"Free speech" and engaging those we disagree with

[Spider-Dan]

Because I'm not black and ultimately it's not my problem to fix.

This tangent was originally about "white privilege"; your argument is that white privilege is not the problem because blacks live in poverty and unrest across the globe.

I've already explained that I disagree with your premise (because people of all races live in poverty and unrest) and you don't need to be black to do something about white privilege - presuming you acknowledge such a thing exists.

Now, you as a Black American. Tell me what you think the cause of why blacks across the globe face the issues they face.

I already did: systemic socioeconomic disadvantage mean an overwhelming number of black children start out at the bottom of whatever society they are in, and have to be exceptionally talented and/or hardworking to achieve the same results as a merely competent white person (in most countries).

For the record, I think poor white people suffer many of the same disadvantages.  The difference is that their disadvantages effectively disappear if they are able to get money, whereas even rich black people still get hassled by the police (for example).  And even if I become wealthy, if I have teenaged kids, they will be treated just like any other black teenagers: dangerous criminals until proven otherwise.

Better yet, maybe some solutions about how to go about fixing those problems. Because no matter how much black people cry racism, scream white privilege, and shout "not fair". Those things aren't going to change.

That's like, your opinion, man.

I look at the progress of the last century and see the kind of effect that civil rights have had and continue to have.  In today's society, even racists like David Duke are afraid to openly claim that mantle... they have to couch their racism in terms like "protecting Western European culture."  They're scared to say n----- in public!  That is how thoroughly they have lost the battle.

Similarly, 20 years ago people would openly talk about how homosexuality should be outlawed and gays are evil.  But in 2017, homophobes have lost the war of ideas so badly that they can no longer come out and openly talk about how gays should be locked up... now people with multiple divorces are forced to hide behind "sanctity of marriage" as they try to hinder the lives of gay people.  And they have lost the marriage battle too, so now they move on to "religious freedom" as their last scrap to bitterly cling to.

So when you say that repeatedly talking about racism and white privilege won't change anything, I say history proves otherwise.

[pondwater]

This tangent was originally about "white privilege"; your argument is that white privilege is not the problem because blacks live in poverty and unrest across the globe.

I've already explained that I disagree with your premise (because people of all races live in poverty and unrest) and you don't need to be black to do something about white privilege - presuming you acknowledge such a thing exists.
I already did: systemic socioeconomic disadvantage mean an overwhelming number of black children start out at the bottom of whatever society they are in, and have to be exceptionally talented and/or hardworking to achieve the same results as a merely competent white person (in most countries).

You're correct and that's my point. I already proved that Asian Americans didn't have the "white privilege" issues that Blacks have and you immediately excluded them from the conversation because they were immigrants. However, I would wager that Asians that have been here for generations still wouldn't have the "white privilege" issues that Blacks have.

Blacks by far are the minority screaming "racist" and "white privilege" more than all others. Even in nations that they have control of they don't seem to do much better on a worldwide basis. And if you take into account their standard of living in the US, then there is no comparison. So if Black Americans have the highest standard of living over all other blacks in the world. Well then I agree that Black Americans have "white privilege". Black Americans have the privilege or living in a majority white country and all the benefits that go along with it.

For the record, I think poor white people suffer many of the same disadvantages.  The difference is that their disadvantages effectively disappear if they are able to get money, whereas even rich black people still get hassled by the police (for example).  And even if I become wealthy, if I have teenaged kids, they will be treated just like any other black teenagers: dangerous criminals until proven otherwise.

I would agree that blacks are targeted by law enforcement more as a whole. However, blacks commit more crimes by far per capita when total population is taken into account. And as my last post pointed out, “empirical generalizations,” are the foundation of scientific theory. If law enforcement didn't work this way, there would be a lot more dangerous criminals on the streets today. If I keep breaking the rules at work, I'm pretty sure they are going to keep an eye on me.

That's like, your opinion, man.

I look at the progress of the last century and see the kind of effect that civil rights have had and continue to have.  In today's society, even racists like David Duke are afraid to openly claim that mantle... they have to couch their racism in terms like "protecting Western European culture."  They're scared to say n----- in public!  That is how thoroughly they have lost the battle.

Similarly, 20 years ago people would openly talk about how homosexuality should be outlawed and gays are evil.  But in 2017, homophobes have lost the war of ideas so badly that they can no longer come out and openly talk about how gays should be locked up... now people with multiple divorces are forced to hide behind "sanctity of marriage" as they try to hinder the lives of gay people.  And they have lost the marriage battle too, so now they move on to "religious freedom" as their last scrap to bitterly cling to.

So when you say that repeatedly talking about racism and white privilege won't change anything, I say history proves otherwise.

And yet still, while the whole country has made enormous progress in civil rights, blacks still lead in many negative metrics. There is only so much progress you can make before you get to a point of diminishing returns, especially in a country that is majority white.

Now, I do kind of agree with you that eventually whites will be the minority in America. But that will be long after me and my family are dead. But at that point America as we know it will be almost gone due to outside pressures. Anyhow, I find it incredibly ironic that Black Americans live under the blanket of White America and have the highest standard of living in the world bar none. And then complain about the manner in which it's provided. A simple thank you and a little help would be sufficient. Or maybe if you don't like it you could try being a resident of one of your successful black nations that you think exists.

[Sunstroke]

...Anyhow, I find it incredibly ironic that Black Americans live under the blanket of White America and have the highest standard of living in the world bar none. And then complain about the manner in which it's provided. A simple thank you and a little help would be sufficient. Or maybe if you don't like it you could try being a resident of one of your successful black nations that you think exists.

Just a heads-up...Bastardizing the script for A Few Good Men really doesn't make you sound any less racist.

...Just sayin'.

[pondwater]

Just a heads-up...Bastardizing the script for A Few Good Men really doesn't make you sound any less racist.

...Just sayin'.

Cool, another vote for pondwater is a racist. Although, I don't recall saying anything disparaging about any other races. However, I understand that's all you guys on the left have at this point, call anyone you disagree with a racist or something of the like. Thanks for the enlightening contribution. Now let the liberal mod circle jerk continue!

By the way, I don't have that particular script handy at the moment. But I'll have to check it out to see what you are referring to

[Spider-Dan]

Blacks by far are the minority screaming "racist" and "white privilege" more than all others. Even in nations that they have control of they don't seem to do much better on a worldwide basis. And if you take into account their standard of living in the US, then there is no comparison. So if Black Americans have the highest standard of living over all other blacks in the world. Well then I agree that Black Americans have "white privilege". Black Americans have the privilege or living in a majority white country and all the benefits that go along with it.

I still don't understand how the standard of living of black people in Nairobi means that black people in America should stop complaining about their schools being underfunded or their children being treated like hardened criminals.

Is your argument simply that black people are "lucky" to be in America and should accept whatever scraps they receive with a smile?  That doesn't exactly scream liberty and justice for all.

And as my last post pointed out, “empirical generalizations,” are the foundation of scientific theory.

The idea that stereotypes are the foundation of science is such thinly veiled racism that I hesitate to even call it veiled.  The idea that it is OK to judge and label people based solely on their race if a lot of people tend to fit that description is pretty much textbook racism.

A lot of black people are good at basketball.
James is black.
Therefore, because he is black, James is probably good at basketball.
This is racism.

I'd really like to hear exactly what you think "racism" is.  Is it limited solely to men in white robes lynching people while saying "I hate n------s", and affirmative action programs?

[pondwater]

I still don't understand how the standard of living of black people in Nairobi means that black people in America should stop complaining about their schools being underfunded or their children being treated like hardened criminals.

"Their schools?" Last I saw, public schools were integrated a long time ago.

Is your argument simply that black people are "lucky" to be in America and should accept whatever scraps they receive with a smile?  That doesn't exactly scream liberty and justice for all.

We are all lucky that we are American citizens. Black Americans enjoy the one of the highest standards of living among all blacks in the world. I wouldn't classify that as scraps. If any American citizen, regardless of race, thinks that they'll be happier somewhere else, they are free to go elsewhere. Otherwise, it's hypocritical to enjoy the American standard of living while simultaneously complaining about it.

The idea that stereotypes are the foundation of science is such thinly veiled racism that I hesitate to even call it veiled.  The idea that it is OK to judge and label people based solely on their race if a lot of people tend to fit that description is pretty much textbook racism.

A lot of black people are good at basketball.
James is black.
Therefore, because he is black, James is probably good at basketball.
This is racism.

I'd really like to hear exactly what you think "racism" is.  Is it limited solely to men in white robes lynching people while saying "I hate n------s", and affirmative action programs?

If black people as a group statistically make up a higher percentage of NBA basketball players than all other races. And James is indeed a black person. Well then logically, James is statistically more likely to be an NBA basketball player than other races. Statistics and probabilities aren't racist.

Racism is generally a belief that someone is inferior to you based on their race. Again, stereotypes are empirical generalizations with a statistical basis and thus on average tend to be true. If they are not true, they wouldn’t be stereotypes. Citing statistics about the black on black crime, single-parenthood in black communities, black poverty, ect. is not racist.

It’s racist to say that the reason for the issues faced by black people as a group stem directly from skin color. The issues faced by black people aren’t caused by skin color. But they are still connected to it according to the statistics, regardless of the reasons. Now, if you have a problem with the validity of statistics and numbers, fine. But citing or using them in a discussion doesn't make someone a racist. I am no better than you and vice versa, nor have I said or implied that.

[Spider-Dan]

If any American citizen, regardless of race, thinks that they'll be happier somewhere else, they are free to go elsewhere. Otherwise, it's hypocritical to enjoy the American standard of living while simultaneously complaining about it.

Strange that you do not advocate this "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else" philosophy when it comes to things you disagree with.

Don't like gun control laws?  Move to a different country.
Don't like socialism running up the debt?  Move to a different country.
Don't like welfare queens living off food stamps?  Move to a different country.

Let me guess: the policies you disagree with are against the fundamental nature of what this country is about, and so they should obviously be addressed immediately by our elected leaders.  Unlike the silly nonsense that other people complain about.

Again, stereotypes are empirical generalizations with a statistical basis and thus on average tend to be true. If they are not true, they wouldn’t be stereotypes.

This implies that there is no such thing as racism as long as you can generate "statistics" to back up statements that would otherwise clearly be racist.

So, for example: if I'm looking at IQ tests for white people and Latinos, and the average Latino score is lower than the average white score, it's "not racist" for me to say that Latinos are generally less intelligent than whites.  After all, I'm just "citing statistics!"

The idea that this is different from plain old racism in any meaningful way is absurd.  The use of statistics to (attempt to) justify racism is not some sort of innovative new wrinkle.  It was one of the primary arguments used to justify slavery in the first place.

[Tenshot13]

Where's Tommy posting MJ eating popcorn when you need it?

[pondwater]

Strange that you do not advocate this "If you don't like it here, go somewhere else" philosophy when it comes to things you disagree with.

Don't like gun control laws?  Move to a different country.
Don't like socialism running up the debt?  Move to a different country.
Don't like welfare queens living off food stamps?  Move to a different country.

Let me guess: the policies you disagree with are against the fundamental nature of what this country is about, and so they should obviously be addressed immediately by our elected leaders.  Unlike the silly nonsense that other people complain about.

It's amazing how I quote your whole posts and reply. But yet you chop mine down and pick out certain sentences to quote. Then proceed to spin them and take them out of context. Your game is tired. Anyhow, "white privilege" isn't a policy or a law. It's an imaginary unicorn used by social justice warriors to game the system.

This implies that there is no such thing as racism as long as you can generate "statistics" to back up statements that would otherwise clearly be racist.

So, for example: if I'm looking at IQ tests for white people and Latinos, and the average Latino score is lower than the average white score, it's "not racist" for me to say that Latinos are generally less intelligent than whites.  After all, I'm just "citing statistics!"

The idea that this is different from plain old racism in any meaningful way is absurd.  The use of statistics to (attempt to) justify racism is not some sort of innovative new wrinkle.  It was one of the primary arguments used to justify slavery in the first place.

Well if that's the case, according to you it's racist for someone to point out the following medical FACTS in a discussion.

Diabetes is 60% more common in black Americans than in white Americans. Blacks are up to 2.5 times more likely to suffer a limb amputation and up to 5.6 times more likely to suffer kidney disease than other people with diabetes.

African-Americans are three times more likely to die of asthma than white Americans.

Deaths from lung scarring -- sarcoidosis -- are 16 times more common among blacks than among whites. The disease recently killed former NFL star Reggie White at age 43.

Despite lower tobacco exposure, black men are 50% more likely than white men to get lung cancer.

Strokes kill 4 times more 35- to 54-year-old black Americans than white Americans. Blacks have nearly twice the first-time stroke risk of whites.

Blacks develop high blood pressure earlier in life -- and with much higher blood pressure levels -- than whites. Nearly 42% of black men and more than 45% of black women aged 20 and older have high blood pressure.

Cancer treatment is equally successful for all races. Yet black men have a 40% higher cancer death rate than white men. African-American women have a 20% higher cancer death rate than white women.

Anyhow, lets get back to James. Answer some yes or no questions for me. No need for your around the world deflections and distractions. These are simple odds and probabilities. You do understand what that is right? 

Is the vast majority of NBA players black?

Is James black?

Then wouldn't logic dictate you that overall James has a greater chance being in the NBA than people from different races?

[Spider-Dan]

Yes, yes, and yes.  Now let me show the problem that you run into when you try to use statistics to justify racist assumptions.

NBA teams have a roster of ~14 players.
There are 30 teams in the NBA.  30 x 14 = ~420 players in the NBA.
The population of the United States is ~318 million.  Oh, but NBA players aren't just from the USA... they are from all over the world, which has a population of ~7.5 billion, roughly 18.5% of which is of African heritage.  (U.S. population is about 12.2% black.)

So what does race tell us about a greater chance of being in the NBA when NBA players are only 0.00013% of the U.S. population and 0.0000056% of the world population?  It tells us nothing useful, because being an NBA player is already so incredibly rare that race is a virtual non-factor.  You might as well ask what day of the week they were born on.

But just as importantly: why are these statistical comparisons applied so narrowly?  Instead of asking the race of NBA players, why don't we ask what their eye color is?  It turns out that the overwhelming majority of NBA players have brown eyes... even more than the ratio of black:non-black players!

I invite the reader to consider why people who are happy to insist that correlations related to skin color are Purely Objective Science... consider why these same people never seem to get around to the statistical correlations of, say, hair color or eye color with crime.  Perhaps it's because those attributes obviously don't affect a person's decision-making process?

P.S. It would be rather easy for me to quote large blocks of text and completely fail to address almost all the points being made (as you did when you quoted all of my "if you don't like it, leave" points and then didn't address them at all).  I just find it more concise to pare the quotes down to the specific points I am addressing.

[pondwater]

Yes, yes, and yes.  Now let me show the problem that you run into when you try to use statistics to justify racist assumptions.

NBA teams have a roster of ~14 players.
There are 30 teams in the NBA.  30 x 14 = ~420 players in the NBA.
The population of the United States is ~318 million.  Oh, but NBA players aren't just from the USA... they are from all over the world, which has a population of ~7.5 billion, roughly 18.5% of which is of African heritage.  (U.S. population is about 12.2% black.)

So what does race tell us about a greater chance of being in the NBA when NBA players are only 0.00013% of the U.S. population and 0.0000056% of the world population?  It tells us nothing useful, because being an NBA player is already so incredibly rare that race is a virtual non-factor.  You might as well ask what day of the week they were born on.

But just as importantly: why are these statistical comparisons applied so narrowly?  Instead of asking the race of NBA players, why don't we ask what their eye color is?  It turns out that the overwhelming majority of NBA players have brown eyes... even more than the ratio of black:non-black players!

I invite the reader to consider why people who are happy to insist that correlations related to skin color are Purely Objective Science... consider why these same people never seem to get around to the statistical correlations of, say, hair color or eye color with crime.  Perhaps it's because those attributes obviously don't affect a person's decision-making process?

You're changing the subject again. May I remind you that

This tangent was originally about "white privilege"

Therefore this discussion has nothing to do with eye color, hair color, or any other random thought that you can come up with to deflect. It has solely to do with race.

As far as your numbers above, they are another attempt to deflect. If the topic is about the probability of a black person to play in the NBA. Then if 0.0000056% of the world population actually become an NBA player. Is the majority of that 0.0000056% likely to be black? Your answer was yes. How big or small the pool you're drawing the sample from has nothing to do with it.

P.S. It would be rather easy for me to quote large blocks of text and completely fail to address almost all the points being made (as you did when you quoted all of my "if you don't like it, leave" points and then didn't address them at all).  I just find it more concise to pare the quotes down to the specific points I am addressing.

Per previous quote:

Anyhow, "white privilege" isn't a policy or a law. It's an imaginary unicorn used by social justice warriors to game the system.

[Spider-Dan]

Therefore this discussion has nothing to do with eye color, hair color, or any other random thought that you can come up with to deflect. It has solely to do with race.

Well, yes: prejudging people based solely on their race is "the subject," but since you use statistical data as justification for evaluations that even you admit would otherwise obviously be racist, why can't we use the same statistical data to sort people out by eye color or hair color?  Statistics work on them, too.

If the topic is about the probability of a black person to play in the NBA. Then if 0.0000056% of the world population actually become an NBA player. Is the majority of that 0.0000056% likely to be black? Your answer was yes. How big or small the pool you're drawing the sample from has nothing to do with it.

The chances of being in the NBA are already so vanishingly small that whatever race you are is functionally irrelevant.  You might as well track how many consonants are in your name.

Anyhow, "white privilege" isn't a policy or a law. It's an imaginary unicorn used by social justice warriors to game the system.

1) That addresses nothing about "if you don't like it, leave."
2) Any discussion about "white privilege" is implicitly advocating changes in existing policies or laws; e.g. the policy of racial profiling by law enforcement.

[pondwater]

Well, yes: prejudging people based solely on their race is "the subject," but since you use statistical data as justification for evaluations that even you admit would otherwise obviously be racist, why can't we use the same statistical data to sort people out by eye color or hair color?  Statistics work on them, too.

Because that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Stop deflecting and stay on "the subject". Eye color and hair color have nothing to do with it. Are you trying to say that statistics are off limits when it surrounds the subject of race?
 

The chances of being in the NBA are already so vanishingly small that whatever race you are is functionally irrelevant.  You might as well track how many consonants are in your name.

Again, we're not talking about how small the NBA group is, you're changing the subject. We're talking about the fact that black people make up approximately 75% of the approximately 450 players in that pool. So no matter how insignificant you think the numbers are, you and I both agree that "James", because he is black(part of a statistical group), has a greater chance being in the NBA than people from different races. It has nothing to do with racism, it has to do with numbers, it's that simple.

1) That addresses nothing about "if you don't like it, leave."
2) Any discussion about "white privilege" is implicitly advocating changes in existing policies or laws; e.g. the policy of racial profiling by law enforcement.

First of all, who exactly are the purveyors of this so called "white privilege"? And who are the recipients of this so called "white privilege"?

[Spider-Dan]

Because that has nothing to do with what we're talking about. Stop deflecting and stay on "the subject". Eye color and hair color have nothing to do with it. Are you trying to say that statistics are off limits when it surrounds the subject of race?

We are specifically talking about using "statistics" to prejudge people.
You are claiming this is acceptable when applied to race.
If this statistical "logic" is sound, it should also be applicable to hair color, eye color, height, and other factors.  But you seem to reject that idea, for reasons you refuse to explain.

So then: why do you claim we can use statistics to prejudge people by race, but not eye color?

Again, we're not talking about how small the NBA group is, you're changing the subject. We're talking about the fact that black people make up approximately 75% of the approximately 450 players in that pool. So no matter how insignificant you think the numbers are, you and I both agree that "James", because he is black(part of a statistical group), has a greater chance being in the NBA than people from different races.

Where we disagree is what that "greater" chance actually means.  Statistically, you stand a "greater chance" of making it to the NFL if you are born in CA, TX, or FL.  Does that mean that people who don't live in CA/TX/FL should arrange to have their children delivered in one of those states to give them a "greater chance" of making it to the NFL?  Of course not.

This is the problem: you are leaning on statistics to arrive at conclusions you agree with, but when we expand your "I'm just reading the numbers" logic to ALL the numbers, suddenly I'm "changing the subject" by pointing out how absurd your logic is.  The bottom line is that justifying racism by using statistics only works if you start from the baseline assumption that race can affect the thing you are measuring.  Since you personally don't believe that eye color can affect your chances to make it into the NBA, you reject the use of statistics to reach that conclusion.

First of all, who exactly are the purveyors of this so called "white privilege"? And who are the recipients of this so called "white privilege"?

If you need to ask me who the recipients of white privilege are, I don't think this line of discussion is going to be productive.

[pondwater]

We are specifically talking about using "statistics" to prejudge people.
You are claiming this is acceptable when applied to race.
If this statistical "logic" is sound, it should also be applicable to hair color, eye color, height, and other factors.  But you seem to reject that idea, for reasons you refuse to explain.

No, we are specifically talking about "white privilege". You are trying to steer the conversation. We started talking about "white privilege" and I brought up valid statistics. Now you want to change the subject to "using statistics to prejudge people".

So then: why do you claim we can use statistics to prejudge people by race, but not eye color?
Where we disagree is what that "greater" chance actually means.  Statistically, you stand a "greater chance" of making it to the NFL if you are born in CA, TX, or FL.  Does that mean that people who don't live in CA/TX/FL should arrange to have their children delivered in one of those states to give them a "greater chance" of making it to the NFL?  Of course not.

WTF are you talking about? Put the joint down and flip back to the "white privilege" channel.

This is the problem: you are leaning on statistics to arrive at conclusions you agree with, but when we expand your "I'm just reading the numbers" logic to ALL the numbers, suddenly I'm "changing the subject" by pointing out how absurd your logic is.  The bottom line is that justifying racism by using statistics only works if you start from the baseline assumption that race can affect the thing you are measuring.  Since you personally don't believe that eye color can affect your chances to make it into the NBA, you reject the use of statistics to reach that conclusion.

For sake of argument lets say eye color can affect your chances to make it into the NBA. WTF does that have to do with "white privilege"? It's like two people debating the best way to build a table and you start talking about grits and celery.

If you need to ask me who the recipients of white privilege are, I don't think this line of discussion is going to be productive.

Of course it's going to be productive. Now, who exactly are the purveyors of this so called "white privilege"? And who exactly are the recipients of this so called "white privilege"?