It’s a trade off, Asian Americans are more law abiding, but less individualistic.
Something tells me that’s never going to make headlines in MSM.
Nor is the fact that Polynesians are less likely to be killed by police than whites going to make headlines.
If the criminal justice system was largely biased, what would we expect to find?
Perhaps we would expect to find nonwhites incarcerated and killed at a much higher rate than whites, which’s not at all like what we find (altho it’s not outside the realm of possibility for all minorities of a country to commit far more violent crimes than the majority of the same country).
If the criminal justice system was largely unbiased, what would we expect to find?
We would expect to find nonwhites incarcerated and killed at about the same rate as whites, or some nonwhites incarcerated and killed less, some about equally and some more, which’s what we find.
Statistics help prove the criminal justice system is largely unbiased.
So law abiding citizens likely have little or nothing to fear from it, irrespective of ethnicity or race.
If law abiding African Americans do have more to fear from it than other law abiding races, it’s because African Americans are several times more likely to commit violent crimes than Asian, Hispanic and white Americans, presumably against police officers too.
Naturally police officers are going to be more on edge when dealing with African Americans.
Okay, why is this the case? Is there literally a biological gene that makes black people [black men in particular] more likely to commit violent crimes? If so, then that would be perfectly natural behavior. Or, instead, are there rather complex social, political and economic variables that configure down through the ages that make it more likely black people [black men in particular] will commit violent crimes.
White racism being one of them.
Now, what counts for the objectivists among us, is that there is only one way in which to intertwine genes and memes here so as to come up with the only rational manner in which to view the relationship between race and crime. The way that they do.
Same with the tinderbox. They will tell you why there is a tinderbox and if you refuse to think about it in exactly the same way that they do then you are necessarily, inherently wrong.
Black men commit violent crimes – looting for example – because that’s just the way they are. And even though that’s just the way they are they must still be held responsible for what they do. Hated even.
And to the extent that goes further – to fascism or eugenics or final solutions – depends on which flavor of objectivism one subscribes to.
Before we proceed any further, I just want to get this out of the way: the vast majority of African Americans are decent, law abiding automatons who rarely, if ever question authority just like the rest of us.
We’re talking about a minority of African Americans here, that just so happens to be larger and more violent than the minority of Asians, Hispanics, Whites and other historically oppressed peoples (Natives, Polynesians) who also commit violent crimes.
Blacks are 13% of the population in the US but! they commit 52% of the homicides in the US!
That a white person killed a black person, a shame upon all whites. The blacks have no shame. The whites hate this asshole! He brings them down. I hope he sucks dick in prison and swallows for the rest of his life!
Biology can be every bit as complex and varied as sociology, politics and economics.
Insofar as it’s genetic, in all likelihood it’s not a single gene, but a multitude of genes.
Some of these genes may be found in other races, just they may not be as prevalent.
Some of these genes may be beneficial alone or under certain conditions, like say in the boxing ring or on the battlefield, but together under the wrong conditions, lead to a greater potential for counterproductive violence.
For the liberal objectivist, as you would say, it’s white privilege/supremacy and/or their environment.
For the conservative objectivist, it’s their culture.
For the Social Darwinist objectivist, it’s their biology.
For postmodern intersubjectivists such as yourself, unless the equation is as simple as 2 & 2 = 4, they’ll either suspend judgment, or just go with whatever the prevailing narrative happens to be, but feel fragmented about it.
For me, it’s probably all of the above, but with the emphasis on their environment (poverty), culture (gangsterism, victim complex/mentality) and biology (more testosterone, lower impulse control, etcetera), not on white privilege/supremacy, for the reasons already provided and others.
Hell some Sri Lankans are as black as coal, yet they’re incarcerated and killed by police far less than whites.
Of course the majority of cops are white, and people do tend to be biased in favor of their own race, however culture has greatly repressed this urge, these days if anything many liberals are biased against their own race.
I just don’t think privilege/racism is a major factor, it’s certainly not the (only) factor.
I sympathize with conservatives, libertarians and nationalists on some issues, and socialists on others.
I think both sides, left, right and everything in between could greatly benefit from focusing far more on the economy (‘it’s the economy stupid’) and less on issues that divide us like race, sex and gender.
Our issue is not each other, it’s corrupt banks, megacorps and government, and both left/right have done an excellent job of dividing and ruling us.
Of course while socialists and capitalists markedly disagree on how to run the economy, one thing I think we can all agree on is there should be lower taxes for the working and middle classes.
The megacorps should (be broken up) receive far less, if any corporate welfare, and start actually paying their taxes.
The federal reserve should be nationalized and much, if not all the (national) debt cancelled (for conservatives: see the year of Jubilee).
I think we can all agree regime change wars and the war on terror was a terrible idea.
It’s time to bring all the troops home.
As far as common ground goes, we could start with that.
Which party will actually address those issues?
In my estimation, neither mainline republicans nor democrats (or liberals and conservatives in Canada) will, perhaps a Tulsi Gabbard or Rand Paul would.
We need to turn more to 3rd parties and independents, and if that doesn’t work, perhaps more drastic measures will be necessary.
Gloominary, I actually read your post and agreed with some of it. One thing I saw that was false is that the FED should eradicate national debt … umm… that’s not the FEDS choice!!! All that money is owed to China … which tells me that you don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about.
The problem with paying back the debt is that if we do that; all the extra influx for all our countries that we are in debt to, will now have enough money to defeat the US economically … so, we never pay it!
It’s considered a national security interest to not repay our debts.
It would be self defeating for the U.S.'s major debtor -China- to do that, since if the US would go belly up, the Chinese holding of debt would go puff, the magic dragon, alongside all the trade and real estate that would follow.
The DEBT is only a down payment on huge futures everyone is counting on.
Factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/freewill.
There’s no such thing as identical in nature.
It’s impossible for two entities to be exactly the same in every way or share the exact same outcome.
This is especially true of something as complex as a pair of human beings, let alone a pair of population groups.
Even identical twins aren’t genetically identical, let alone the same in every meaningful way, nor are they guaranteed a similar outcome.
Episcopalians are wealthier than Evangelicals.
Does that mean Episcopalianism is fitter than Evangelicalism?
Does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it’s random, meaningless, luck of the draw or, there are reasons, but they’re far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain or alternatively, it’s down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could surpass Episcopalianism, these things ebb and flow.
And what, if anything, constitutes fit today may not constitute fit decades, centuries or millennia from now.
Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it’s an impossibility.
Not an impossibility, but near impossible.
The archaic derivation devolves more toward-into increasingly identifiable perceptions, and the negation of that-the decreasing interpretative apology.
The pro-position that lack of absolute identity dissolves the interlocatory at either the smallest or the largest neural junction does not sever any relative apprehension.
Call it myth or magic, it does go both ways’ and creates a virtual bridge which some generate, some degrade.
Free will is the conditional to evolve a seemingly unfair program, and that proposition can not be bisected into two separate realms-one good , one bad. Only the in the realm of the ideal: the ugly and the beauty matter in the realm of genetic balancing.
It’s an impossibility.
Two pop groups are never going to make the exact same amount of money every year for however long they and civilization as we know it exists, but even if they miraculously did, they wouldn’t be able to benefit from it absolutely equally.
The question is, how much variation is acceptable and why, not can we eliminate all variation.
I’ve never heard a liberal ask let alone answer this question.
I’m not saying it can’t be meaningfully asked and answered.
If we got the African American incarceration rate down to just 10% more than White Americans would that be enough?
How bout just 1% more?
Or does it have to be lower than White Americans, and if so by how much?
Again it’s never going to be absolutely the same, year after year, decade after decade, unless you start fudging the numbers.
Yes play along with the numbers long enough and you could come up with some answered, but that is only avoiding the more far reaching questions.
It is the gravity of being there, that avoids the reality of unequal treatment and perception of differing realities. The laws are not applicable equally, because of where it comes from splits into various destinations.
The economics, the politics, and the opportunities don’t fit into nationalist and socially stratified brackets.
"Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it’s an impossibility.
[/quote]
"
{But the can share nearly similar outcomes, for being human can overcome any particular differences.} which may occur prima facie. After all, why did most settlers come here in the first place? To avoid the economic hardships, the social prejudices that
befell them in their places of origin
I’m not against any and all redistribution, but to me, the idea that we should get as close to achieving absolute parity between the races and sexes as possible is every bit as absurd as the idea that we should get as close to achieving absolute parity between individuals as possible.
And I think that, among other things, is what’s turning a lot of people off from the left these days.
When it comes to race and sex: ‘only absolute parity will do’ (well unless nonwhites and women are doing better than whites and men in many or most ways, that’s okay), but when it comes to class: ‘maybe we need a bit more parity’ shrugs.
Their new motto: ‘it’s race, sex and gender, stupid’.
Well they can take their oppressive race and gender communism and shove it where the sun don’t shine.
Blacks, whites, men and women are not in any way shape or form the same (other than the fact that they’re human), and I can believe that without also believing blacks and women are subhuman.
We can talk about degrees of difference and redistribution between the races and sexes, but this idea that any and all socioeconomic and political variation between the races and sexes is solely the product of a rich white male conspiracy to oppress the other, the aftermath of said conspiracy or a social construct, is asinine, it’s not even remotely close to common sense or scientific thinking, it’s a cult, I’m asinine for even entertaining it.
Sure, but I’d still rather be white than black if I am faced with law enforcement or courts.
Right, but this doesn’t mean there isn’t systemic racism against, say blacks, or that even members of these groups don’t face different types of systematic racism than other groups. They may have cultural advantage ALSO at the same time over even whites. For example Japanese men who smoke in Japan do not suffer the same health problems as american men. Japanese americans who maintain Japanese style family relations even though they live in the US don’t suffer the same health problems. If they take on the types of family relations that americans in general do, they start getting heart disease and cancer at american rates. They may of course deal with judgments of them that are negative or stereotyped that are not true. These, nowadays, not in the 40s, tend to be milder and some also positive, when compared to blacks.
…then I’d say, they may have known ‘of’ each other… the victim and the cop.
…and in doing so, giving themselves completely away.
I’ve gotten past caring about the different factions in America and the in-fighting that goes with it, of which we are now witnessing the culmination of that power struggle. Fantastic!
Citizens are being killed and maimed either side of the law, and so my neutrality has kicked in.
Perhaps the riotous protests are staged, as the majority are peaceful and positive-gatherings, so maybe once the orchestrated anarchy has served its/a purpose, the orchestrated violence will cease… as quickly as it began.
