Black people in Japan speak about how they feel freer in Japan than in the USA - Page 9 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

Political issues and parties from Japan to Turkmenistan to New Zealand.

Moderator: PoFo Asia & Australasia Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. This is an international political discussion forum moderated in English, so please post in English only. Thank you.
#15269688
wat0n wrote:
The relevance is that social policy costs several billion dollars and, for the sake of proper spending of taxpayer money, it is in the taxpayer's interest that they are targeted appropriately.



Do I have to call *Steve* in here, 'cause I *will* -- !

*He'll* tell you that governments barely even need to be *solvent*, much less fully steeped and valuated according to (strong-currency) tax receipts alone.
#15269689
ckaihatsu wrote:Nice try.

The whole *point* of specifying 'institutional' racism is so as to highlight that such 'official' / prevailing racism is *systemic* -- like killer cops -- and is *not* mere 'isolated incidents'.


Last time I checked, unjustified killings do not go unpunished, even more so since they are often filmed.

If you believe each and every time a cop kills someone it is not justified, it's up to you to prove so for each and every killing.
#15269692
wat0n wrote:
Last time I checked, unjustified killings do not go unpunished, even more so since they are often filmed.

If you believe each and every time a cop kills someone it is not justified, it's up to you to prove so for each and every killing.



You're implicitly indicating that, since you're *not* questioning the action, *you* don't even consider such killings to be unjustified, by *default* -- a *very* serious mindset and attitude.

In other words whatever the person did or didn't do that got them killed can be carelessly brushed away by the likes of you, if the dead can't rise to raise a finger against their killers.
#15269694
ckaihatsu wrote:You're implicitly indicating that, since you're *not* questioning the action, *you* don't even consider such killings to be unjustified, by *default* -- a *very* serious mindset and attitude.

In other words whatever the person did or didn't do that got them killed can be carelessly brushed away by the likes of you, if the dead can't rise to raise a finger against their killers.


So we should then assume it is the cop who's violating the law then? Why would we do that?

Fortunately, bodycams allow us to see whatever happened in each incident. As such, I think it should be a form of obstruction to justice for a cop to use force against someone while not wearing his bodycam and keeping it on if the PD has a policy to that effect. I also think there should be a federal mandate for PDs to have such a policy to be eligible for full federal funding. Note this has NOTHING to do with racism or classism, it's just as valid and logical when the victim is white and/or rich, and it is a new form of checking governmental use of force that we now have access to thanks to technology.

But just because no such legal mandates exist, it does not mean we should assume a cop who kills someone did so illegally by default and that it is the cop's duty to prove his innocence. Cops are paid and expected to confront criminals as part of their law enforcement duties (to the point that, in some jurisdictions, a cop who refuses to arrest someone committing a crime in front of him can go to jail for dereliction of duty), they are not private citizens who have a duty to retreat, that then means the presumptions cannot be the same as for the latter. The only new thing is that we have a lesser need to rely on presumptions since it is possible to actually film incidents of use of force.
#15269730
Since no one was able to bring up a concrete example of an issue affecting rich BIPOC or poor whites that could be useful in determining how to reduce the opportunity gap, this corroborates my idea that it would be better to tackle classism and racism simultaneously.

Also, conservatives suffer from a misconception when they argue that rich black people benefit the most from affirmative action. This is not the case. White women are the main recipients. But conservatives do not think of affirmative action as helping white people. In the minds of conservatives, AA has been racialised and is perceived as helping Black people, and thus race based affirmative action is opposed. Gender based AA that helps white women is almost completely ignored.
#15269731
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since no one was able to bring up a concrete example of an issue affecting rich BIPOC or poor whites that could be useful in determining how to reduce the opportunity gap, this corroborates my idea that it would be better to tackle classism and racism simultaneously.


If you want another example, one can simply note non-Hispanic White and non-Hispanic Black households face similar rates of violent victimization once controlling for income/poverty status, middle- and high-income households also face similar rates of violent victimization regardless of their race/ethnicity (figure 4):

Bureau of Justice Statistics (2014) wrote:...

Poor whites and blacks had higher rates of violent victimization than poor Hispanics

The overall pattern of persons in poor households having the highest rates of violent victimization was consistent for both non-Hispanic whites and non-Hispanic blacks (figure 4). The rate of violent victimization was 46.4 per 1,000 for poor whites and 43.4 per 1,000 for poor blacks. For both groups, persons in high-income households had the lowest rates of violence. However, this pattern did not hold for Hispanics. In 2008–12, the rate of violent victimization for Hispanics did not vary significantly across poverty levels.

At each of the poverty levels measured, there was no statistically significant difference between whites and blacks in the rate of violent victimization. Among persons in mid and high-income households, the rates of violence were similar for whites, blacks, and Hispanics. However, poor whites and blacks had higher rates of victimization than poor Hispanics (25.3 per 1,000). Poor Hispanics had similar rates of violence as blacks living in high-income households (22.7 per 1,000).

...


Pants-of-dog wrote:Also, conservatives suffer from a misconception when they argue that rich black people benefit the most from affirmative action. This is not the case. White women are the main recipients. But conservatives do not think of affirmative action as helping white people. In the minds of conservatives, AA has been racialised and is perceived as helping Black people, and thus race based affirmative action is opposed. Gender based AA that helps white women is almost completely ignored.


Is this attempt to deflect criticism supposed to be a defense of affirmative action? We're clearly talking about race-based affirmative action since we're discussing systemic racism, and the obvious comparison is therefore between rich Blacks and poor Blacks. Also, I will note there are far more white women than African Americans regardless of their gender, with the obvious implications about what one could expect about the distribution of beneficiaries.

Not that gender-based affirmative action is any better as far as focalization is concerned, as it also largely benefits upper and upper-middle class women over poor ones for exactly the same reasons.

One would think affirmative action is not meant to benefit those who are already among the haves in society.

If this is your "defense" for affirmative action, it's probably one of the worst ones I've seen.
#15269733
@wat0n should explain how this apparent equality in being a target of violent crime helps close the opportunity gap.

As far as I can see, this only shows classism and racism reinforce each other.

Since both white and Black poor people have the same rate of victimization, but more Black people are living in poverty, this just means that when you add the impacts of classism and racism, a higher percentage of Black people live under a higher risk of violent victimization than white people.
#15269734
Pants-of-dog wrote:@wat0n should explain how this apparent equality in being a target of violent crime helps close the opportunity gap.


High crime and general insecurity disincentivizes investment (business owners will not want to work or invest in areas where they cannot operate safely and where their property is not respected), which in turn helps to perpetuate poverty when it is geographically clustered as it reduces access to both employment and services for residents of poor areas or neighborhoods. This is one reason why, for example, there are fewer grocers in high crime jurisdictions or in high crime neighborhoods in large cities.

Understanding this is not about race but about class and poverty therefore makes it more likely proper policies will be developed to solve the problem.

Pants-of-dog wrote:As far as I can see, this only shows classism and racism reinforce each other.

Since both white and Black poor people have the same rate of victimization, but more Black people are living in poverty, this just means that when you add the impacts of classism and racism, a higher percentage of Black people live under a higher risk of violent victimization than white people.


How does racism reinforce the victimization of poor white people?
#15269739
Pants-of-dog wrote:Since no one was able to bring up a concrete example of an issue affecting rich BIPOC or poor whites that could be useful in determining how to reduce the opportunity gap, this corroborates my idea that it would be better to tackle classism and racism simultaneously.

Also, conservatives suffer from a misconception when they argue that rich black people benefit the most from affirmative action. This is not the case. White women are the main recipients. But conservatives do not think of affirmative action as helping white people. In the minds of conservatives, AA has been racialised and is perceived as helping Black people, and thus race based affirmative action is opposed. Gender based AA that helps white women is almost completely ignored.


#15269741
Tainari88 wrote:




Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but the Right in America knows it's lying. With few exceptions (complete morons and incomplete wacko nutjobs) they know.

Even when they don't know the details, they know their worldview (weltandschauung) is a patchwork quilt knitted from myths and lies.
#15269744
Affirmative action goes beyond university admissions, and includes e.g. employment at federal contractors.

Although I will also note even those nonwhite well-qualified students who are admitted into selective colleges are not generally from low income households (just like their white counterparts). It doesn't seem, then, this practice has any meaningful intersectional approach either.

Low income students by and large don't even apply to higher education at all, even low income students who are high performers in SAT or ACT also don't follow the same application strategies as high income students who are also high performers do (high achieving, low income students don't apply to the same schools and they also generally don't have much access to counselors who can provide advice on how to choose where to apply). There also don't seem to be any major differences by race in this regard.

Hoxby & Avery (2012) wrote:ABSTRACT

We show that the vast majority of very high-achieving students who are low-income do not apply to any selective college or university. This is despite the fact that selective institutions would often cost them less, owing to generous financial aid, than the resource-poor two-year and non-selective four-year institutions to which they actually apply. Moreover, high-achieving, low-income students who do apply to selective institutions are admitted and graduate at high rates. We demonstrate that these low-income students' application behavior differs greatly from that of their high-income counterparts who have similar achievement. The latter group generally follows the advice to apply to a few "par" colleges, a few "reach" colleges, and a couple of "safety" schools. We separate the low-income, high-achieving students into those whose application behavior is similar to that of their high-income counterparts ("achievement-typical" behavior) and those whose apply to no selective institutions ("income-typical" behavior). We show that income-typical students do not come from families or neighborhoods that are more disadvantaged than those of achievement-typical students. However, in contrast to the achievement-typical students, the income-typical students come from districts too small to support selective public high schools, are not in a critical mass of fellow high achievers, and are unlikely to encounter a teacher or schoolmate from an older cohort who attended a selective college. We demonstrate that widely-used policies–college admissions staff recruiting, college campus visits, college access programs–are likely to be ineffective with income-typical students, and we suggest policies that will be effective must depend less on geographic concentration of high achievers.


Since low income students who do well on the SAT/ACT are less likely to apply to selective colleges than high income students who do just as well on those tests, affirmative action is unlikely to help here. The differences begin even before the admission stage.
#15269750
late wrote:Sorry if I sound like a broken record, but the Right in America knows it's lying. With few exceptions (complete morons and incomplete wacko nutjobs) they know.

Even when they don't know the details, they know their worldview (weltandschauung) is a patchwork quilt knitted from myths and lies.


They myths are important to keep the lies going forever. Justifications are important for them to avoid sharing power and wealth. Just do the blame game on the ethnic minorities so that they won't notice all our moves. It is not working.

But the power of myth prevails @late.

The Power of Myth by Joseph Campbell:



The hero. The Cowboy. John Wayne. Clint Eastwood. That sole individual and the rugged one, shall have freedom.

Lol.
#15269760
wat0n wrote:
Another issue, too, is that there are federal laws that punish government bodies who racially discriminate - including police departments by using consent decrees. And they are indeed used, too. I don't think that points to a design geared towards that end.



viewtopic.php?p=15269366#p15269366



Just f.y.i. that 'design' is called 'federalism'.


---


ckaihatsu wrote:
You're implicitly indicating that, since you're *not* questioning the action, *you* don't even consider such killings to be unjustified, by *default* -- a *very* serious mindset and attitude.

In other words whatever the person did or didn't do that got them killed can be carelessly brushed away by the likes of you, if the dead can't rise to raise a finger against their killers.



wat0n wrote:
So we should then assume it is the cop who's violating the law then? Why would we do that?

Fortunately, bodycams allow us to see whatever happened in each incident. As such, I think it should be a form of obstruction to justice for a cop to use force against someone while not wearing his bodycam and keeping it on if the PD has a policy to that effect. I also think there should be a federal mandate for PDs to have such a policy to be eligible for full federal funding. Note this has NOTHING to do with racism or classism, it's just as valid and logical when the victim is white and/or rich, and it is a new form of checking governmental use of force that we now have access to thanks to technology.

But just because no such legal mandates exist, it does not mean we should assume a cop who kills someone did so illegally by default and that it is the cop's duty to prove his innocence. Cops are paid and expected to confront criminals as part of their law enforcement duties (to the point that, in some jurisdictions, a cop who refuses to arrest someone committing a crime in front of him can go to jail for dereliction of duty), they are not private citizens who have a duty to retreat, that then means the presumptions cannot be the same as for the latter. The only new thing is that we have a lesser need to rely on presumptions since it is possible to actually film incidents of use of force.



What about the *rest* of the police killings, outside of the "100%" that *are* documented by bodycams -- ?

Should *all* public / community sentiment be disqualified by your line / politics, according to 'professional' / private-industry norms -- ? 'Self-regulation' -- ? Letting the fox guard the henhouse -- ?
#15269763
ckaihatsu wrote:Just f.y.i. that 'design' is called 'federalism'.


So federalism is racist now? But even that isn't true, given the body of federal anti discrimination laws.

ckaihatsu wrote:What about the *rest* of the police killings, outside of the "100%" that *are* documented by bodycams -- ?

Should *all* public / community sentiment be disqualified by your line / politics, according to 'professional' / private-industry norms -- ? 'Self-regulation' -- ? Letting the fox guard the henhouse -- ?


If you think a cop violated the law, go ahead and prove it.

I know leftists are all about feelings nowadays but not all of us care about your worthless emotions.
#15270907
@wat0n previously cited a study showing that consent decrees do not have a significant effect on police behaviour. Consequently, the argument that consent decrees act as a limitation on police racism is unsupported by evidence.

The argument that all killings by cops are justified unless they are found otherwise in a court of law assumes that all unjustified killings are caught and punished. This is a highly implausible and unrealistic assumption, and thus the argument itself is almost certainly not true.
#15270953
Police violence against Black people in the USA is ubiquitous and systemic.

According to the data, the vast majority of police departments never receive any sort of federal intervention. Of the few that do, only a portion receive consent decrees. Of those, only a portion receive monitors. It is difficult to argue that consent decrees with monitors are ubiquitous or systemic. These consent and monitor policies are outliers and aberrations, and for the most part, the system continues on without them.
#15270964
There are probably not as many consent decrees simply because in most cases the cities just accept the DOJ's claims if it finds that there is a "pattern or practice" targeting BIPOC, making the consent decree unnecessary. That's also leaving aside whether there are other factors at play that act as confounders (poverty, the nature of criminal activity, etc).
  • 1
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
Russia-Ukraine War 2022

ISIS wants to create a division between Chechens […]

PoFo would be a strange place for them to focus o[…]

In my opinion, masculinity has declined for all o[…]

@ingliz good to know, so why have double standar[…]