Trevor Noah lays it all out in this post. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v4amCfVbA_c

Also, Malcolm Gladwell's book Talking With Strangers also offers some perspective on policing (and race) in America.

Maybe, but then there is stuff like this:

https://eji.org/news/study-rich-blac...or-white-kids/

I‘m always curious - why are people so resistant to admitting that racism exists and going on from there to deal with it. All the other stuff is damp bandaids.

I listened to Trevor Noah's message and it was powerful. However, I felt he was giving the OK to loot in that he didn't say it was wrong. Instead, he excused it as pent-up anger over all the years of being discriminated.

Yes, we should focus on the discrimination.
Yes, black folks should be especially angry.
Yes, there's a problem with today's police force that needs to be addressed.
Yes, it's time for a change

But I don't believe all those looters were victims of discrimination. There are some people taking advantage of the situation in order to satisfy a huge arsehill urge. And that hurts the cause.

I'm glad to hear police all over the nation standing up against their racist colleagues. I'm glad to see protests on how Floyd died. I hope change will come.

Let's do this right and let's do this peacefully. Demand change within the police system, demand change towards equality and be a role model in all of this.

__________________
Faith isn't about everything turning out okay. Faith is about being okay no matter how things turn out.

Where do I say or even imply that? Do you do that intentionally? Do you think this kind of misinterpretation is helpful?

You definitely implied it.

You wrote that: "Given the socioeconomic realities, this could mean that black people are treated roughly the same as the whites in a comparable situation, but because poor whites are a smaller subset of their racial group than poor blacks, the racial average may look like blacks get handled more heavy-handed than whites although, in such a scenario, that's not necessarily the (main or only) reason. It sure looks like the US judicial system disadvantages blacks. But sometimes looks are deceiving, at least in part."

You were basically saying that blacks are not treated unfairly or differently from whites due to racism but that the problem is mainly because they can't afford better lawyers. You were therefore saying that racism is not necessarily an issue in that regard. There is no other way to interpret what you wrote.

Well I’m sorry if I misinterpreted your intent, however the correlation vs causation argument implies there is something in between race, I.e. socio economic Status, but it‘s not enough to explain the differences.


My comment about racism was not directed at you specifically, but more a general observation, so I am sorry if I offended you.


But nevertheless it exists and we spend a lot of time denying it (general we, Not you specifically)

You're either intentionally misunderstanding and ignoring all the conjunctives, or simply too think to understand what you read.

Nope. You got caught on a jordan petersonism.

Neither.

Ennui commented with "why are people so resistant to admitting that racism exists and going on from there to deal with it. All the other stuff is damp bandaids."

You had highlighted the bit where ennui wrote "why are people so resistant to admitting that racism exists" and commented back with "Where do I say or even imply that? Do you do that intentionally? Do you think this kind of misinterpretation is helpful?"

You were saying that racism is not the problem so much as it is that black people are economically disadvantaged and can't afford better lawyers. So while you were not necessarily directly saying that racism does not exist, you were saying that the problem is not racism in the judicial system so much as it is the fact that blacks are more economically disadvantaged. And so yes, I interpreted that as you basically denying that racism is a problem in the judicial system.

Anyways... It's pointless to argue about that any further, because it really just comes down to a matter or interpretation. And indeed, it is all too easy to read something that someone writes and not understand the full scope of their thinking or intention behind it.

Although I think it was more explaining rather than justifying. I‘m more worried about the violence being pinned on minorities when it‘s more likely to be the act of white supremacy groups.

We don't get to decide what is justified?

I mean, if you're a black man in america, getting killed by police is a leading cause of death.

https://www.latimes.com/science/stor...-for-black-men

You make it sound like following the law is a default human behaviour. We follow laws because there's a benefit, a predictability. If the laws of the land only benefit a segment of the population, the underdogs will eventually revolt when they hit their breaking point. At that point, they're going to burn it all down because they don't care anymore, that society doesn't serve them. America is not immune from human nature.

Not "in between" but "other than", additional. Trying to analyze or solve a complex puzzle, and that seems to apply to all larger societal phenomena, by claiming it's monocausal isn't conducive.

More than half of all black families are single-parent, basically all with an absent father/male, with the well-known consequences of risk of poverty and children's increased criminality rates. People decide for themselves whom they marry or divorce.

70% black kids are born out of wedlock. People usually mimick what they grow up with, that way fatherless households perpetuate or even increase their share. This is the mother's individual and sole decision?

These two phenomena are relatively new, their consequences probably well known, especially the above average crime rate among the children. They're self-determined by the mother, how can that be racist?

Obviously this list is far from conclusive.

No, it's not interpretation, it's simple logic.

You appear to ignore that a phenomenon may be caused by multiple factors. Not mentioning does not mean that the ones that are mentioned are the only ones.

That is where you go wrong, and don't tell me that isn't intentional, you're too intelligent and articulate to make such a mistake inadvertantly.

Welcome to my blocklist.

I don‘t think your assumption that the single parent household is the mother‘s sole decision is correct. Is not that a single cause to a complex situation?

Yet again a thread has reverted to a slagfest.

Why can’t you guys play the ball, rather than the player?

What about contraceptives and abortion?

Of course contraceptives should be decided by both on, but that doesn't keep either partner from deciding for themselves. A bit more difficult for the man but trivial for the mother. And abortion is the womans's sole decision.

Don't know what you mean there. Is it right, is it wrong?

Is it racist?

Maybe it has to do with socio-economic conditions?

Don't know, what's your opinion?