Do you have something which would show that any of this is inaccurate?
White privilege... best explaination I have heard
Started by MachineGunSteve [184119] on in Politics & Law.
Posts archived: 354 / 354 posts (100%) · the total is Torn's reply count + the opening post at the last fetch
"Black families have gained 33% more generational wealth while white families have gained 3% in 2019 i think it was, granted that doesnt change the overall disparity between the 2 groups but it does show a sign of things getting better."
I know, I'm not busting your balls. Just providing a source which has the answers to some of what you and Wise were going back and forth about. A 30% increase is fantastic however there is a way to go in order to narrow the wealth gap.
He downvoted my earlier post too which just posted a reference to the Doctor Seuss publisher.
Hoch does not agree with Cancel Culture, unless he's the one doing the cancelling.
The main problem is, he's a racist. But since he would never admit that about himself, he will never change. You have to admit you have a problem in order to correct it. I do not care what his ethnic background is, his religion, his origin or the color of his skin. He's still a racist.
There's no point in trying to discuss this logically. You and others here are simply trying to present established facts. He's actively engaged in cognitive dissonance that allows him to continue to feel good about his prejudices.
Eventually, you realize the pointlessness of arguing and stop, He continues to spout bullshit until it appears he's "won" by having the last word, when in fact no one is listening any more.
We saw what's happened to popadapill and others who persist in discriminatory behavior. My advice is wait him out, he will eventually cross the line one too many times and he will join our buddy here on the fedded list.
I guess you could say he was cancelled -- Torn does not tolerate discriminatory behavior.
Hate speech and direct or indirect derogatory words / slurs regarding ethnic origin, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, misogyny or misandry. This includes any text, imagery or flags displayed in support of discrimination, real-world terrorism or Nazism.
[image: gyazo.com]
Hoch does not agree with Cancel Culture, unless he's the one doing the cancelling.
The main problem is, he's a racist. But since he would never admit that about himself, he will never change. You have to admit you have a problem in order to correct it. I do not care what his ethnic background is, his religion, his origin or the color of his skin. He's still a racist.
There's no point in trying to discuss this logically. You and others here are simply trying to present established facts. He's actively engaged in cognitive dissonance that allows him to continue to feel good about his prejudices.
Eventually, you realize the pointlessness of arguing and stop, He continues to spout bullshit until it appears he's "won" by having the last word, when in fact no one is listening any more.
We saw what's happened to popadapill and others who persist in discriminatory behavior. My advice is wait him out, he will eventually cross the line one too many times and he will join our buddy here on the fedded list.
I guess you could say he was cancelled -- Torn does not tolerate discriminatory behavior.
Discrimination
Hate speech and direct or indirect derogatory words / slurs regarding ethnic origin, religion, gender identity, sexual orientation, disability, misogyny or misandry. This includes any text, imagery or flags displayed in support of discrimination, real-world terrorism or Nazism.
[image: gyazo.com]
![[image: gyazo.com]](https://gyazo.com/8a577e801565370e176c9e8cd081cc60.bmp){kind=link}
what a bogus set of claims entirely.
Edit:
Who hurt you?
It's a blunt question but finding out how people like you warp simple logic, lack critical thinking and lack a simple understanding of empirical research could help us prevent this in future generations.
It's not bad to not understand everything that goes on, it's realistic. But lacking the ability to be comprehend or judge newly presented information with no bias is detrimental to society. Even people who know how to do that need to keep bias in check and it seeps in naturally.
The type of person who isn't aware of these flaws of self can not progress. As mentioned the cognitive dissonance in these people is outrageous.
Sincerely curious.
Who hurt you?
It's a blunt question but finding out how people like you warp simple logic, lack critical thinking and lack a simple understanding of empirical research could help us prevent this in future generations.
It's not bad to not understand everything that goes on, it's realistic. But lacking the ability to be comprehend or judge newly presented information with no bias is detrimental to society. Even people who know how to do that need to keep bias in check and it seeps in naturally.
The type of person who isn't aware of these flaws of self can not progress. As mentioned the cognitive dissonance in these people is outrageous.
Sincerely curious.
It's a long list. To keep it short
Liberals, and non-white non conservative people.
Liberals, and non-white non conservative people.
[background color=var(--bbc-body-bg-color)]Despite using drugs about the same amount[/background]
Ah. Well, that's a whole 'nother can of worms. How did they determine that drug use is the same?
Well, I went and looked at the study you linked, and they cited that they got their data from the 2005 samhsa, so I looked at that to see where they got their data.
And it says they asked people about their illegal drug habits.
SAMHSA is part of the US government.
People from the US government asked people about them doing illegal drugs.
Seriously.
So you're relying on people in white culture and black culture to self-report to the government about using illegal drugs, at the same rate.
In a society where your exact point is that black people get punished more for it.
By the government.
You see the irony of that, right?
I took a look at 2 more of the studies you posted and saw glaring flaws, in them, as well. It's certainly data. But is it good data.
Totally agree on few papers I've read being posted. That being said, it might not be foolproof data but it's better than speculation
If the data is too compromised to make certain assumptions from it should always be open to discussion.
In this case I'd say ya you have a point, however your argument looks anecdotal to me. I can put up the same argument with and switch up the colours.
If the data is too compromised to make certain assumptions from it should always be open to discussion.
In this case I'd say ya you have a point, however your argument looks anecdotal to me. I can put up the same argument with and switch up the colours.
The entirety of their study and results were based on the data from a different very non-scientific study that depended on people volunteering information about their own illegal activities.
I took the anecdotal part of my post out, if it's going to be a distraction I don't need it.
The foundation of that study is built on bad data.
Not much of a study, then.
Bad data is worse than no data imo.
I took the anecdotal part of my post out, if it's going to be a distraction I don't need it.
The foundation of that study is built on bad data.
Not much of a study, then.
Bad data is worse than no data imo.
It has more risks involved because people not knowing how to properly judge the validity of data.
However bad data can be the gateway to good data.
Whether it's addressing the faults and correcting them or coming with new research to debunk previous faulty research.
Almost makes me want research to be in a new global language, so people not able to distinguish between good and bad research can't even make bogus conclusions.
However bad data can be the gateway to good data.
Whether it's addressing the faults and correcting them or coming with new research to debunk previous faulty research.
Almost makes me want research to be in a new global language, so people not able to distinguish between good and bad research can't even make bogus conclusions.
Do you have any data to show that the SAMHSA study was flawed or any studies that got different results. I don't know quite what you point is, so unless you have data to show that my data was flawed or if you have any issues with the way the data was collected, you don't actually have an argument.
The Ferguson study actually showed that black people were less likely than white people to be in possession of drugs during traffic stops, same with the North Carolina study. Again, you have no data to show that black and white Americans use drugs at different rates, and especially not at the level which would explain the massive discrepancies in incarceration.
Mind telling me what the "glaring flaws" in my data was? If you think my data is bad, you need to tell me which studies and why they were wrong. Then you need to provide data from reputable sources that contradicts my claims.
We can discuss this, but you need to be specific with your arguments.
The Ferguson study actually showed that black people were less likely than white people to be in possession of drugs during traffic stops, same with the North Carolina study. Again, you have no data to show that black and white Americans use drugs at different rates, and especially not at the level which would explain the massive discrepancies in incarceration.
Mind telling me what the "glaring flaws" in my data was? If you think my data is bad, you need to tell me which studies and why they were wrong. Then you need to provide data from reputable sources that contradicts my claims.
We can discuss this, but you need to be specific with your arguments.
What's wrong with the data? Just because it's the government asking people about their illicit drug habits doesn't make it inherently wrong.
That was the "anecdotal" part that I removed.
Because black people are targeted they are LESS likely to admit to the government that they are doing illegal stuff.
I don't have a scientific study, just a lifetime where I've had more black friends than white friends, so I removed that part of my post.
In my predominantly black high school we literally took a survey from the government asking about illicit drug use. It likely is literally what SAMHSA uses. We literally were supposed to bubble-fill our names on the anonymous survey, so you can imagine the level of honesty involved, We joked and laughed as we filled it out falsely. I selected drugs I'd never even heard of. The results were not worth tabulating, I'm quite certain.
My experience is that black people are way less likely to self report taking illegal drugs to the government. Especially if they're using illegal drugs. But that "study" assumes that they are equally likely to self report.
A bad basis that isn't scientific at all, even if it happened to accidentally be true, which again I very much think it isn't.
Because black people are targeted they are LESS likely to admit to the government that they are doing illegal stuff.
I don't have a scientific study, just a lifetime where I've had more black friends than white friends, so I removed that part of my post.
In my predominantly black high school we literally took a survey from the government asking about illicit drug use. It likely is literally what SAMHSA uses. We literally were supposed to bubble-fill our names on the anonymous survey, so you can imagine the level of honesty involved, We joked and laughed as we filled it out falsely. I selected drugs I'd never even heard of. The results were not worth tabulating, I'm quite certain.
My experience is that black people are way less likely to self report taking illegal drugs to the government. Especially if they're using illegal drugs. But that "study" assumes that they are equally likely to self report.
A bad basis that isn't scientific at all, even if it happened to accidentally be true, which again I very much think it isn't.
That Ferguson study was one of the others I looked at that was deeply flawed, yes.
Doesn't black people being pulled over at a higher rate because of their race prove the existence of systemic racism in policing? I'm not quite sure if you take issue with the whole claim or if you just have an issue with the drug stat.
I'm also not quite sure why you put "study" in quotes, especially because you have yet to provide any data of your own or show any concrete flaws with the methodology.
If you believe that black people are pulled over at a higher rate because of their race, wouldn't that also contribute to their disproportionate rate of incarceration for drug related crimes? The Ferguson study showed that even when controlling for other variables, black people were still more likely to be searched during traffic stop. Wouldn't that suggest that white people use drugs at a higher rate than black people?
I really need to see data to show significant differences in drug use between racial groups, because to date, all the data I've seen has suggested that black people in the US use drugs at about the same rate as white people in the US.
Right now, all you've provided is an opinion, if you have no data, you have no argument.
I'm also not quite sure why you put "study" in quotes, especially because you have yet to provide any data of your own or show any concrete flaws with the methodology.
If you believe that black people are pulled over at a higher rate because of their race, wouldn't that also contribute to their disproportionate rate of incarceration for drug related crimes? The Ferguson study showed that even when controlling for other variables, black people were still more likely to be searched during traffic stop. Wouldn't that suggest that white people use drugs at a higher rate than black people?
I really need to see data to show significant differences in drug use between racial groups, because to date, all the data I've seen has suggested that black people in the US use drugs at about the same rate as white people in the US.
Right now, all you've provided is an opinion, if you have no data, you have no argument.
I'm a liberal. I'm fully aware of the systemic racism in policing. And I believe it's a serious problem.
But the fake stats aren't helping.
Stats should be real, not fabricated to prove a point.
The methodology is inherently flawed for the drug-use-responding, you're saying that assuming all cultures are the same isn't an inherently obviously flawed methodology?
A study that collates random data isn't a real study. The responses aren't real and collating them and calling it a study is a joke. And basing another study off of clearly bad data is another joke.
Anyway, the next study you referenced:
The Ferguson information. 67.4% of the citizens were black. Let me start by saying, that's a lot.
Here where I work currently, in Johnson County KC, it is predominantly upper-middle whites and there are not many non-speeding traffic stops at all. When I stayed near the ghetto the traffic stops were a far higher volume, for both legit and bad reasons.
It makes sense to patrol areas with more crime and more danger, though, which often includes ghettos. I've seen Ferguson referred to as a suburban ghetto a number of times. So combine the traditionally higher police presence with systemic racism and honestly the only part of the 85% traffic stops number I'm surprised about is how low it is (only 17.6% more than the population).
The government asking people to self report their illegal drug usage is not a good way to determine illegal drug usage numbers. I don't think there is a good way to scientifically determine it. And it's not inherently bad to have false numbers. We just have to discuss it and be aware that there's no reasonable expectation for it to be accurate.
But. As weed becomes more and more legal, I do expect illicit drug use to become much lower among black people than white people.
Obviously both will be much reduced if weed is legal.
But the fake stats aren't helping.
Stats should be real, not fabricated to prove a point.
The methodology is inherently flawed for the drug-use-responding, you're saying that assuming all cultures are the same isn't an inherently obviously flawed methodology?
A study that collates random data isn't a real study. The responses aren't real and collating them and calling it a study is a joke. And basing another study off of clearly bad data is another joke.
Anyway, the next study you referenced:
The Ferguson information. 67.4% of the citizens were black. Let me start by saying, that's a lot.
Here where I work currently, in Johnson County KC, it is predominantly upper-middle whites and there are not many non-speeding traffic stops at all. When I stayed near the ghetto the traffic stops were a far higher volume, for both legit and bad reasons.
It makes sense to patrol areas with more crime and more danger, though, which often includes ghettos. I've seen Ferguson referred to as a suburban ghetto a number of times. So combine the traditionally higher police presence with systemic racism and honestly the only part of the 85% traffic stops number I'm surprised about is how low it is (only 17.6% more than the population).
If you believe that black people are pulled over at a higher rate because of their race, wouldn't that also contribute to their disproportionate rate of incarceration for drug related crimes?Your own post has a study that says black people have 10x the rate of incarcerations for drugs. Sure, the increased traffic stops is part of that. But obviously 10x is a bigger number. More like a 900% increase, far larger than going from 67.4% to 85%.
Wouldn't that suggest that white people use drugs at a higher rate than black people?No, it indicates that white people are more comfortable driving with drugs in their car. Because we're less likely to be pulled over. Back when I was a youngster and was living that life, for 2 years I kept my bongs, grinder, pipes, and weed in my trunk. My black friends were nonplussed. They couldn't imagine doing that.
The government asking people to self report their illegal drug usage is not a good way to determine illegal drug usage numbers. I don't think there is a good way to scientifically determine it. And it's not inherently bad to have false numbers. We just have to discuss it and be aware that there's no reasonable expectation for it to be accurate.
But. As weed becomes more and more legal, I do expect illicit drug use to become much lower among black people than white people.
Obviously both will be much reduced if weed is legal.
No, it indicates that white people are more comfortable driving with drugs in their car. Because we're less likely to be pulled over.
This is what I get out of it too. The higher usage claim is based off what?
This is what I get out of it too. The higher usage claim is based off what?
Basically like the collatz conjecture, all of it boils down to one value: capitalism.
Racism, inequality, class, even gender are defined within the capitalist model based on their commodified value aacribed to them.
Until we reckon with its inherent faults, the more time we'll squander debating the finer points of who gets what and who gets less by design.
Racism, inequality, class, even gender are defined within the capitalist model based on their commodified value aacribed to them.
Until we reckon with its inherent faults, the more time we'll squander debating the finer points of who gets what and who gets less by design.
you know why blacks are more likely to be targeted? because they commit the majority of the crimes in the US and it is mostly black on black crime.
and now i am going to get a bunch ore bounties put on me right cancel culturistic, commie, ineptes cannas
and now i am going to get a bunch ore bounties put on me right cancel culturistic, commie, ineptes cannas