ILovePhilosophy.com

Gloominary wrote:Other factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/free will.

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 evangelicalism?
Or does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it's random, meaningless, luck of the draw or alternatively, there are reasons, but they're far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain, or it's down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could be on top and Episcopalian on the bottom.
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.

Meno_ wrote:

Gloominary wrote:Other factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/free will.

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 evangelicalism?
Or does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it's random, meaningless, luck of the draw or alternatively, there are reasons, but they're far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain, or it's down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could be on top and Episcopalian on the bottom.
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.

Gloominary wrote:

Meno_ wrote:

Gloominary wrote:Other factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/free will.

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 evangelicalism?
Or does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it's random, meaningless, luck of the draw or alternatively, there are reasons, but they're far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain, or it's down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could be on top and Episcopalian on the bottom.
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.

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.

In North America we think of success materially, but success is multifaceted.

When you think of success holistically, Hispanics, and women for that matter, do significantly better than whites and men.
And as we've seen Hispanics are less likely to be incarcerated than whites.
Polynesians are less likely to be killed by police officers.
South and East Asians tend to be more successful by many metrics.

What it boils down to is, it's better to be an Asian or Hispanic American in many ways than a white American.
When other races do better, there's all sorts of explanations, but when they do worse, there can be only 1: white privilege/racism.
The dialogue, or monologue rather we have about race in North America, is rigged.

Chakra Superstar wrote:The owner said they may not have known each other as one was on internal security and the other, external security but strange enough to make you wonder...

The photo of the dude with an ear-piece doesn't surprise me. In lots of the big protests, there are agent provocateurs in the front lines instigating violence. There are a few videos of cops being busted by peaceful protesters and holding them down and you can see they're wearing the same boots the cops wear as part of their uniform. In other videos you see them chase the busted cops until they run behind police lines to get protection and the police take them in like one of their own.

The left-wing media are doing their part to tear America apart by ignoring that 90% of the violence and looters are black and then saying the violence is orchestrated by right-wing, 'white-supremacists'. Funny how they know the violent whites are not ANTIFA, not BLM and not Agent Provocateurs but are 'white supremacists'.

Anyway, there are a few places of sanity however. In some cities, cops are marching with the protestors.

Gloominary wrote:

iambiguous wrote:

If law abiding African Americans do have more to fear 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.

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.

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 wrote::-k

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Sure, but I'd still rather be white than black if I am faced with law enforcement or courts.

iambiguous wrote: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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:

Gloominary wrote::-k

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...'

Black Cops Are Just as Likely as White Cops to Kill Black Suspects

New research suggests a culture of bias is a bigger problem than individual racist officers.

When a white police officer fatally shoots a black man, angry acquaintances often assume the tragedy was triggered by a racist cop.
New research reports that, while some officers may by driven by personal prejudice, the bias that can serve as a catalyst for killings is more institutional than individual.
"White officers do not kill black suspects at a higher rate compared with nonwhite officers," concludes a research team led by Charles Menifield, dean of the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University–Newark. "The killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem."
Menifield and his colleagues constructed a database of all confirmed incidents in which deadly force was used by police in the United States during 2014 and 2015. It includes detailed information on both the officer and victim.
Not surprisingly, they found a huge racial disparity when it comes to who gets killed by officers. "While only about 13 percent of the American population is black," they write, "28 percent of people killed by police are black."
The victims were overwhelmingly male (95.5 percent), and less than 1 percent were unarmed at the time of the incident. "The gun could been in the car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed," Menifield noted.
The majority of officers in these situations were white. But this reflects the fact that America's police forces are disproportionately made up of whites, who account for approximately three-quarters of all officers.
Crunching the numbers, the researchers report "white police officers actually kill black and other minority suspects at lower rates than we would expect if killings were randomly distributed among officers of all races."
In contrast, "we find that nonwhite officers kill both black and Latino suspects at significantly higher rates than white officers," they write. "This is likely due to the fact that minority police officers tend to be assigned to minority neighborhoods, and therefore have more contact with minority suspects."
But if individual-level racism isn't the issue, what is? Menifield and his colleagues make a strong argument that the fundamental problem is one of institutional culture.
"We believe that the disproportionate killing of black suspects is a downstream effect of institutionalized racism ... within many police departments," they write. At least in part, "disproportionate killing is a function of disproportionate police contact among members of the African-American community."
In other words, if a certain percentage of such encounters between the police and public end in tragedy, and cops are more likely to come into contact with black citizens (for instance, ordering African-American drivers to pull over at higher rates than whites), it stands to reason that black civilians are at greater risk of ending up dead.
Blaming racist cops for this problem is emotionally satisfying (it presents a clear villain) and suggests an easy fix (weed them out). But this research suggests the real problem is the entrenched set of biases and assumptions that pervade police forces, influencing the attitudes and actions of cops of all colors.

The victims were overwhelmingly male (95.5 percent), and less than 1 percent were unarmed at the time of the incident. "The gun could been in the car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed."

Gloominary wrote: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?

Gloominary wrote: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.

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.

Karpel Tunnel wrote:Should be.

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.