[garygreen]

systematic oppression of millions of people of color.

Yeah, we're not very concerned about made-up shit that people keep claiming over and over without producing a shred of evidence. Go figure.

Two things: (1) how much evidence would you like?  And of what type: narratives, statistics, other?  What would you consider to be credible evidence?  You tell me your criteria for what would constitute sound evidence supporting my claim, and I'll do my best to provide it if it exists.  I'll put it in a new thread or something to keep from cluttering this one.

(2) Having had this conversation before, my guess is that we simply have incommensurate opinions on the definition or criterion for oppression.  You likely believe something to the effect that, "So long as the government doesn't overtly and legally restrict your rights, you are not oppressed."  I believe that power in general and oppression in particular operate much more broadly, diffusely, and subtly.

they were accused by the mob of being police-hired instigators whose sole job was to discredit the riot.

Well, that's actually happened before.  Like, a bunch of times.  There are plenty of folks alive in Ferguson today who remember those tactics being used by state and federal authorities.  They remember that the FBI was carrying out political assassinations against black community members at least as recently as 1969.

[Pete Svarrior]

(1) how much evidence would you like?  And of what type: narratives, statistics, other?  What would you consider to be credible evidence?  You tell me your criteria for what would constitute sound evidence supporting my claim, and I'll do my best to provide it if it exists.  I'll put it in a new thread or something to keep from cluttering this one.

I don't want to commit to a type or amount of data. "Institutionalised oppresion" is not something that's quantifiable or falsifiable in the strict sense. As such, any standard I could propose would be very unfair on one of us - either I'd demand the impossible or effectively concede the discussion before it even begins. Compare and contrast to another unfalsifiable hypothesis - religion.

It's easy to provide a bunch of statistics to show that there is an inequality of outcomes between American whites and blacks. I've witnessed that first-hand and need no convincing that it exists. Inequality of opportunity (which, in my view, is the only thing that matters here) is much harder to show positive evidence for.

(2) Having had this conversation before, my guess is that we simply have incommensurate opinions on the definition or criterion for oppression.  You likely believe something to the effect that, "So long as the government doesn't overtly and legally restrict your rights, you are not oppressed."  I believe that power in general and oppression in particular operate much more broadly, diffusely, and subtly.

"So long as the government doesn't overtly and legally restrict your rights, you are not institutionally oppressed" would be an accurate description of my views. If the institution doesn't oppress you, you're not institutionally oppressed.

If we want to take a step backwards and loosen it up to just "oppressed", then other forms of inequality of opportunity are fair game.

Well, that's actually happened before.  Like, a bunch of times.  There are plenty of folks alive in Ferguson today who remember those tactics being used by state and federal authorities.  They remember that the FBI was carrying out political assassinations against black community members at least as recently as 1969.

One of the most aggressive instigators was Mike Brown's stepfather. Again, while it's not impossible that the FBI paid him off to make him set his own hometown on fire in an orchestrated effort to discredit what was effectively his own riot, I do think it would require evidence of an unfair standard for me to actually entertain the thought.

Also, while I'm sorry that things may not have been great 45 years ago, that was 45 years ago, just 6 years after the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. No one's claiming that America hasn't had issues with institutionalised racism half a century ago. My grandfather remembers WW2, but he doesn't act like the war hasn't ended - because it has.

[Blanko]

Inequality of opportunity (which, in my view, is the only thing that matters here) is much harder to show positive evidence for.

Affirmative action.

[Pete Svarrior]

Inequality of opportunity (which, in my view, is the only thing that matters here) is much harder to show positive evidence for.

Affirmative action.

Touché...

[model 29]

White people: super concerned with justice in the context of economic goods owned by other whites, less so with justice in the context of systematic oppression of millions of people of color.

Would there have been riots and accusations of racism if it had been a white teenager shot and killed by a black cop?

[garygreen]

Also, while I'm sorry that things may not have been great 45 years ago, that was 45 years ago, just 6 years after the March on Washington for Jobs and Freedom. No one's claiming that America hasn't had issues with institutionalised racism half a century ago. My grandfather remembers WW2, but he doesn't act like the war hasn't ended - because it has.

So I'm guessing that your grandfather doesn't live in Poland. 

But whatever, you're using WW2 as an example of an event with no lingering effects, so I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me.

[model 29]

... but I just wish some of these "victims" would be held more accountable as well.

If a kid waves an airsoft gun that looks real in a park and doesn't drop it after the officer warns him, then it was the kid's fault. Where the fuck were the parents?
If a teenager assaults an officer then it was his fault....

Now you see there, 'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.'  I always knew you had some conservative/republican/right wing in you.

[Pete Svarrior]

So I'm guessing that your grandfather doesn't live in Poland.

Of course he lives in Poland. I'm a first-gen migrant.

But whatever, you're using WW2 as an example of an event with no lingering effects, so I'm pretty sure you're just trolling me.

No, I am quite deliberately using it as an event that does have lingering effects, but which is also indisputably not in full force anymore, even though it was some decades ago. It is, in my view, a very good comparison to your Nixon-era parables.

[Rushy]

gary really should lurk moar

[rooster]

Now you see there, 'Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.'  I always knew you had some conservative/republican/right wing in you.

Well I'm a moderate.

Thinking people should be held accountable for their personal actions doesn't necessarily make me a Republican.
My dad was also an LA police officer so I'm a bit biased. He has plenty of terrifying stories and he's a bamf. It's scary for police officers out there. I don't blame them one bit for trying to protect themselves.

[Tau]

the underlying cause of the looting is systematic, society-wide, state-sponsored injustice.

What exactly is systematic and state-sponsored about this?

And I mean today. Not in the past. Sure, there are some pricks who are racist, but there are no laws that uphold racism.

In this specific case there is evidence to back up an assault and that shots were fired in self defense in what seemed to be a struggle (backed up by the autopsy). Are you telling me it's a conspiracy to frame a black teenager so that the blacks will stay in their place? Do you have specific examples and laws to back up your outrage?

I don't really think it matters what happened to the kid. The actual issue here is the statistically provable, systematic racism in Ferguson, and many other similar places in America. Honestly, I don't think too many people actually give a shit about Michael Brown, although they'd never admit it. They care about what he represents, and they should. It's not like you can make a reasonable argument that the Ferguson police department isn't blatantly racist, given the statistics. And I don't think you can make an argument that Ferguson is the only place in America where that's true.

Also, I don't think I've been pretentious enough this week, so: to paraphrase Victor Hugo, it's a great crime to call something like this a riot. It's not a riot, it's an insurrection. Riots are about materials- insurrections are about justice and morality. They are rioters among the insurrectionists, but that doesn't make it a riot. A riot would be about food, or unemployment. The protests in Greece were a riot. The protests in Ferguson are something greater, because they're about justice and freedom. Now, to up the level of pretension even more, here's a quote from Les Mis:

However, insurrection, riot, and points of difference between the former and the latter, - the bourgeois, properly speaking, knows nothing of such shades. In his mind, all is sedition, rebellion pure and simple, the revolt of the dog against his master, an attempt to bite whom must be punished by the chain and the kennel, barking, snapping, until such day as the head of the dog, suddenly enlarged, is outlined vaguely in the gloom face to face with the lion.

Am I the only one who find it troubling that a quote about French Revolution-era bourgeois can so readily apply to us?

[juner]

the underlying cause of the looting is systematic, society-wide, state-sponsored injustice.

What exactly is systematic and state-sponsored about this?

And I mean today. Not in the past. Sure, there are some pricks who are racist, but there are no laws that uphold racism.

In this specific case there is evidence to back up an assault and that shots were fired in self defense in what seemed to be a struggle (backed up by the autopsy). Are you telling me it's a conspiracy to frame a black teenager so that the blacks will stay in their place? Do you have specific examples and laws to back up your outrage?

I don't really think it matters what happened to the kid. The actual issue here is the statistically provable, systematic racism in Ferguson, and many other similar places in America. Honestly, I don't think too many people actually give a shit about Michael Brown, although they'd never admit it. They care about what he represents, and they should. It's not like you can make a reasonable argument that the Ferguson police department isn't blatantly racist, given the statistics. And I don't think you can make an argument that Ferguson is the only place in America where that's true.

Also, I don't think I've been pretentious enough this week, so: to paraphrase Victor Hugo, it's a great crime to call something like this a riot. It's not a riot, it's an insurrection. Riots are about materials- insurrections are about justice and morality. They are rioters among the insurrectionists, but that doesn't make it a riot. A riot would be about food, or unemployment. The protests in Greece were a riot. The protests in Ferguson are something greater, because they're about justice and freedom. Now, to up the level of pretension even more, here's a quote from Les Mis:

However, insurrection, riot, and points of difference between the former and the latter, - the bourgeois, properly speaking, knows nothing of such shades. In his mind, all is sedition, rebellion pure and simple, the revolt of the dog against his master, an attempt to bite whom must be punished by the chain and the kennel, barking, snapping, until such day as the head of the dog, suddenly enlarged, is outlined vaguely in the gloom face to face with the lion.

Am I the only one who find it troubling that a quote about French Revolution-era bourgeois can so readily apply to us?

Do you have any sources for the statistics you mentioned? I'd be curious to see the data you are looking at. Also, you can be as pretentious as you want, it was still a riot by the definition of the word. It was less of an insurrection by that word's definition. Had they stormed the courthouse, police department, or some other government building, then you could argue that. They stole goods and destroyed property of private citizens. I suppose the police car that was torched could count... In the long run, all they did was damage themselves. This will die down in the coming weeks and no one will care about it anymore.

[markjo]

White people: super concerned with justice in the context of economic goods owned by other whites, less so with justice in the context of systematic oppression of millions of people of color.

Would there have been riots and accusations of racism if it had been a white teenager shot and killed by a black cop?

Apparently not.

While national news media continue to focus on race in Ferguson, Missouri, where a white police officer shot and killed an unarmed black teenager, they apparently don’t think a similar case in Utah with the races possibly reversed is that newsworthy.

Police in Salt Lake City are continuing their probe into an Aug. 11 shooting outside a 7-Eleven convenience store, when a police officer, whom local media are referring to as “not white,” shot and killed 20-year-old Dillon Taylor, who was unarmed at the time, according to his supporters.

[Ghost of V]

Damn those "not whites". Bunch of lazy kid killing kfc eating purple drank sombrero-wearing bukake loving unintelligible wellfare hogging taco and ramen loving mathematician bastards.

[Saddam Hussein]

You're really quoting World Nut Daily, markjo?  Ugh.

Anyway, white people do not have a long history of being racially discriminated against by black police officers, so that's a weak attempt to create an equivalency where there is none.

[Tau]

the underlying cause of the looting is systematic, society-wide, state-sponsored injustice.

What exactly is systematic and state-sponsored about this?

And I mean today. Not in the past. Sure, there are some pricks who are racist, but there are no laws that uphold racism.

In this specific case there is evidence to back up an assault and that shots were fired in self defense in what seemed to be a struggle (backed up by the autopsy). Are you telling me it's a conspiracy to frame a black teenager so that the blacks will stay in their place? Do you have specific examples and laws to back up your outrage?

I don't really think it matters what happened to the kid. The actual issue here is the statistically provable, systematic racism in Ferguson, and many other similar places in America. Honestly, I don't think too many people actually give a shit about Michael Brown, although they'd never admit it. They care about what he represents, and they should. It's not like you can make a reasonable argument that the Ferguson police department isn't blatantly racist, given the statistics. And I don't think you can make an argument that Ferguson is the only place in America where that's true.

Also, I don't think I've been pretentious enough this week, so: to paraphrase Victor Hugo, it's a great crime to call something like this a riot. It's not a riot, it's an insurrection. Riots are about materials- insurrections are about justice and morality. They are rioters among the insurrectionists, but that doesn't make it a riot. A riot would be about food, or unemployment. The protests in Greece were a riot. The protests in Ferguson are something greater, because they're about justice and freedom. Now, to up the level of pretension even more, here's a quote from Les Mis:

However, insurrection, riot, and points of difference between the former and the latter, - the bourgeois, properly speaking, knows nothing of such shades. In his mind, all is sedition, rebellion pure and simple, the revolt of the dog against his master, an attempt to bite whom must be punished by the chain and the kennel, barking, snapping, until such day as the head of the dog, suddenly enlarged, is outlined vaguely in the gloom face to face with the lion.

Am I the only one who find it troubling that a quote about French Revolution-era bourgeois can so readily apply to us?

Do you have any sources for the statistics you mentioned? I'd be curious to see the data you are looking at.

I dug a bit deeper and found an original source from before all this happened, to avoid bias:
http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf

Blacks in Ferguson are twice as likely to be stopped than whites, and twice as likely to be searched if they are stopped, even though stops of white people result in finding something illegal 1/3 of the time while stops of black people result in finding something illegal 1/5 of the time.

Also, you can be as pretentious as you want, it was still a riot by the definition of the word. It was less of an insurrection by that word's definition. Had they stormed the courthouse, police department, or some other government building, then you could argue that. They stole goods and destroyed property of private citizens. I suppose the police car that was torched could count... In the long run, all they did was damage themselves. This will die down in the coming weeks and no one will care about it anymore.

Storming the courthouse would require a level of organized, intentional, planned violence that would be actively idiotic unless your intention is to actually take down the government.

The difference between the two words, in practice, is that one implies that people are in the streets because they want change and the other implies they're in the streets because they want a new TV. That there are a handful of people who want a TV does not affect the fact that the vast majority want change. Rioting is necessarily a part of insurrection, but that doesn't make it any less an insurrection. Word choice is important. A fire that burns down a house is sad when you read about it in the newspaper. A conflagration burning down a house is terrifying.

[Pete Svarrior]

I dug a bit deeper and found an original source from before all this happened, to avoid bias:
http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf

Blacks in Ferguson are twice as likely to be stopped than whites, and twice as likely to be searched if they are stopped, even though stops of white people result in finding something illegal 1/3 of the time while stops of black people result in finding something illegal 1/5 of the time.

I hope you didn't deliberately omit the arrest rate. It appears right next to the statistics you've quoted. Just because contraband is found less often does not mean the stops/searches are not justified. Other crimes exist.

The only way I can see you having a point was if you were to claim that the huge disparity in arrest rates does not correlate with the crime rates for each race. Which, of course, is not impossible, but requires evidence.

[Pete Svarrior]

In fact, looking past the first page of the report makes it clear as day as to why the searches lead to less contraband being found among blacks than whites. 402 out of 562 searches on blacks were incident to arrests. They were routine searches performed for reasons other than a suspicion of contraband. That's 71% of all searches on black people (compare with 27/47=57% for whites).

It's almost as if searching for contraband when there's a good reason to suspect that there will be contraband to be found leads to more contraband being found. But I bet it was secretly racism.

[Tau]

I dug a bit deeper and found an original source from before all this happened, to avoid bias:
http://ago.mo.gov/VehicleStops/2013/reports/161.pdf

Blacks in Ferguson are twice as likely to be stopped than whites, and twice as likely to be searched if they are stopped, even though stops of white people result in finding something illegal 1/3 of the time while stops of black people result in finding something illegal 1/5 of the time.

I hope you didn't deliberately omit the arrest rate. It appears right next to the statistics you've quoted. Just because contraband is found less often does not mean the stops/searches are not justified. Other crimes exist.

The only way I can see you having a point was if you were to claim that the huge disparity in arrest rates does not correlate with the crime rates for each race. Which, of course, is not impossible, but requires evidence.

I did deliberately omit it, but only because I didn't want to have to do math. Blacks in Ferguson are twice as likely to be arrested at a stop, but that doesn't adequately explain the other information for a couple of reasons. First, the disparity is the result of outstanding warrants. That means that the intention of those stops is the arrest. You don't pull someone over and then find out they have an outstanding warrant for their arrest. You pull them over because you ran their license plate. Thus, that statistic can only explain 369 (actually 280, if we're just talking about the discrepancy) of the stops. Outstanding arrest stops barely even count, because their results are pre-determined and therefore cannot be influenced by race. Thus, the arrest rate is a little irrelevant.

Pulled the arrest rate out of the statistics mostly accounts for the disparity in search rate, but not the disparity in stop rate. I'm inclined to believe that DWB plays an important role.

More evidence for racial disparity: http://www.nbcnews.com/meet-the-press/meet-press-transcript-august-17-2014-n182641

Specifically what I'm looking at is that blacks are given, on average, 20% longer prison sentences than whites for the same crime. That number accounts for repeat offenses.

[Pete Svarrior]

Thus, the arrest rate is a little irrelevant.

There are twice as many arrests, and twice as many searches. The vast majority of the searches (>70%) is incident to arrests. If you double the amount of searches, assuming no other factors change, you raise the amount of searches to 170% of what it was before - that alone explains almost all of the discrepancy. The math here is really simple, and it really helps.