying ‘affirmative action = less qualified!!!’ You have not responded to his actual point at all. Are you incapable of understanding or recognizing this point?
It’s not against human nature at all. You’re justifying a racial bias that hurts people and doesn’t deter crime.
What his point was pretty clear. This is just tedious nitpicking.
We’ve talked about Jim Crow at great length. What a shocking and irrelevant nitpick this is.
They’re assumed to have a propensity for violence based on race. This is a distinction without a difference.
The statistics are about the rate black people are killed, not black criminals. You’re using the one to excuse the other, and even then, you’re saying you don’t mind if police are far more likely to kill a black criminal than a white one - based on criminal convictions of other people of the same race, I guess.
Thank you for demonstrating what I’ve been saying throughout this thread: this idea is complete gibberish.
No, I’m not. I’m pointing out that the vastly greater amount of them that aren’t decent and non-violent are being treated how they deserve. Being more wary of someone isn’t treating them differently.
Sigh. Try reading what I actually write, not what the voices in your head are saying. There’s nothing wrong with being more wary of someone who is roughly ten times more likely to be violent. There would be something very wrong with acting preemptively, but that’s not what we’re talking about here.
That you are too damn ignorant to understand the (extremely simple) explanation I gave, and too damn arrogant to fix that ignorance, is not my problem. It’s yours.
You’ve done it again in the posts quoted here. You are accusing me of suggesting that black people be treated differently for reasons not based on fact, when I’ve made it abundantly clear that I support treating everybody as the facts show they deserve.
Please, as I’ve repeatedly asked, bring some evidence that innocent, non-violent black people are being disproportionately killed by the police, and get this thread at least somewhere near on topic.
No. No, I’m not. I’m suggesting that a greater proportion of black dads are criminals, and are not bringing their children up properly. Including bringing up their children to hate and fear the police, instead of respect them, and blaming the police for the failing of their culture.
No, I didn’t double the violent crime statistics. To explain again, young black men are, based on the statistics presented in this thread, 6-14 times more likely to be violent. They are also twice as likely to be criminal. From that, I’m extrapolating that they are twice as likely to come into contact with the police*, so the police are 12-28 times as likely to come into contact with a violent young black man. Which fits perfectly.
Already answered that. No, I wouldn’t think it was fine, I didn’t think 21x was fine until I actually read the facts and statistics.
*In reality, young black men are vastly more than twice as likely to come into contact with the police, and here is where racism does come into play. But, as the police are not killing a disproportionate amount, one can reasonably conclude that when they come into contact with a young black man who is not a violent criminal, they are not killing them at any greater rate than other non-violent non-criminals.
I don’t understand how doing something to one group at a rate 50% to 250% greater than another group is not disproportionate. But then again I also don’t understand how you can be 6 times warier. What is the basic unit of wariness and how is it measured? What’s a basic level of wariness? What’s a situation where one might be 5 times warier? What about 10 times?
So bring some statistics that show non-violent young black men not under investigation for crime are being disproportionately killed by the cops. Because the statistics fit perfectly with what would be expected given the disparity in overall criminality and violence of the particular demographic of young black men.
Why, incidentally, is everyone focussing on the race, not the age or gender component? Why is it somehow fine to say that young people are more violent than older, and that men are more violent than women, but not that blacks are more violent than whites? It’s utterly hypocritical.
My cites were based on statistics. The 14 was based on nothing.
Why did you double the value? Explain it. I understand statistics, and don’t understand why the disparity in crime statistics gets doubled for the expected amount of times a cop would encounter it.
It depends. I know you want to ignore this point, but it’s an important one. I would agree if both men were dressed in Brooks Brothers suits and ties and driving Volvos. These cues, as examples, override other cues that may be given off by race
Now, could you please opine on my example: Should a cop be expected to approach a car driven by an 85 year-old woman the same we he would approach a car driven by a 20-year-old male?
There’s no such data on a national scale. As I’ve mentioned over and over, it’s very hard to find solid data about people being killed by police. You might think that people who are unconcerned about the racism issue would still think that’s a problem, but it’s interesting to note that people who dismiss the racism issue are also uninterested in that issue (unless they think they can use it to dismiss the racism part). We can find anecdotal instances of unarmed people being harmed or killed by the police, but there are no national statistics.
They don’t fit perfectly at all. You’re stipulating to that, but dismissing it at the same time.
Another person joins the ‘I want to talk about something other than the thread topic’ parade. Perhaps you should start that thread if you find the subject interesting.