Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9072 total)
61 online now:
nwr (1 member, 60 visitors)
Newest Member: FossilDiscovery
Post Volume: Total: 893,216 Year: 4,328/6,534 Month: 542/900 Week: 66/182 Day: 38/16 Hour: 0/0

Announcements: Security Update Coming Soon


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   White Privilege
RAZD
Member (Idle past 641 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 211 of 276 (778932)
02-26-2016 5:00 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2016 4:14 PM


... now back to the (white) issues ...
Hillary Supporters Hiss At Black Lives Matter Protester Who Interrupts $500-Per-Person Fundraiser [VIDEO]

quote:
A Black Lives Matter protester was escorted out of a $500 per person Hillary Clinton fundraiser on Wednesday after she interrupted the Democratic presidential candidate’s speech, which was being held at the home of a Charleston, South Carolina attorney.

Video from the incident shows Clinton supporters hissing at the activist, Ashley Williams, while others call her protest “inappropriate.”


Ashley and the cameraman each paid $500 to attend the talk, so they were there legitimately, and should have been afforded the same privilege to ask a question.

After she and the cameraman were escorted out, Hillary turned to the all white audience and said "okay, back to the issues ..." white issues.

White privilege issues.

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2016 4:14 PM New Cat's Eye has taken no action

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 212 of 276 (778933)
02-26-2016 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 210 by New Cat's Eye
02-26-2016 4:14 PM


Re: some privilege
I don't feel it, I see it. And it's not just you.

It's the general way the concept is argued on the internet.

Consider it constructive criticism; the standard way of arguing against white people about thier privileges contains some counter-productive rhetoric.

I've been discussing this almost as long as I've been discussing evolution. I understand the counter-productive rhetoric.

But reminding someone that if they say 'black people' in answer to my dilemma what it is they are saying. They are saying 'let's be the ones to choose to disadvantage the already disadvantaged because our ancestors disadvantaged them', with a stark reminder of the magnitude of that disadvantaging.

I don't think a moral argument can be made to support this if the alternative is to say 'let's disadvantage the people who were advantaged by having ancestors who disadvantaged others who will now be advantaged to a greater degree than the the people we will be disadvantaging'.

Again - both are unfair. Apparently you'd prefer to rail against my terrible crimes rather than deal with the moral argument. Because white men's feelings are the thing I should spend most of my effort here to preserve, right?

After all, I should be sensitive to the fact that white men, especially American white men have had race issues thrust upon them without their consent and its not their fault! Not their fault. They aren't guilty. And they can't talk about the subject until the person their opponent puts it in a 24pt font, prints it on glossy paper and mails it to every person in the world.

I haven't even addressed that question.

Apparently you would now rather focus on how I've hurt some white people's feelings than the topic.

It's actually more succinct, for what its worth.

Maybe by word count,

succinct: marked by compact precise expression without wasted words

but what we're talking about is:

quote:
Person A being deprived of something in favour of Person B because Person B has something Person A does not would be an example of Person B's privilege in relation to Person A.

You adopted that format when you completely misunderstood privilege. This was me correcting your misunderstanding using the format you chose. Makes you kind of look bad when you try and win an argument in this fashion.

Person A has a disadvantage.

Or: 'Person B has privilege.' Again we adopt a certain parsimony of word count, for what it's worth.

So what am I supposed to actually do?

I already told you. As the slogan implies, you should first engage in introspection to see if you can puzzle it out yourself. If not, try a 'kind, receptive response that doesn't necessarily accept guilt while simultaneously treating the concern seriously. Such as 'if I am exhibiting privilege I am oblivious, please help me understand'.'

Here's a clue: Look at what you just said. If it makes any hidden assumptions about life experiences that others can conceivably have missed out on due to something out of their control, that's probably a good avenue to piece things together.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 210 by New Cat's Eye, posted 02-26-2016 4:14 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 245 by New Cat's Eye, posted 03-01-2016 3:14 PM Modulous has replied

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 213 of 276 (778946)
02-27-2016 2:17 AM
Reply to: Message 207 by Genomicus
02-26-2016 3:15 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
You are enormously privileged. Did you go to college? If yes, you had a greater chance of getting in because you're white. Because, e.g., SAT tests structurally favor whites. And SAT scores impact scholarship opportunities, too. And college choices, as well. Did you "earn" that privilege? Nope.

Going to college makes me "enormously privileged?" I finished college because I EARNED a GI Bill for sacrificing 8 years of my life. And all people in the military are guaranteed the same thing equally. Blacks, whites, latinos, Asians, men, women, gay, straight... Everyone. Equally.

You also likely come from a family who earned more than African-American families, on average, earn. That right there is much more opportunity provided to you -- opportunity that you didn't earn.

Oh, sorry, but everything I have is what I've earned myself. Maybe mommy and daddy paid for you, but they didn't pay for me. I'm sure you'd love to place me in the whiny, bratty privileged, spoiled, pampered white kid bracket that you're probably used to seeing. But you can't.

Your parents are/were likely more literate than the average African-American parent, because their parents had greater educational opportunities. So, as a consequence, you have the privilege of being more or less literate. This isn't something you "earned," either.

LOL! Everyone had the same public education with the same opportunities. My parents nor did I grow up in the Jim Crow era of the South. Are you serious?!?!?! Literacy rates are at like 99% of the entire population!

You probably had a more decent house than the average African-American, when you were a child. You probably didn't go to bed hungry as often as African-American children do. Guess what? That certainly impacts educational outcomes. Did you earn that better house and better food choices? Not really.

Stop spinning such a bullshit narrative that doesn't reflect reality. Almost no one "goes to bed hungry" in this day and age, and if they did, then they had shitty parents. Period. Stop laying everything at the feet of someone else for making shitty choices in life.

You've had a better chance of getting employment than your African-American peers by virtue of the color of your skin and (likely) your name. So your standard of living is higher.

My standard of living is less than the median income. I live in the same community with blacks, latino's, whites, Indians, Asians, etc. And I work with a very similar demographic. Sorry to disappoint!

And you didn't have to walk the streets at night fearing you'd be shot to death. By the police. Who are supposed to protect U.S. citizens but instead often choose to execute young black men in extrajudicial fashion.

The amount of anyone killed by police is not even 1%... It's not even close to .5% But I'm curious why you think that all or even the majority of shootings by police aren't justified. In fact, whites are the highest demographic killed by police. And as for homicides by race, blacks killed by non-blacks account for 10%. 90% of homicides in the black community are by other blacks. But, hey, don't let facts get in the way of your emotions.

Exactly as I suspected. You have an emotional bias towards not believing in your white privilege. A bit insecure, if you ask me.

And as I suspected... Victims and victimizers. That's all you see, and it clouds your judgment.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2016 3:15 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 214 by Modulous, posted 02-27-2016 8:25 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 215 by Genomicus, posted 02-27-2016 8:53 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


(3)
Message 214 of 276 (778954)
02-27-2016 8:25 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Hyroglyphx
02-27-2016 2:17 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Oh, sorry, but everything I have is what I've earned myself. Maybe mommy and daddy paid for you, but they didn't pay for me.

I'm sorry to hear that. You must have had a hell of an interesting childhood. What kind of vocation must a pre-vocal child endure so as to pay for its own food and clothing and medicine and healthcare?

Stop spinning such a bullshit narrative that doesn't reflect reality. Almost no one "goes to bed hungry" in this day and age, and if they did, then they had shitty parents.

Why would they be shitty parents? Is it because they didn't let their 18 month old get a job so he can pay for his own food?

But this is not only an empirical claim you are making here. But a claim that is notoriously wrong.

quote:
In 2011, child poverty reached record high levels, with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households, about 35% more than 2007 levels.[16] A 2013 UNICEF report ranked the U.S. as having the second highest relative child poverty rates in the developed world.
...
There were about 643,000 sheltered and unsheltered homeless people nationwide in January 2009. Almost two-thirds stayed in an emergency shelter or transitional housing program and the other third were living on the street, in an abandoned building, or another place not meant for human habitation. About 1.56 million people, or about 0.5% of the U.S. population, used an emergency shelter or a transitional housing program between October 1, 2008 and September 30, 2009.[18] Around 44% of homeless people are employed.

quote:
The US Census declared that in 2014 14.8% of the general population lived in poverty:[43]
10.1% of all white non-Hispanic persons
12.0% of all Asian persons
23.6% of all Hispanic persons (of any race)
26.2% of all black persons.

quote:
In 2013, child poverty reached record high levels in the U.S., with 16.7 million children living in food insecure households. Many of the neighborhoods these children lack basic produce and nutritious food.

quote:
Income levels vary along racial/ethnic lines: 21% of all children in the United States live in poverty, about 46% of black children and 40% of Latino children.[70] The poverty rate is 9.9% for black married couples, and only 30% of black children are born to married couples (see Marriage below). The poverty rate for native born and naturalized whites is identical (9.6%). On the other hand, the poverty rate for naturalized blacks is 11.8% compared to 25.1% for native born blacks, suggesting race alone does not explain income disparity.

quote:
In 2009 the number of people who were in poverty was approaching 1960s levels that led to the national War on Poverty.[10] In 2011 extreme poverty in the United States, meaning households living on less than $2 per day before government benefits, was double 1996 levels at 1.5 million households, including 2.8 million children

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_the_United_States

But yeah, shitty parents. And you worked hard to earn your parents. The parents that didn't feed, clothe or shelter you.

My standard of living is less than the median income.

Which median income?

quote:
The Census Bureau estimated real median household income at $53,657 for 2014 and $54,462 in 2013. Household income varies by race, with Asians the highest in 2014 at over $74,000 and African Americans the lowest around $35,000

For over 25s, the personal median is about $30K for white males. A little over $20k for black males.

The amount of anyone killed by police is not even 1%.

The probability is low yes.

Then again some people are afraid of being killed by terrorists. So much so they'll support measures to restrict everyones freedoms, inconvenience everyones travel, spend billions on military actions, kill thousands and thousands and thousands of people.

How many US citizens die because of terrorism? Difficult to be certain. What counts as terrorism, how closely associated should we allow to count. But most estimates I've seen put it in the order of magnitude of 10 per year.

How many US citizens are killed by police? Strangely, the government doesn't keep count. Citizens have tried, it's in the order of magnitude of 1,000.

Black people's mortality rate is a bit over 7ppm (people per million). Whites have less than 3ppm.

https://en.wikipedia.org/...icers_in_the_United_States,_2015

But I'm curious why you think that all or even the majority of shootings by police aren't justified.

Unfortunately, since police testimony is pretty unreliable (they are human and it would be strange for a human shooter to say things that will likely lose them their job and or liberty if they can avoid doing so) and since nobody is actually counting. It's tricky to say. Estimates suggest about 20%+ were unarmed.

Drilling down into the unarmed data further we see that in 2015, 224 people were unarmed when they died. 75 of these were black. 102 were white. Given there are almost 6 times more white people than black people in the USA, that would concur that blacks should fear negative or even fatal police intervention more than whites, don't you think?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2016 2:17 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 215 of 276 (778955)
02-27-2016 8:53 AM
Reply to: Message 213 by Hyroglyphx
02-27-2016 2:17 AM


On White Privilege -- Oh, and Black Lives Matter
Look, Hyroglyphx, you have a kind of knee-jerk tendency to get defensive on this subject. No one (well, not anyone here, anyway) is saying you haven't worked hard to get where you are today. I'm sure most of us at EvC forum, in fact, have worked hard to that end. That's not the point; I'm not here to critique your life. No; instead, I'm simply striving to demonstrate to you that you are -- by virtue of the color of your skin -- privileged in ways that blacks and other minorities are not. This isn't about making you feel guilty, either.

With that said, let me briefly eviscerate your arguments.

Going to college makes me "enormously privileged?"

Not what I said. I said:

Did you go to college? If yes, you had a greater chance of getting in because you're white. Because, e.g., SAT tests structurally favor whites. And SAT scores impact scholarship opportunities, too. And college choices, as well. Did you "earn" that privilege? Nope.

Since you will have a propensity for scoring higher on SAT tests, on average, than your African-American peers, you will have (1) a greater chance of being admitted to a college, and (2) greater choices in what colleges to attend, and therefore (3) greater scholarship opportunities (as many scholarships are awarded based on GPA + SAT scores of particular thresholds), thereby funneling more capital your way.

I cited Freedle (1999) in a previous post; this author outlined evidence that the structure of the SAT test is such that there is a distinct bias favoring whites, who thus score higher than African Americans by as much as 200 - 300 points (which, you know, can mean the difference between an Ivy League and a little-known state college). This effect remains for whites regardless of their socioeconomic status; in addition, the College Board's brief response is hardly satisfactory as there is an extensive literature that reinforces Freedle's (1999) argument.

And all people in the military are guaranteed the same thing equally. Blacks, whites, latinos, Asians, men, women, gay, straight... Everyone. Equally.

I'm sure you are familiar with the history of racism behind the GI Bill which lead to socioeconomic stratification (particularly, e.g., when it comes to housing and education) that favored whites in a way that it did not benefit African Americans.

Oh, sorry, but everything I have is what I've earned myself.

The evidence you will find delineated in this rebuttal will demonstrate that, actually, everything you have is not something you've earned wholly by yourself. Some of it is built on your unearned privileges granted to you by virtue of the fact that you were born to Anglo parents.

You probably had a more decent house than the average African-American, when you were a child. You probably didn't go to bed hungry as often as African-American children do. Guess what? That certainly impacts educational outcomes. Did you earn that better house and better food choices? Not really.

Stop spinning such a bullshit narrative that doesn't reflect reality. Almost no one "goes to bed hungry" in this day and age...

Umm, 10 million or so people would strongly disagree with you (many of which include children). Cook and Frank (2008) showed that, in 2005, 10.8 million people lived in food-insecure households where hunger was prevalent. Oh, and guess what? A disproportionate amount of these households are African American.

You didn't go to bed hungry. Lots of children in the U.S. do, however -- and a disproportionate amount are black and African American. That impacts educational outcomes in a negative way. So check your privilege before assuming that almost no one goes to bed hungry in the U.S.

...and if they did, then they had shitty parents. Period. Stop laying everything at the feet of someone else for making shitty choices in life.

Check your privilege. Again. Your white parents had an easier time finding jobs than African Americans in a similar socioeconomic bracket. In response to your last line, let me offer this thought by Charles Darwin:

"'If the misery of the poor be caused not by the laws of nature, but by our institutions, great is our sin."

It's easy for someone in a position of privilege to assume that someone else's parents were bad because they couldn't put food on the table. Period. When, in fact, the real reasons are far more granular than your coarse and myopic perspective.

You've had a better chance of getting employment than your African-American peers by virtue of the color of your skin and (likely) your name. So your standard of living is higher.

My standard of living is less than the median income.

Less than the median income of whites? Of African Americans? Is it above the median income of African Americans for your age group? Let me know on that, as I'm rather curious (though not in a creepy sort of way, ya know?).

And you completely sidestepped the fact that you're more likely to land a job than an African American candidate who is equally qualified. Are those better job chances you have something you earned?

And you didn't have to walk the streets at night fearing you'd be shot to death. By the police. Who are supposed to protect U.S. citizens but instead often choose to execute young black men in extrajudicial fashion.

The amount of anyone killed by police is not even 1%... It's not even close to .5%...

Umm, okay? The number of people who died on September 11, 2001, was about .001% of the U.S. population. What's your point?

But I'm curious why you think that all or even the majority of shootings by police aren't justified.

I could say something like "Ferguson."

But I wouldn't be referring to the Missouri city, though. I'd be talking about Malcolm Ferguson. An unarmed black man who was shot in the head by the police. Or Amadou Diallo, who was killed in a hail of 41 bullets by New York police. The connection between these two black men is interesting. Look into it.

Or I could mention Patrick Dorismund. Or 19 year old Tyisha Miller, who actually wasn't an African American male. She was a black female. Or Tanya Haggerty. And on and on. All of this was before Black Lives Matter was ever a hashtag.

Look, you're certainly privileged when it comes to the threat police are to your bodily safety. "All lives matter," defensive people of privilege offer in riposte to the chant of "Black Lives Matter." Of course, what these people don't understand is that if a white kid is gunned down by a cop, we can be very sure that that kid's skin color didn't count against him/her. The complete opposite is true if a black kid is shot to death by a cop.

And there is evidence to succinctly demonstrate this. For instance, when the Memphis Police Department adopted a more stringent and restrictive deadly force policy, the shooting rate of officers with that department dropped significantly (Sparger and Giacopassi, 1992). And, interestingly enough, the difference/disparity between African Americans and whites who were shot (African Americans are shot and killed by police at a disproportionate rate; see below) went down by half. Which nicely suggests that much of the reason for this disparity was the use of grossly unnecessary lethal tactics by police officers prejudiced against African Americans -- exactly what we'd predict if the thesis is correct that African Americans are disproportionately executed in extrajudicial fashion by racist thugs with badges. There are considerably more lines of evidence in support of that thesis, too.

So, yeah. A whole lot of police shootings of African Americans aren't justified at all.

But that's not something you need to worry about, huh? Your lack of a need to worry about that -- did you earn that privilege?

In fact, whites are the highest demographic killed by police.

That's a rookie statistical mistake you made right there. Of course more whites are killed by police because there are more whites in the United State.

The actually relevant thing we need to look at is percentages based on demographic size. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003 - 2009":

- Whites accounted for 42% of reported arrest-related deaths. And whites make up 63% of the U.S. population.

- Blacks accounted for 32% of arrest-related deaths. Blacks make up 12.3% of the U.S. population.

- 20% were Hispanic. Hispanics make up 17% of the U.S. population.

There is only one group in the above with a population percentage that's higher than the proportion of arrest-related deaths. Guess which one.

And those are the relevant statistics.

And as I suspected... Victims and victimizers. That's all you see, and it clouds your judgment.

Right. Because, you know, let's just pretend that America's police force doesn't have a racist streak when it comes to pulling the trigger. Because, you know, that might shatter beliefs about privilege, power, and modern race relations. Let's pretend it doesn't matter.

References

Cook, J.T., Frank, D.A., 2008. Food Security, Poverty, and Human Development in the United States. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences.

Sparger, J.R., Giocopassi, D.J., 1992. Memphis Revisited: A Reexamination of Police Shooting After the "Garner" Decision. Justice Quarterly.

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 213 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-27-2016 2:17 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 276 (778968)
02-27-2016 1:51 PM
Reply to: Message 207 by Genomicus
02-26-2016 3:15 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Because, e.g., SAT tests structurally favor whites.

quote:
"SAT Scores Drop" from IHE:


Combined SAT Score, and Changes Since 2006, by Race/Ethnicity

GroupCombined Score 2015 Change Since 2006
American Indian 1423 -27
Asian-American 1654 +54
Black1277-14
Mexican-American1343-28
Puerto Rican1347-16
Other Hispanic1345-26
White1576-6

And you didn't have to walk the streets at night fearing you'd be shot to death.

By the police.

Who are supposed to protect U.S. citizens but instead often choose to execute young black men in extrajudicial fashion.

Some people will believe anything they're told.

Instead of trying to kill us with laughter, why don't you just investigate your silliness before posting about it?

If you did, you'd see that on an interaction-by-interaction basis, it is white people who are more likely to be shot by police; and that by and large the biggest group killing young black men is other young black men.

You have an emotional bias towards not believing in your white privilege. A bit insecure, if you ask me.

There was nothing emotional there. In fact, I only see emotion coming from folks like you who insist on finding 'racism' everywhere it may not exist just to assuage their white guilt.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 207 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2016 3:15 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by Genomicus, posted 02-28-2016 2:07 AM Jon has replied
 Message 220 by anglagard, posted 02-28-2016 4:01 AM Jon has taken no action

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


Message 217 of 276 (778977)
02-27-2016 7:48 PM


Removed
Removed - wrong thread

Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.


Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

  
Hyroglyphx
Inactive Member


Message 218 of 276 (778988)
02-28-2016 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by Genomicus
02-26-2016 3:22 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
You are not quite addressing what Mod said. Very appropriately, Mod stated that "the question is about history." It's part of a "long history of race relations." So automatically stating that Asian Americans have an unfair advantage without a look at the history of race relations which explain better GPA and SAT scores is a grossly flawed line of reasoning.

I actually don't think that Asians have unfair advantage. I am pointing out that if Mod's reasoning is accurate, then the only logical conclusion is that Asians must have an unfair advantage given the results.

Asian Americans do have a statistical propensity for outperforming whites on standardized educational tests, yes.

Therefore Asian Privilege.

Or perhaps you are falling for a myth that's been repeated to you by pop culture, without considering that the cultural value hypothesis to explain this phenomenon has been empirically falsified. Anecdotal speculation is hardly evidence.

That's not an anecdote, that is statistically factual.

The whole notion that Asian Americans have academically outperformed other races because of a cultural emphasis on the "importance of hard work and strategizing success" has been largely refuted by data (see the work by Dornbusch and colleagues).

quote:
During the 1940s, labor unions specifically discriminated against Asians. So many Asian Americans were systematically excluded from manual labor jobs in a way that other minorities were not. This, coupled with advancing technologies and a post-WWII economy that demanded white collar technical professionals, meant that the only way for Asian Americans to achieve upward mobility was through education. They had no other choice, based on the racism of the 1940s.

LOL, yeah, okay... except that you're referencing the 1940's, as if ALL Asians living America now directly descended from that lineage. Many Asians in the United States are either 1st or 2nd generation, meaning, they never experienced the internment camps of WWII.

Blacks and African-Americans, on the other hand, have had to grope with systematic racism in a way that is much more deeply embedded and much more negative than encountered by other minorities.

Yes, I agree. The question is whether it is so profound today or even within the last 10 years that it prevents anyone from getting a job. The President of the United States is black. African-Americans account for 22% of the total US population. The only way for him to have been president is by white votes in droves. The bleak and desperate plight that you are trying to paint is more a reflection of the past, not the present.

We know that blacks and African-Americans, for example, score lower on SAT tests than whites. Why do you think this is the case? I'm curious here -- will you respond with knee-jerk anecdotal conjectures or actually look at the empirical evidence?

Okay, here is what is known empirically -- that African and Caribbean blacks emigrating to the United States also score higher than that of native African-Americans. This serves to prove that there are not racial reasons to account for the disparity (blacks are not inferior intellectually), that racism itself is not the culprit (since all of them are black), and also highly suggests that there are cultural reasons to account for the disparity.

Year after year, academia have tried several different methods to revamp the SAT, Intelligent Quotients, and other tests to ensure that it is as neutral as possible. And year after year, the same results prevail. So at what point are you willing to entertain, even for a second, that your theory cannot account for the disparity given so many controls being added and given the evidence that counters it?

And why would a culture promote or foster self-destructive behavior? You're ignoring the history of race relations -- and decades of oppression -- and what this means for present African-American communities.

Most cultures foster some self-destructive behavior. I would argue that Anglo-American culture has a very bad habit of perpetuating racism. I do not think for a minute that race does not factor in to it whatsoever, I only challenge that it is overstated and not an accurate reason for the disparity.

Sure. And there have been many anti-Semitic Jews. What's your point?

That it doesn't make you a de facto racist for noticing it.

Actually, it's not exactly discrimination. Here's an example: many whites (who are inordinately defensive about their privilege) think that Affirmative Action is "reverse racism" against whites. Well, let's tear this idea apart a bit. SAT tests are constructed in a way that positively inflate the scores of white test-takers, even whites who come from poverty (see Freedle, 2003). This is statistically significant.

The SAT and other standardized test makers have been trying for decades to devise testing that is not racially biased. And year after year the same results manifest. Also, what's your excuse for school grades overall that reflect the same disparity? So everything in academia is just inherently racist, right? C'mon man...

See, Hyroglyphx, you don't even understand the historical and cultural context behind so-called gangster rap. Here's to ameliorating your myopic perspective

Yeah, we all get the historical and cultural context... It doesn't make it healthy. I don't know if you've noticed or not, but the crime rates within black neighborhoods mean that they are attacking each other at greater rates. I suppose that also is due to white privilege?

many employers don't carry out criminal background checks. Those who don't often assume that a candidate with a black-sounding name will have a prior criminal conviction. This is systematic bias and racism -- employers who do run criminal background checks are more likely to hire African-Americans than those who don't. Your perspectives on race appear to need a great deal more of nuance.

You don't know any of this, you are assuming it because without it, there's no other way to account for the disparity.

Wow, you really don't get it. First, African Americans are far more oppressed today than Jews are in present-day Germany. Secondly, African Americans are faced with what amounts to centuries of institutionalized and systematic racism from all sectors of society.

So are Jews. Their numbers were cut down to a third and still their remnants managed to crawl out of their ghettos.


"Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by Genomicus, posted 02-26-2016 3:22 PM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Modulous, posted 02-28-2016 9:31 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action
 Message 240 by Genomicus, posted 03-01-2016 5:32 AM Hyroglyphx has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


(1)
Message 219 of 276 (778989)
02-28-2016 2:07 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jon
02-27-2016 1:51 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
Take a look at that table, Jon. It's not at all of a refutation of my point that SAT tests structurally favor whites; it's just more shooting from the hip emanating from your apparent lack of ability to rigorously discuss this subject matter.

Whites, on average (based on this table), score 300 points higher than blacks. So I suspect that you're endeavoring to highlight the fact that Asian-Americans, on average, outperformed whites on SAT tests.

But take a look at that link you posted. You'll see that Asian-Americans had a mean score of 525 on the Critical Reading section of the SAT, while whites had a mean score of 529. The study by Freedle (1999), along with other studies, mainly excoriate present SAT tests based on the Critical Reading section, which is favorable to whites given the methodology used to choose what questions will be used on the test.

That Asian-Americans score, on average, higher on the SAT does not in any way suggest that there is no structural bias in the test that favors whites. To argue otherwise would be to commit a pretty rudimentary slip in logic.

Anyways, most of your argument consists of vapid emoticons so I will move on to addressing this:

Instead of trying to kill us with laughter, why don't you just investigate your silliness before posting about it?

If you did, you'd see that on an interaction-by-interaction basis, it is white people who are more likely to be shot by police; and that by and large the biggest group killing young black men is other young black men.

First, you're failing to cite any source. Second, you're failing to define a vague phrase: "interaction-by-interaction basis." Third, I'm wondering what part of the following you don't understand:

The actually relevant thing we need to look at is percentages based on demographic size. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003 - 2009":

- Whites accounted for 42% of reported arrest-related deaths. And whites make up 63% of the U.S. population.

- Blacks accounted for 32% of arrest-related deaths. Blacks make up 12.3% of the U.S. population.

- 20% were Hispanic. Hispanics make up 17% of the U.S. population.

There is only one group in the above with a population percentage that's higher than the proportion of arrest-related deaths. Guess which one.

And those are the relevant statistics.

Once again, you aren't addressing the empirical evidence that's presented.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Jon, posted 02-27-2016 1:51 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Jon, posted 02-28-2016 2:36 PM Genomicus has replied

  
anglagard
Member (Idle past 73 days)
Posts: 2339
From: Socorro, New Mexico USA
Joined: 03-18-2006


(1)
Message 220 of 276 (778990)
02-28-2016 4:01 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by Jon
02-27-2016 1:51 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
I wonder what the test results would be if the test designers were straight outta Compton instead of straight outta Princeton.

Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider. - Francis Bacon

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by Jon, posted 02-27-2016 1:51 PM Jon has taken no action

  
Modulous
Member (Idle past 1340 days)
Posts: 7789
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 221 of 276 (779000)
02-28-2016 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 218 by Hyroglyphx
02-28-2016 1:08 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
I actually don't think that Asians have unfair advantage. I am pointing out that if Mod's reasoning is accurate, then the only logical conclusion is that Asians must have an unfair advantage given the results.

Therefore Asian Privilege.

OK fine, let's accept this so that we can get you to move on with the argument.

Given that Asian Privilege exists, when we are deciding to build a system that must discriminate against either white people or black people (to the advantage of the other), which people should we choose to discriminate against?

I have no fucking clue what Asian Privilege has to do with this, but you seem to think it's important so have at it.

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-28-2016 1:08 AM Hyroglyphx has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 222 of 276 (779005)
02-28-2016 2:36 PM
Reply to: Message 219 by Genomicus
02-28-2016 2:07 AM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
First, you're failing to cite any source. Second, you're failing to define a vague phrase: "interaction-by-interaction basis." Third, I'm wondering what part of the following you don't understand:

The actually relevant thing we need to look at is percentages based on demographic size. From the Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Arrest-Related Deaths, 2003 - 2009":

- Whites accounted for 42% of reported arrest-related deaths. And whites make up 63% of the U.S. population.

- Blacks accounted for 32% of arrest-related deaths. Blacks make up 12.3% of the U.S. population.

- 20% were Hispanic. Hispanics make up 17% of the U.S. population.

There is only one group in the above with a population percentage that's higher than the proportion of arrest-related deaths. Guess which one.

And those are the relevant statistics.

Once again, you aren't addressing the empirical evidence that's presented.

The evidence you presented is stupid. It's nothing but cherry-picked numbers judged against irrelevant scales (percentage of U.S. population? WTF? Do you realize that only matters if we think police should be going around shooting people at random and for no cause?).

This is really simple stuff, but your dogged determination to soothe your white guilt is blinding you to other-wise obvious facts.

quote:
"Police Kill More Whites Than Blacks..." from The Washington Times:

Based on that data, Mr. Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other races.

His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood, arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race of the person killed.

Killed by Police lists every death, justified or not, including those in which the officer had been wounded or acted in self-defense.

"The data doesn’t indicate which shootings are justified (the vast majority) and which are cold-blooded murder (not many, but some). And maybe that would vary by race. I don’t know, but I doubt it," Mr. Moskos said on his blog.

Adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown of the U.S. population, he said black men are 3.5 times more likely to be killed by police than white men. But also adjusted to take into account the racial breakdown in violent crime, the data actually show that police are less likely to kill black suspects than white ones.

"If one adjusts for the racial disparity in the homicide rate or the rate at which police are feloniously killed, whites are actually more likely to be killed by police than blacks," said Mr. Moskos, a former Baltimore cop and author of the book "Cop in the Hood."


Not that it matters one way or the other, because being killed by a police officer, especially for a law-abiding citizen, is far more rare than being killed by a criminal, and amongst black people those criminals are typically black.

So any black person walking down the street fearing for his life at the hands of police is delusionally paranoid, and likely just another victim of the fearmongering tactics of the mainstream media (which exists to make money, not actually inform people; and fear sells).

That Asian-Americans score, on average, higher on the SAT does not in any way suggest that there is no structural bias in the test that favors whites. To argue otherwise would be to commit a pretty rudimentary slip in logic.

Then what is that bias? And how does it 'structurally favor whites'?

Really it's just a test. Anyone can do well or poor on it regardless the color of their skin.


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by Genomicus, posted 02-28-2016 2:07 AM Genomicus has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 223 by Genomicus, posted 02-28-2016 3:34 PM Jon has replied

  
Genomicus
Member (Idle past 1178 days)
Posts: 852
Joined: 02-15-2012


Message 223 of 276 (779008)
02-28-2016 3:34 PM
Reply to: Message 222 by Jon
02-28-2016 2:36 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
The evidence you presented is stupid. It's nothing but cherry-picked numbers judged against irrelevant scales (percentage of U.S. population? WTF? Do you realize that only matters if we think police should be going around shooting people at random and for no cause?).

Yeah, but:

1. What I am establishing is that blacks are statistically more likely to be in an arrest-related death than whites. This is very rudimentary statistics, your deformed rhetoric and antics notwithstanding. At this point, this has nothing to do with why police are shooting the individuals under consideration; it is merely about demonstrating that if you are a black individual you are much more likely to be shot by police than if you are white.

2. The evidence and data I provided from the Bureau of Justice Statistics bear this out. You have done nothing to refute this evidence except for a rather unhinged display of mockery.

This is really simple stuff, but your dogged determination to soothe your white guilt is blinding you to other-wise obvious facts...

Based on that data, Mr. Moskos reported that roughly 49 percent of those killed by officers from May 2013 to April 2015 were white, while 30 percent were black. He also found that 19 percent were Hispanic and 2 percent were Asian and other races.

His results, posted last week on his blog Cop in the Hood, arrived with several caveats, notably that 25 percent of the website’s data, which is drawn largely from news reports, failed to show the race of the person killed.

Killed by Police lists every death, justified or not, including those in which the officer had been wounded or acted in self-defense.

"The data doesn’t indicate which shootings are justified (the vast majority) and which are cold-blooded murder (not many, but some). And maybe that would vary by race. I don’t know, but I doubt it," Mr. Moskos said on his blog.

Okay, wait. Your source is a blog run by a Mr. Moskos? Who said 25% of the data failed to report the race of the person being killed? Who made absolutely no use of statistical tests to demonstrate statistical significance? You've got a lot of work to do here, Jon, to show that this data is more relevant than the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

Not that it matters one way or the other, because being killed by a police officer, especially for a law-abiding citizen, is far more rare than being killed by a criminal, and amongst black people those criminals are typically black.

You evidently don't understand what this is all about. This isn't just about state-protected murder of black lives by police officers tainted with racist biases. This is one piece in a much larger puzzle, where the whole system (justice, educational, financial, etc.) is institutionally rigged against blacks and African-Americans and has, for decades, worked in the favor of whites.

So any black person walking down the street fearing for his life at the hands of police is delusionally paranoid...

Nope. The above statistics say nothing about police brutality which, fortunately, didn't end in death. They say nothing about shakedowns of individuals based on racial profiling. And on and on.

Let me put it this way. More innocent black lives have been lost this past year due to police shootings than due to domestic terror attacks by ISIS affiliates. So should African-Americans just suck it up and accept that the American police force has a racism problem? Let me know what you think.

Then what is that bias? And how does it 'structurally favor whites'?

It's largely the way SAT questions are chosen. The questions are primarily chosen based on the performance of whites, not blacks or Chicanos or Asians. This is because whites make up the largest demographic of SAT test-takers. See Kidder and Rosner (2002; How the SAT Creates Built-In Headwinds) for evidence to that end. The result is that blacks perform poorer on a test that structurally advantages whites because of a flawed design methodology.

Really it's just a test.

A test which can mean the difference between a college education and the lack of a college education. It's not "just a test." It's a test that's heavily weighted in the college admissions process, more so than more relevant factors (e.g., class rank).

Anyone can do well or poor on it regardless the color of their skin.

Yup. Doesn't change the fact that it favors whites by design, does it?

Edited by Genomicus, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Jon, posted 02-28-2016 2:36 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 224 by Jon, posted 02-28-2016 6:18 PM Genomicus has taken no action

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 224 of 276 (779019)
02-28-2016 6:18 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by Genomicus
02-28-2016 3:34 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
1. What I am establishing is that blacks are statistically more likely to be in an arrest-related death than whites.

And what you're establishing is irrelevant without looking further into the situations that lead to those arrests or how many arrests there are.

You can't use a calculator to find racism.

You've got a lot of work to do here, Jon, to show that this data is more relevant than the data from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

There's nothing to refute except the conclusions your drawing from the data.

The BJS information is fine; it is you who are cherry-picking it and ignoring other relevant factors to get it to conform to your narrative of "racism keeping the black man down".

If you bothered to look at the information, you'd see the numbers are almost identical.

It's the conclusions that differ. And they differ precisely because one conclusion includes all relevant information (overall arrest rates and circumstances of the arrest) while the other ignores as much of it as possible to focus on a single, not-so-interesting difference that alone tells us nothing in hopes of winning the 'spot the bigot' game and being awarded the Clear Your White Guilt prize.

This isn't just about state-protected murder of black lives by police officers tainted with racist biases. This is one piece in a much larger puzzle, where the whole system (justice, educational, financial, etc.) is institutionally rigged against blacks and African-Americans and has, for decades, worked in the favor of whites.

Do you have any evidence of that?

Or just a selective list of lame calculator tricks?

It's largely the way SAT questions are chosen. The questions are primarily chosen based on the performance of whites, not blacks or Chicanos or Asians. This is because whites make up the largest demographic of SAT test-takers. See Kidder and Rosner (2002; How the SAT Creates Built-In Headwinds) for evidence to that end. The result is that blacks perform poorer on a test that structurally advantages whites because of a flawed design methodology.

There is no fundamental difference between white people and black people.

You do know that, right?


Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by Genomicus, posted 02-28-2016 3:34 PM Genomicus has taken no action

Replies to this message:
 Message 225 by vimesey, posted 02-29-2016 1:39 AM Jon has replied

  
vimesey
Member
Posts: 1308
From: Birmingham, England
Joined: 09-21-2011
Member Rating: 2.8


Message 225 of 276 (779030)
02-29-2016 1:39 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by Jon
02-28-2016 6:18 PM


Re: the history and mathematics of prejudice
There is no fundamental difference between white people and black people.

You do know that, right?

I've been following the debate for a while, and I think that a real example of a specific instance might assist here.

With reference to the discussion about the SATs, my mother ran a school several years ago over here in the UK. It was an inner city school, and as a result of the local demographics, approximately 95% of the pupils were of Asian ethnic origin (principally Pakistani, but other Asian origin communities too).

Birmingham ran a school quiz competition each year. Not quite the same thing as the SATs, obviously, but in the ball park. Schools chose teams of 4 of their best and brightest, and entered them for heats and eventually a big finals day (if I recall the format correctly).

My mother's school team consisted of 4 Asian origin children, and they did really well and reached the finals event. They were up against a number of other schools, where the majority of children were of white origin, which is understandable, reflecting the demographic mix of the city more widely.

When they got knocked out, by a narrow margin, the quiz questions included a section based on nursery rhymes. ("What did the farmer's wife use to cut off the tails of the three blind mice ?" - that sort of thing). My mother's school children didn't score a single point in that round. Not because they were unintelligent, or lacked reasonable general knowledge - but because culturally they had been read different nursery rhymes and stories when they were little.

Now there was clearly no intent to favour white children with the questions - when my mother raised it with the organisers, they were mortified. But this is a real example of how, when setting a test, which you are hoping will allow the kids to perform entirely according to their intelligence, the examiners can still introduce an element of cultural bias, however unconsciously.

That section of questions favoured kids from a white background, regardless of their relative intelligence. Would you agree Jon ?


Could there be any greater conceit, than for someone to believe that the universe has to be simple enough for them to be able to understand it ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by Jon, posted 02-28-2016 6:18 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by Hyroglyphx, posted 02-29-2016 2:28 AM vimesey has replied
 Message 228 by Jon, posted 02-29-2016 8:08 AM vimesey has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022