"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.
I think this particular post is well put. Well articulated. Thought provoking. There are any number of points raised that I would agree with. Only in agreeing or disagreeing with them I construe my own point of view here as more a political prejudice rooted “existentially in dasein”.
Or, as you noted, I will “either suspend judgment, or just go with whatever the prevailing narrative happens to be, but feel fragmented about it.”
That’s about as close as anyone here at ILP has come to “getting” me. Well, if I myself “get” what I think you are saying. Only even in “getting” myself, I don’t exclude profound ambiguity from my point of view. Ever and always acknowledging that given new experiences, relationships and/or access to new ideas [here for example] “I” might be reconfigured again.
My main “thing” here is objectivism. The belief that not only is there just one way to understand the relationship between race and crime but that those deemed to be “one of us” have already discovered or invented what that is. Then, having convinced themselves that this is the case, once they are able to acquire actual political power, they insist in turn that everyone else must think just as they do too. The rest, as they say, being history. One or another “ist” – fascist, communist, capitalist, socialist – gains access to the police and the military and are able to enforce their own particular religious/ideological/objectivist agenda. And that means that all citizens must then “address” any particular interests/issues only as the ruling clique does. It could be about race or gender or sexuality or the right to own guns or abortion or religion or the role of government. And on and on and on.
Here however I do subscribe to political economy: Them that own the economy own the government.
You’re walking down an urban street at night. The cops in this scenario will hear there is a man with a gun of your race on that street who shot a cop. It’s a mixed race neighborhood.
Would you rather be white or black in that scenario?
You’ve been caught with enough drugs to be charged as a dealer.
Would you rather be white or black in court?
Me, with pretty much any crime or being considered a potential perp I would rather be white than black in relation to law enforcement - including mundane things like being pulled over for busted tail light - and the courts. In dealing health care, in relation to my kids’ school and any authorities in relation to them, in dealing with city bureaucrats, crossing a border into the US, say, and more. It’s not simple. Class also plays a strong role. I am sure poor whites get treated quite differently, with poor blacks generally being treated the worst.
None of this means I think destroying small businesses while rioting is a good thing or not a crime. And I think a lot of people are bursting because of unemployment and the lockdown. Again not excusing many of the things people are doing. I think the situation is being intentionally inflamed by those who stand to gain, if not outright orchestrated. These us/thems distract us from the primary one. And they help slide things to more top down control. people will end up calling for their own total disempowerment or at least acquiesing.
‘Save us from Corona’ ‘Save us from the rioters’ ‘Save us from race X’ ‘If you have nothing to hide…’
I’d rather be a (black) police officer stationed in a predominantly white neighborhood than a (white) police officer stationed in a predominantly black neighborhood, many times over.
And if I were a shapeshifter, I’d transform into a woman when dealing with police officers or going to court, and get me some of that good ol’, female privilege.
It’s funny feminists are always going on about male power, politicians are predominantly male, etcetera, but women get to spend a lot more time with children, where they can indoctrinate them with their female supremacist ideology, so when boys grow up, they grow up self-hating, passing legislation with female interests more in mind than male interests.
Now I’m being hyperbolic, but still one could as easily make the case women have more power as they could make the case men have more power.
Another thing people don’t consider is Jews make up a very large % of academia, finance, lobbies and media and they feel very differently about white privilege than (non-Jewish) whites.
I think I understand where you’re coming from.
On nearly all social, political and economic issues, especially complex and controversial ones with a lot of variables, perhaps more than one can ever hope to process in months or years of rigorous study and reflection, with lots of unknowns and schools of thought surrounding them, you prefer to play it safe intellectually.
What does play it safe mean for you?
It means taking the least controversial stance (usually center-left as opposed to right or alt-left), which means the one most experts in academia, government and MSM are taking.
Sometimes you feel fragmented about it, because while you believe the experts are the best hope we have of figuring things out in a Godless world void of certitude, they could still very well be dead wrong, we all could be.
Perhaps on occasion you will either suspend judgment or take the 2nd least controversial stance, if experts are pretty divided, after giving it a lot of thought or finding it’s strictly or mostly a matter of perspective (what you consider to be philosophical rather than (socio)scientific matters: is the glass half empty/full, is abortion murder/not murder?), but you will never entertain what you consider to be the lunatic fringe has to say, except for laughs or to delve into their psychology (why would someone ever take (one of) the most unconventional stance(s) on a subject they’re the least qualified to understand)?
What neurosis or psychosis compels them?
For everyone’s sake, we better hope someone like that never comes to power by being just sane and smart enough to dupe the masses or the military and just crazy and dumb enough to believe whatever it is they believe.
Yea I think I understand where you’re coming from and I think there’s quite a bit of validity to it, but I also think there’s quite a bit of validity to what you term objectivism (thinking outside the confines or parameters set by the experts) and also what I’ll call intrasubjectivism (going with what resonates with you, with your gut).
Sometimes the experts are mistaken, sometimes they lie, sometimes those on the margins of or outside academia, government and MSM, who take an unconventional stance, are right, sometimes the experts eventually come around to what’s both unconventional and right on their own, occasionally those on the margins of or outside can persuade the experts to change their mind.
Another principle I think is important for you is compromise.
When the experts, and the people are pretty divided, in a democracy the solution is to compromise (and collaborate) with the main opposition as much as possible, rather than dig our heels or worse, move further and further from the center until you’re way out in left (or right) field.
The ability to compromise in situations like this is a good indication our society is in fair health, rigidity, fundamentalism and fanaticism on the other hand, is a sure sign our society is in decay.
I’d rather be a paramedic, policeman, security guard, teacher, hell pretty much anybody doing anything in a predominantly white or mixed race neighborhood than a predominantly black neighborhood.
Again I don’t want to be too hard on blacks, the vast majority of them are alright, but I don’t want to throw policemen, the white community or society as a whole under the bus either, which’s what the liberal elite is doing right now.
The fact of the matter is: there’re more blacks who’re violent than other Americans who’re violent.
From what I gather, the vast majority of blacks killed by police were hostile towards police.
Perhaps a handful of blacks are innocently killed by police every year, perhaps disproportionately, but if you’re black your odds of being one of them are like one in millions annually, so I think this is being way overblown for pollical reasons.
When your demographic disproportionately commits felonies many times over, you can expect your demographic to be disproportionately innocently killed, for cops of all races are going to be more anxious, more afraid when dealing with your demographic.
The black community bears the brunt of the responsibility for the state of itself.
So the article admits the vast majority of blacks killed by police officers were armed, more than 99%.
It also concedes white police officers are no more likely to kill blacks than brown and black police officers.
So the problem doesn’t appear to be wHiTe SuPrEmAcY after all.
The article goes onto conclude cultural bias is the problem.
My conclusion is different.
The problem is blacks are many times more violent than nonblacks, presumably more belligerent towards police officers and probably more racist too, since they kill many more whites than whites kill blacks.
Naturally white, brown and black police officers are going to be more on edge when dealing with them, leading to a few excess innocent killings of blacks annually, but not an epidemic of innocent killings like the MSM would have us believe.
So let’s say a couple of black men are innocently killed every year.
How is that an epidemic?
It ain’t.
Thousands or millions constitutes an epidemic, not a couple or a few.
Fake News
What on earth does it mean to “play it safe” “intellectually” in regard to a tinderbox America? Given all of those factors that you note. No, it is the objectivists among us who do that. How? By merely assuming that their own political agenda is not just a collection of political prejudices about race and the police, but reflects the most rational manner in which one can think about those things. You are ever and always either one of us or one of them.
Period. That’s how they extinguish “the unbearable lightness of being” in their own lives. By anchoring “I” to one or another all encompassing font: religion, ideology, deontology, nature.
Also, I note the extent to which the objectivists will not actually probe the manner in which I construe the “self” here as the embodiment of the points I raise in my signature threads. Instead, based on my own experiences as a political activist for nearly 25 years, the “psychology of objectivism” revolves more around the points I raise on this thread in particular: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296
Including myself back when I was a rabid objectivist.
Okay, but…
I certainly don’t exclude those in either center-left or the center-right from the arguments I make in regard to “I” at the existential intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Instead, I fucus in on that which anyone claims to believe about race and the police “in their heads”, and that which they are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.
Conservative-rightists come here with their collection of facts filtered through their own political prejudices that I construe to be the embodiment of dasein, and the liberal-leftists do the same. Then commensing with particular assumptions about race and police powers and crime and the role of government – the “human condition” itself – the objectivists from either end of the political spectrum dictate to all the rest of us how we are required to think and feel if we wish not to be construed as “one of them”: the idiots, the morons, the scum of the earth.
They are the ones who will invariably argue that there are “experts” among us able to pin these conflicting goods to the mat. And how do they know this?
BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE!!
Again, just ask them.
And my “thing” here in regard public policy in any particular human community is to avoid as much as possible either the “might makes right” thugs or the “right makes might” philosopher-kings. The nihilists or the objectivists. Instead, as much as possible, the focus should be on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law.
While recognizing that political economy will always be around such that those who control the economy will control the government.
And that “I” am still fractured and fragmented given the manner in which I construe human interactions historically, culturally and experientially as the embodiment of dasein and conflicting goods.
“And my “thing” here in regard public policy in any particular human community is to avoid as much as possible either the “might makes right” thugs or the “right makes might” philosopher-kings. The nihilists or the objectivists. Instead, as much as possible, the focus should be on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law.”
Ambiguous:
Do You think moderates on either side are approaching, or distancing themselves from a position of compromise? And if so, cN be on the watch to see if the signs for this happening is escalating , or are they becoming more variable opportunistic without an eye on principle?
Lastly, just a slingshot conjecture: the Missouri compromise appearing as it did a mere few hundred years ago, did not and could not solve any underlying problems.
The lack of effective resolution resulted in the now obviously remembered American version to the European effort at Metternich’s Congress of Vienna.
Do similarities stand out between Henry’s efforts and those who are trying to form a similar solution? Or , may a backlash, god knows from what ardent reactionary form an even more dangerous state of affairs?
And yes, I know you view this as a dasein based conclusion and one that you cannot prove to all rational people.
But
then
you enter the debate, use the verb ‘should’, give people who don’t agree with you the label ‘thugs’ or the sarcastic ‘philosopher kings’.
If America is a tinderbox 1) labeling people pejoratively and 2) singling yourself out as one of the very, very few people who has, you think but are not sure, the right meta-ethical position
is not making conflagration less likely.
If that’s your goal. If your goal is to make conflagration less likely, when discussing politics, and to head things in the direction of compromise and negotiation, then you might want to change a few things.
IOW based on YOUR OWN values as presented here, it seems like you would prefer it if people stopped being in hard line opposed factions and learned to compromise and negotiate more and better.
If that’s your goal, you might want to, change a couple of things.
And it’s stuff like this that makes me wonder if that’s your goal or if you even know what your goal is.
Another approach that sounds much less condescending would be to simply raise your epistemological issues and suggest that we may have to compromise more and negotiate more and better. That leaves out the insults and the implicit and explicit superiority.
Which, I think, given my dasein, makes it less likely (if you leave out those things) for you to contribute to the tinderbox.
Once again, this seems far more about making me the issue here rather than in discussing that manner in which I construe any particular individual’s reaction to “tinderbox America”.
Back when I studied sociology - not a lot, but some - there was a classic work analyzing Poor People’s Movements (Piven and Cloward). What they looked at was how much change haspens when people go through bureaucracy, the courts, talking to politicians - iow civil (in both senses) negotiation and compromise) and how much change happens when they take to the streets and cause trouble, peacefully and even otherwise.
And what they found was that change often came not only faster, but only, if they took to the streets, were angry, maybe smashed some stuff.
Now I don’t just assume this is correct though they did a vast amount of research. IOW I was (and likely they were) sympathetic to the civil rights movement and poor people’s needs, etc. And given the lack of power of these people, at least relatively, making noise, forcing attention would likely be good tactics. What they found was that if people engaged in debate, channels of accepted political pressure, negotiation…the bureaucracy and political habit just
alllowed nothing to change. Or little.
But if we look at all players, not just the disenfranchized, well what happens if everyone adds chaos in fighting for their perspective.
I don’t know.
But I am not convinced that compromise and negotiation is enough of a Commandment or the right one in many many instances. Because the machinery of power serves a fragment. And they can just wait out the people who stay civil, compromising, negotiating and following the protocols of what gets called democracy but isn’t.
I don’t think there is a rule or good heuristic and saying compromise, negotiation as ideals can actually benefit the already powerful. If they are benevolent and just (through whatever one’s values happen to be) well that might be fine.
But they seem parasitic to me.
It ends up being a message something like ‘let’s all play nice’. And the ones who listen to that are not the ones who need to.
