The Flat Earth Society

Other Discussion Boards => Philosophy, Religion & Society => Topic started by: Saddam Hussein on November 25, 2014, 02:31:43 AM

Title: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 25, 2014, 02:31:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/25/us/ferguson-darren-wilson-shooting-michael-brown-grand-jury.html

Inb4 what's left of the town goes up in flames.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Hoppy on November 25, 2014, 02:46:46 AM
Thank God the white people won, for change.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 25, 2014, 03:08:03 AM
No indictment. Turns out all of the alleged witnesses admitted they weren't even at the scene. Wow.

FERGUSON ALERT – Violent protesters, SHOTS FIRED, looting, bricks being thrown at police. Numerous law enforcement agencies radio traffic on “interoperability” (IO) talk groups is very heavy. Helicopters remain in the air over Ferguson.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Hoppy on November 25, 2014, 04:49:49 AM
They are trying to torch a Walgreens, looting a meat market and torching that. Idiots.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on November 25, 2014, 09:16:23 AM
It's so hard to have faith in humanity when they do shit like this.

"I hate the police so I'm gonna burn a Walgreen's!"
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 25, 2014, 01:28:54 PM
omg people on FB are getting way too emotional and irrational.

From the evidence it seems like the officer could have been legitimately defending himself but now everyone is using this case to fight police brutality.
I feel for the cops right now. This will just cause more resentment towards them when obviously they're just people and there are a lot of great ones in uniform.

Apparently there's going to be a protest in Nashville tonight. I don't know what the fuck anyone hopes to accomplish. I guess cameras on officers would be feasible, 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.
What the fuck, people. I wish some of these assholes would spend a week in uniform and see how terrifying it can be. I'd like to see what they do if someone pointed a realistic gun at them.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 25, 2014, 01:50:23 PM
I think the real lesson here is don't rob a fucking convenience store.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 25, 2014, 02:19:55 PM
I think the real lesson here is don't rob a fucking convenience store.
EVEN IF HE DID ROB A STOER AND ASSALT THE POPO, THE POPO SHULD HAV JUST USED PEPPR SPRAY!!! >o<

ACAB!!!!1!
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on November 25, 2014, 04:00:16 PM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: junker on November 25, 2014, 04:03:41 PM
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.

Yes, I am sure no "people of color" were affected by "justice in the context of economic goods" with their own community being burned down. Get off your high horse and stop being so pious.

Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on November 25, 2014, 04:37:07 PM
They should just disband the police force.  See how long the riots last before burning themselves out.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on November 25, 2014, 04:56:43 PM
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.

Yes, I am sure no "people of color" were affected by "justice in the context of economic goods" with their own community being burned down. Get off your high horse and stop being so pious.

Christ.  I'm sure there were.  Obviously not my point.  My point is that the same people who are so loudly decrying the injustice of looting a Walgreens don't seem to give a shit that the underlying cause of the looting is systematic, society-wide, state-sponsored injustice.

Really, though, super sorry to hear about what happened to a Walgreens.  That's awful.  The injustice of it all!  How untoward!
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Particle Person on November 25, 2014, 05:00:00 PM
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.

Yes, I am sure no "people of color" were affected by "justice in the context of economic goods" with their own community being burned down. Get off your high horse and stop being so pious.

Christ.  I'm sure there were.  Obviously not my point.  My point is that the same people who are so loudly decrying the injustice of looting a Walgreens don't seem to give a shit that the underlying cause of the looting is systematic, society-wide, state-sponsored injustice.

Really, though, super sorry to hear about what happened to a Walgreens.  That's awful.  The injustice of it all!  How untoward!

No, that is not the underlying cause of the looting. People just like to loot when there's a good excuse to do it. Also, the majority of the stores looted were small businesses owned by minorities.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 25, 2014, 05:04:11 PM
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?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on November 25, 2014, 06:07:42 PM
Let me back up one small step and briefly apologize.  I'm doing the whole 'everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot' thing that I dislike so much in others.  Like many, I have strong feelings on this topic.

No, that is not the underlying cause of the looting. People just like to loot when there's a good excuse to do it. Also, the majority of the stores looted were small businesses owned by minorities.

We probably have incommensurate opinions here.  I think that the riots are fundamentally caused by the belief in these citizens that the police are a violent, adversarial force that targets people of color.  I don't think that this belief is arbitrary or asinine, and I think that it reflects an empirically demonstrable bias/discrimination/oppression/whatever of persons of color in America.

What exactly is systematic and state-sponsored about this?

The shooting of Michael Brown was state-sponsored, and many people of color who distrust the police do so precisely because the use of force by police feels (and empirically is) disproportionally targeted at them.

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?

It's at this point that I don't know where to go in the discussion.  I don't mean that backhandedly, but we probably simply have incommensurate opinions on the degree to which racial inequality still exists in America.  I think racial inequality in America today is still quite pronounced.  No, we don't have laws that explicitly prohibit people of color from voting or whatever, but I don't think racial inequality can be measured or understood in such narrow terms.  Jim Crow laws weren't actual laws, but they undoubtedly had a material impact on people of color in their day.  Racial inequality doesn't require conspiracies or state-sponsorship.

Also, remember that there are thousands of people living in Ferguson today who were alive and remember when the federal government absolutely did target people of color as threats to national security and treated them as such.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 25, 2014, 06:10:55 PM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Shane on November 25, 2014, 06:22:04 PM
I feel bad for the officer, I really do. The blacks and white guilters wouldn't be satisfied until he was found guilty. It sucks that a young man had to be killed, but the evidence seems to support the officers story. What should we do, throw him in jail to make the blacks feel better? thats how they seem to want, some affirmative action reparation justice, its sickening. Of course blacks face injustice, but why is Michael Brown the face of it? He robbed a conveinent store, assaulted a police officer, using his name as an excuse to riot, chant things like "fuck the police" and so on is disgusting.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 25, 2014, 06:25:02 PM
People wonder why the police are given these riot vehicles from the military, only to happily give the police an excuse to use them and prove their function as riot containment.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 25, 2014, 06:34:39 PM
Someone care to explain this whole situation to me like I'm five? I'm too lazy to read the article.

Is it basically the "white cop kills unarmed black guy" kinda deal?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 25, 2014, 06:40:25 PM
People wonder why the police are given these riot vehicles from the military, only to happily give the police an excuse to use them and prove their function as riot containment.
I don't think you fully appreciate the completely asinine nature of these riots.

I was watching a live stream of the protest since before it turned into a looting and burning frenzy. At first, most of them actually acted reasonably civil. As emotions got more and more built up, some of them began to get aggressive. Immediately, and I do mean immediately, they were accused by the mob of being police-hired instigators whose sole job was to discredit the riot.

These are people who are completely ready to discredit everything they see, and everything they do, just to make things fit their insane conspiracy theory. To them, it is more likely than the big bad white man hired a bunch of their own kin to make the perfectly peaceful protesters look aggressive than it is for some of the protesters to actually be aggressive. There can be no reasoning with these people. Most of them will either get locked up (but oh noes that will contribute to disproportionate distribution of races in jail!) or they'll burn all their businesses to the ground and then blame the big bad white man for there being no jobs.

Someone care to explain this whole situation to me like I'm five? I'm too lazy to read the article.

Is it basically the "white cop kills unarmed black guy" kinda deal?
Assuming you want the short answer: Yes.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on November 25, 2014, 06:42:25 PM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 25, 2014, 06:51:41 PM
(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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Blanko on November 25, 2014, 07:58:25 PM
Inequality of opportunity (which, in my view, is the only thing that matters here) is much harder to show positive evidence for.

Affirmative action.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 25, 2014, 09:04:02 PM
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...
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: model 29 on November 25, 2014, 09:11:05 PM
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?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on November 25, 2014, 09:13:51 PM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: model 29 on November 25, 2014, 09:15:19 PM
... 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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 25, 2014, 09:17:17 PM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 25, 2014, 09:32:04 PM
gary really should lurk moar
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 25, 2014, 09:42:40 PM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 25, 2014, 10:46:14 PM
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:

Quote from: Victor motherfucking Hugo
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?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: junker on November 25, 2014, 11:01:09 PM
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:

Quote from: Victor motherfucking Hugo
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: markjo on November 25, 2014, 11:36:07 PM
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.
Quote from: http://www.wnd.com/2014/08/black-cop-kills-white-man-media-hide-race/
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 25, 2014, 11:53:10 PM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 26, 2014, 12:01:21 AM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 26, 2014, 12:03:18 AM
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:

Quote from: Victor motherfucking Hugo
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.

Quote
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2014, 12:16:33 AM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2014, 12:23:10 AM
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 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Searches_incident_to_a_lawful_arrest). 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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 26, 2014, 12:25:13 AM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2014, 12:29:03 AM
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.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 26, 2014, 12:30:01 AM
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.

Please read the rest of my post. I hit submit before I was finished writing and had to edit. I agree with you on the searches, but it doesn't explain the stops.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: junker on November 26, 2014, 12:54:09 AM
In the event anyone is interested in the evidence:

http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2014, 12:55:13 AM
Okay, I'm glad that we agree on the searches. I realise I'm beating a dead horse, but I realised something interesting: The search rate is not actually twice as high. It's 1.77 times as high. Compare and contrast with my 170% prediction. So that's searches not just mostly explained, but completely explained.

Okay, let's think about stops. Do you not find it strange that a supposedly racist police force is found to be extremely racist against black people, but not at all racist against any other ethnicity? Look at the disparity indices. They're pretty much identical all across the board - except for blacks.

Now, let's look at the data. Where does the disparity come from?

Moving - We would expect twice as many black stops than white stops, we see four times the number. Part (or all) of that could be attributed to DWB. It could also be that Ferguson's black drivers are just statistically more likely to commit traffic offences. It could make sense, since American whites are generally richer, and are thus somewhat less likely to engage in certain risky behaviours. That said, we don't have enough data to tell for sure.
Equipment violations - A much clearer offence, it would be rather difficult to unjustly do someone for equipment faults that aren't there. And we see a huge disparity between the numbers (blacks stopped 12 times as often as whites! Again, we'd expect around 2 times assuming all factors were equal). In other words, black people maintain their cars worse.
License - That's the bit where we pull them over because we ran their licence plate. Again, a disparity of about 12 times as many black stops. As you pointed out yourself, this is extremely unlikely to be affected by race, since they're pre-determined.
Investigative - This one is iffy. It could be very much down to prejudice, since it's difficult to formally establish "reasonable suspicion". And we do see a high disparity - again, about 12 times as many blacks stopped than whites. This could be significant, if not for the fact that this only amounts to 328 out of 4632 stops (7% of all stops) on blacks.

To summarise: The areas where most of the discrepancy comes from are equipment violations and license look-ups - things which aren't attributable to the person driving the vehicle at all. Most of the discrepancy, by far, comes from number plate searches and shitty equipment.

I'll be honest with you: I'm really struggling to see this supposedly statistically provable bias and oppression. It seems that one demographic provides more reasons to justify stops than the other, and is thus stopped more often.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: markjo on November 26, 2014, 04:22:00 AM
You're really quoting World Nut Daily, markjo?  Ugh.
I'm sorry, but are you saying that WND got it wrong and there was no shooting?  ??

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.
Which was pretty much the point.  White cop shoots unarmed black guy? Riots.  Black cop shoots unarmed white guy?  Barely a peep.  Anytime a cop shoots an unarmed person should be a big deal, regardless of race, creed or sexual orientation of either party.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 26, 2014, 04:30:42 AM
Okay, I'm glad that we agree on the searches. I realise I'm beating a dead horse, but I realised something interesting: The search rate is not actually twice as high. It's 1.77 times as high. Compare and contrast with my 170% prediction. So that's searches not just mostly explained, but completely explained.

Okay, let's think about stops. Do you not find it strange that a supposedly racist police force is found to be extremely racist against black people, but not at all racist against any other ethnicity? Look at the disparity indices. They're pretty much identical all across the board - except for blacks.

Doesn't seem that odd to me. I'm not aware of the KKK lynching any asians, either (although I could be wrong)

Quote

Now, let's look at the data. Where does the disparity come from?

Moving - We would expect twice as many black stops than white stops, we see four times the number. Part (or all) of that could be attributed to DWB. It could also be that Ferguson's black drivers are just statistically more likely to commit traffic offences. It could make sense, since American whites are generally richer, and are thus somewhat less likely to engage in certain risky behaviours. That said, we don't have enough data to tell for sure.

I could imagine black residents of Ferguson being 20% more likely to commit traffic offences, or even 45%, but 400%? That's stretching my imagination. And I know that's an argument to personal credulity, but I also think it's a reasonable one. I'd need to see some fairly solid evidence before I believed it.

Quote
Equipment violations - A much clearer offence, it would be rather difficult to unjustly do someone for equipment faults that aren't there. And we see a huge disparity between the numbers (blacks stopped 12 times as often as whites! Again, we'd expect around 2 times assuming all factors were equal). In other words, black people maintain their cars worse.

I actually got the opposite reaction from the amount of equipment violations. The cliche racist cop in Georgia pulling someone over for being black says that his lights are out. It just struck me as stereotypical.

Quote
License - That's the bit where we pull them over because we ran their licence plate. Again, a disparity of about 12 times as many black stops. As you pointed out yourself, this is extremely unlikely to be affected by race, since they're pre-determined.

Agreed. Although, 12 times is a lot more than 2 times. I wonder where the disparity lies. I doubt the answer involves racism at all, but I'm definitely curious.

Quote
Investigative - This one is iffy. It could be very much down to prejudice, since it's difficult to formally establish "reasonable suspicion". And we do see a high disparity - again, about 12 times as many blacks stopped than whites. This could be significant, if not for the fact that this only amounts to 328 out of 4632 stops (7% of all stops) on blacks.

Regardless of the overall number, I'm not sure you can just wave away a 1200% disparity like that. What could possibly explain such a difference? It's not like black drivers are 12X as likely to be found driving drunk, at least according to the statistics.

Quote
To summarise: The areas where most of the discrepancy comes from are equipment violations and license look-ups - things which aren't attributable to the person driving the vehicle at all. Most of the discrepancy, by far, comes from number plate searches and shitty equipment.

I'll be honest with you: I'm really struggling to see this supposedly statistically provable bias and oppression. It seems that one demographic provides more reasons to justify stops than the other, and is thus stopped more often.

I've already disputed quite a lot of that, but let's go a step further. What are the warrants for?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325453/-In-2013-Ferguson-gave-out-10-000-more-arrest-warrants-than-people-in-Ferguson

I know it's not an amazing source, but I trust you won't dispute the raw information

We're talking about a city whose second largest source of funds is fines, which also has an above-average poverty rate and a disproportionate amount of blacks among the poor section of the population. Even if the officers weren't racist (and neither they nor you have done a great job of demonstrating otherwise), the system certainly is. They give out fines for everything, and if you can't pay the fines you get a warrant for your arrest. Guess who's more likely to be unable to pay the fines? Black people! Regardless of what you think of the officers, you have to admit that this is kinda fucked up.

Here's a source from Huffington Post, which claims that fines are more common among black residents than white residents. I couldn't find any actual numbers
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/11/19/racial-disparity-ferguson-arrest_n_6187320.html

_______

So, going back to the 4 categories of stops. All of them disproportionately affect black people. 2 of them are difficult, at best, to explain without using the word 'racism'. One of them also suggests racism. The last is the result of unpayable fines, which are themselves likely tied to racism. Are you telling me that isn't suspicious at all to you?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on November 26, 2014, 04:50:18 AM
Know what else affects these statistics?  Attitude.

Anyone here get just "a warning"?  Think that's in the official log?  Especially if the officer should have given you a fine?  I doubt it.
Now, how do you best get out of a violation (speeding ticket perhaps)?  By being nice.  So what happens if you tell the cop " Why the fuck you pull'n me over cracker?" Do you think you'll get a warning or the ticket?

Blacks in St. Louis find the police force undeserving of respect for whatever reason.  Maybe it is racism, maybe its not.  But I'm sure we can all agree that if you disrespect the authority, you're not gonna get just a warning.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 26, 2014, 05:00:37 AM
Know what else affects these statistics?  Attitude.

Anyone here get just "a warning"?  Think that's in the official log?  Especially if the officer should have given you a fine?  I doubt it.
Now, how do you best get out of a violation (speeding ticket perhaps)?  By being nice.  So what happens if you tell the cop " Why the fuck you pull'n me over cracker?" Do you think you'll get a warning or the ticket?

Blacks in St. Louis find the police force undeserving of respect for whatever reason.  Maybe it is racism, maybe its not.  But I'm sure we can all agree that if you disrespect the authority, you're not gonna get just a warning.

I'm fairly certain that doesn't have much impact on getting pulled over in the first place, which is what we're talking about
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Blanko on November 26, 2014, 05:36:06 AM
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.

Holy shit, get a fucking tumblr already
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: DuckDodgers on November 26, 2014, 05:42:18 AM
To add an anecdote regarding moving violations.  I drive through a predominately black portion of Nashville on my commute and the drivers in this area are atrocious compared to the drivers in any other part of my commute.  I would not be surprised if moving violation rates were 400% higher in that area of Nashville when compared to another random section of the city.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Particle Person on November 26, 2014, 05:44:12 AM
I drive through a predominately black portion of Nashville on my commute

Hey, me too! Let's get married!
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 26, 2014, 11:26:42 AM
In Nashville you can pretty accurately predict a black person by the way they drive. It's a bit ridiculous really.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on November 26, 2014, 01:02:20 PM
Know what else affects these statistics?  Attitude.

Anyone here get just "a warning"?  Think that's in the official log?  Especially if the officer should have given you a fine?  I doubt it.
Now, how do you best get out of a violation (speeding ticket perhaps)?  By being nice.  So what happens if you tell the cop " Why the fuck you pull'n me over cracker?" Do you think you'll get a warning or the ticket?

Blacks in St. Louis find the police force undeserving of respect for whatever reason.  Maybe it is racism, maybe its not.  But I'm sure we can all agree that if you disrespect the authority, you're not gonna get just a warning.

I'm fairly certain that doesn't have much impact on getting pulled over in the first place, which is what we're talking about
No, but it may account for recorded pull overs/stops rather than unofficial ones.  If an officer pulls someone over for speeding but doesn't give them a ticket, is that in your data? 

Also, shouldn't there be more blacks pulled over than whites by default since whites only account for like 30% of the population?
http://www.city-data.com/city/Ferguson-Missouri.html

Also:
http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/17/andrea-mitchell/ferguson-police-department-has-50-white-officers-t/

I'm not surprised at most of the police force is white if the black community is anti-police.  Why join the thing you hate?
And since it's not an uncommon statistic (the 75% national average) I'm on the fence about calling it racism.  Hell, looking at the educational level of the area, I'm not even sure the black community could muster enough qualified applicants.

And apparently it's not an uncommon problem:
http://stlouis.cbslocal.com/2014/09/14/achieving-diversity-among-police-ranks-not-easy/


Hey, anyone know the opinion of the three black guys on the force?  You know, the guys who work with the white "racist" officers?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2014, 01:24:43 PM
[Moving] I could imagine black residents of Ferguson being 20% more likely to commit traffic offences, or even 45%, but 400%? That's stretching my imagination. And I know that's an argument to personal credulity, but I also think it's a reasonable one. I'd need to see some fairly solid evidence before I believed it.
It makes perfect sense. Poor people are overall more reckless. Therefore, a demographic that has more poor people will have more bad drivers. Also, you're looking at 200% as likely, not 400%. You'd expect twice as many stops because there are twice as many black people. 4/2=2.

Also, you require to see some solid evidence that they committed more traffic offences. I don't know how you want to source that evidence if a police document that outright states that is not good enough. Meanwhile, you do not cry for "solid evidence before you believe it" to shove everything under the rug of "big bad white man is racist!" With this sort of double standard, we'll never be able to have a constructive discussion.

Doesn't seem that odd to me. I'm not aware of the KKK lynching any asians, either (although I could be wrong)
Right, you need to pick a story and stick to it. Either you're accusing Ferguson police of discriminating against non-whites (or just blacks), or you're accusing them of being a secret society that actively lynches blacks. If you're in the latter camp - frankly, I don't know what to say. I had assumed we're talking about the former.

If you are talking about the former, I would be very surprised if Hispanics were somehow off the hook from the big bad white racist man.

[Investigative] Regardless of the overall number, I'm not sure you can just wave away a 1200% disparity like that. What could possibly explain such a difference? It's not like black drivers are 12X as likely to be found driving drunk, at least according to the statistics.
I'm not waving it away. It's quite possible that about 5% of all stops were caused by racism. In a town as small as Ferguson, this would require a few individuals to have racist tendencies. I am by no means not disputing that racist people exist. I am, however, dismissing as absolutely ludicrous any notions of this being a widespread or commonplace phenomenon in that town.

[Equipment] I actually got the opposite reaction from the amount of equipment violations. The cliche racist cop in Georgia pulling someone over for being black says that his lights are out. It just struck me as stereotypical.
The only way you can be stopped for an equipment violation is if you're committing an equipment violation. Unless you have some data to prove that white people in Ferguson are just as likely to commit those but are let off the hook, I don't see how this could be racist. Again, the simple fact that the poor people of Ferguson are mostly black seems to fit in much better here. Not because it's stereotypical, but because car maintenance costs money, and a notable characteristic of being poor is not having much money.

I've already disputed quite a lot of that, but let's go a step further. What are the warrants for?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325453/-In-2013-Ferguson-gave-out-10-000-more-arrest-warrants-than-people-in-Ferguson

I know it's not an amazing source, but I trust you won't dispute the raw information
You're talking about a community that just torched up their own town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1zSyA7cf_4

(Sure, the recent riot is more violent than previous ones, but we've had three of those in half a year now)

You're talking about a community that causes traffic accidents and then claims that those only happen because someone crossed a red light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jaOB-cN28E

You're talking about a community that destroys itself, and then blames others for its poor state. Does it seem suspicious to me that these sort of people would overall disrespect the law? Gee, I wonder.

We're talking about a city whose second largest source of funds is fines, which also has an above-average poverty rate and a disproportionate amount of blacks among the poor section of the population [...]
Quote from: http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger
Earlier this year, in the series Guilty and Charged, NPR's investigations unit found that the practices in Ferguson are common across the country.
Oh, okay, so you dislike how your courts work. No worries, just don't call it racism when it isn't that.

Even if the officers weren't racist (and neither they nor you have done a great job of demonstrating otherwise)
Yes, I also haven't demonstrated that God™ doesn't exist. Please repent immediately or He™ shall smite you.

You see, it is not my job to prove that there isn't a big bad white man conspiracy out there to kill all blacks in Ferguson. It's your job to show that it is there. So far you showed me data which doesn't show anything unusual going on and branded it as "oh I dunno it looks racist to me". No one gives a fuck if things look stereotypical to you. Either there is a
statistically provable, systematic racism in Ferguson, and many other similar places in America
(in which case I await evidence), or it is not statistically provable, in which case it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In my epistemic system, which is largely based on pragmatism, unfalsifiable hypotheses are not useful, because they do not lead to any useful conclusions about the world that surrounds us. So, if the systematic racism in Ferguson is invisible and functionally ineffective, it may as well not be there.

the system certainly is. They give out fines for everything, and if you can't pay the fines you get a warrant for your arrest. [...] Regardless of what you think of the officers, you have to admit that this is kinda fucked up.
Of course. I'm absolutely not suggesting that Ferguson or the USA at large doesn't have any problems with its legal system. We are specifically discussing systematic/institutional racism, or lack thereof.

Guess who's more likely to be unable to pay the fines? Black people!
Please re-read my statements about equality of outcome vs equality of opportunity (https://forum.tfes.org/index.php?topic=2101.msg51333#msg51333). The fact that black people are statistically poorer has no bearing on this discussion.

Here's a source from Huffington Post [...]
The Huffington Post is not a source I'm going to waste my time with. HuffPo is a content aggregator of comparable credibility to Buzzfeed.

I could quickly knock together a website, name it the Pizaa Gazzette, and claim that America is a post-racial utopia. It'd be just as relevant to this conversation as your "source".

So, going back to the 4 categories of stops. All of them disproportionately affect black people. 2 of them are difficult, at best, to explain without using the word 'racism'.
Yes, the two smallest ones. Like I said, I'm sure that several racist individuals exist in the police force. That in no way proves any systematic racism.

One of them also suggests racism.
No, you're just seeing what you want to see, and for some reason you appear to be convinced that I need to disprove your unfalsifiable hypothesis.

The last is the result of unpayable fines, which are themselves likely tied to racism.
We are discussing institutional/systematic racism. This means differences in equality of opportunity, not outcome. If you want to cry about the fact that many black people are poor, take it up with someone else.

Are you telling me that isn't suspicious at all to you?
I don't know what I could possibly be suspicious of. All of your points are easily explained without invoking a big bad racist white man conspiracy. Historical factors, education, economic disparity, attitude, and crime statistics simply fit reality better.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on November 26, 2014, 05:55:10 PM
This discussion is extremely refreshing to read.

My campus is full of "open-minded, politically and communally engaged, socially aware" students, but every conversation I have had on this matter goes the same way. They go on and on about racism and completely sensationalize the event, sometimes making things up. I offer information that may help the cop's case, and then I get evil glares from everybody in the room. It's a big fucking circlejerk of exaggeration, misinformation, and plain ignorance.

The last person I had this conversation with was the girl I am into. She probably thinks I'm racist now :/
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 26, 2014, 06:03:15 PM
I think people who are extremely quick to jump to racism do so because they themselves are racist and it only makes sense to them that other people just don't have their racism under control. People tend to assume others think similar things to them but act differently.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on November 26, 2014, 06:05:31 PM
I think people who are extremely quick to jump to racism do so because they themselves are racist and it only makes sense to them that other people just don't have their racism under control. People tend to assume others think similar things to them but act differently.

Or they can't imagine a more complex answer(like lack of applicants due to social pressures from their peers), having never had to deal with such a situation.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Fortuna on November 26, 2014, 06:28:43 PM
Of course the best way to get justice is to burn down your own home. Brilliant people those Fergsonians.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 26, 2014, 06:29:40 PM
Of course the best way to get justice is to burn down your own home. Brilliant people those Fergsonians.

I liked your original post better.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Fortuna on November 26, 2014, 06:34:40 PM
Of course the best way to get justice is to burn down your own home. Brilliant people those Fergsonians.

I liked your original post better.

But then people might think I'm raciss.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on November 26, 2014, 06:39:21 PM
Of course the best way to get justice is to burn down your own home. Brilliant people those Fergsonians.

I liked your original post better.

But then people might think I'm raciss.
How did you edit it without the edit tag?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 26, 2014, 06:44:57 PM
Of course the best way to get justice is to burn down your own home. Brilliant people those Fergsonians.

I liked your original post better.

But then people might think I'm raciss.
How did you edit it without the edit tag?
Delete. Make new comment.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: EnigmaZV on November 26, 2014, 06:45:39 PM
Also, if you edit your post very soon after originally posting, it may not say the post was edited.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 26, 2014, 06:58:54 PM
Also, if you edit your post very soon after originally posting, it may not say the post was edited.
It changes when someone sees it. If Vauxy saw it then Andrew just deleted it.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2014, 06:59:30 PM
But then people might think I'm raciss.
I think I already secured the #1 FES raciss position for myself.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rama Set on November 26, 2014, 08:45:22 PM
TFES.org has issues with systemic anti-semitism. 
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Hoppy on November 26, 2014, 08:57:32 PM
In Nashville you can pretty accurately predict a black person by the way they drive. It's a bit ridiculous really.
I have secretly thought you are a racist, thanks for the confirmation.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 26, 2014, 09:02:13 PM
In Nashville you can pretty accurately predict a black person by the way they drive. It's a bit ridiculous really.
I have secretly thought you are a racist, thanks for the confirmation.

rooster can't help it, she grew up in the deep south and it's obviously showing.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 26, 2014, 09:10:37 PM
TFES.org has issues with systemic anti-semitism.
Soon, the ADL and the National Bar Association will join forces against us. It's only a matter of time.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 26, 2014, 10:19:13 PM
I don't see how that makes me racist. Some of them are from a poor culture where their cars are shit and they drive slow as hell and change lanes without a care in the world.

They're also some of the most hostile people I've ever had to deal with in retail. It's like some of them are constantly angry or behave in a way that suggests I owe them something. But it's only some of them. Others are just plain lovely individuals. But I think this hostility may be more prominent in the south, I can't be sure...

It doesn't mean I hate anyone based on the color of their skin. I hate people for the way they act and for putting my life in danger on the road (which that includes old people and people who text while driving).
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 26, 2014, 10:20:43 PM
It's like some of them are constantly angry or behave in a way that suggests I owe them something.

Slavery. You owe them for slavery.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Blanko on November 26, 2014, 10:58:47 PM
But blacks have been slaving each other for way longer, maybe they're just really self-deprecating.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 27, 2014, 12:35:56 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty certain at least a branch of my family had slaves because I share a last name with a famous black comedian. :/
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 27, 2014, 01:07:10 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty certain at least a branch of my family had slaves because I share a last name with a famous black comedian. :/
Given the recent-ish revelations about said comedian, I think there exists an alternative explanation :^)
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 27, 2014, 01:11:59 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty certain at least a branch of my family had slaves because I share a last name with a famous black comedian. :/
Given the recent-ish revelations about said comedian, I think there exists an alternative explanation :^)
How dare you insinuate that I am the product of rape! >:I
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 27, 2014, 01:18:58 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty certain at least a branch of my family had slaves because I share a last name with a famous black comedian. :/
Given the recent-ish revelations about said comedian, I think there exists an alternative explanation :^)
How dare you insinuate that I am the product of rape! >:I
Well, it wouldn't be you directly, would it?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 27, 2014, 01:48:02 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty certain at least a branch of my family had slaves because I share a last name with a famous black comedian. :/
Given the recent-ish revelations about said comedian, I think there exists an alternative explanation :^)

Is there any evidence that substantiates the victim's claims? Seems like one person got greedy, then a bunch of copycats followed suit. I want to believe he's a rapist as much as the next guy, but I don't see the evidence.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 27, 2014, 02:08:40 AM
Is there any evidence that substantiates the victim's claims? Seems like one person got greedy, then a bunch of copycats followed suit. I want to believe he's a rapist as much as the next guy, but I don't see the evidence.
I'm completely out of the loop on that one. I just seized the opportunity to make the insinuation.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 27, 2014, 02:18:21 AM
The initial claims came up about 10-12 years ago and there were several. Now more are surfacing. And he did have a lot of female protege.

Y'know, I have always told people he was my grandfather. Maybe the joke was on me. :[
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 27, 2014, 03:46:24 AM
Yeah, I'm pretty certain at least a branch of my family had slaves because I share a last name with a famous black comedian. :/
Given the recent-ish revelations about said comedian, I think there exists an alternative explanation :^)

Is there any evidence that substantiates the victim's claims? Seems like one person got greedy, then a bunch of copycats followed suit. I want to believe he's a rapist as much as the next guy, but I don't see the evidence.

Well, if we're just going to dismiss the testimonies of all nineteen women who have made accusations, then yeah, I guess there is no evidence against him.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 27, 2014, 04:07:23 AM
The initial claims came up about 10-12 years ago and there were several. Now more are surfacing. And he did have a lot of female protege.

Y'know, I have always told people he was my grandfather. Maybe the joke was on me. :[

You have rape in your genes.

I guess that explains Rushy.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 27, 2014, 04:12:32 AM
You have rape in your genes.

I guess that explains Rushy.

dafuq is that supposed to mean
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 27, 2014, 05:18:18 AM
Right, you need to pick a story and stick to it. Either you're accusing Ferguson police of discriminating against non-whites (or just blacks), or you're accusing them of being a secret society that actively lynches blacks. If you're in the latter camp - frankly, I don't know what to say. I had assumed we're talking about the former.

If you are talking about the former, I would be very surprised if Hispanics were somehow off the hook from the big bad white racist man.
Far as I can tell, Tausami only brought up the KKK to demonstrate how racism can affect different races in different ways and to different extents. For example, only Jewish people get accused of killing Jesus. So no, it's not surprising at all that black people find themselves in front of a greater amount of harmful bias than Hispanic people. It just shows that anti-black racism is more prevalent and deeply established. We think they feel less pain than they actually do (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048546) and so much of our culture places them in an animalistic role, from jokes about 'getting raped by a big black man' to outright calling them demons and animals, as was done several times over the course of the whole Ferguson thing. You don't hear them talking about Asian and Hispanic people like that because different racism is different.

Quote
I'm not waving it away. It's quite possible that about 5% of all stops were caused by racism. In a town as small as Ferguson, this would require a few individuals to have racist tendencies. I am by no means not disputing that racist people exist. I am, however, dismissing as absolutely ludicrous any notions of this being a widespread or commonplace phenomenon in that town.
Racism isn't an 'individual' thing. You're thinking of prejudice. Racism is what comes of millions of people's subtle prejudices stacking the deck against specific groups through social stigma and terrible but convincing logic that convinces them that, for example, black people are more threatening -- even if they don't consciously realize they think so, they just freak out and go 'He's got a gun!!' when they see a black guy with a sandwich. (http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-st-louis-braces-after-latest-shooting-of-black-man-20141009-story.html#page=1) And that's the crux of it: nobody goes around hollering about hating black people anymore because that's stupid and they know it. People try to be logical. They just do that with misinformation about different races, so they tell themselves 'lol its such a stereotype but it's so trueeee!! XD' Maybe they wouldn't think so if they actually spoke to black people regularly. Maybe the law would deal with them differently if it hadn't been framed in all of this shit when it was established.

Hatred would be easy to identify and remedy. Racism is a problem because it's ignorance, which can go unnoticed.

Quote
The only way you can be stopped for an equipment violation is if you're committing an equipment violation. Unless you have some data to prove that white people in Ferguson are just as likely to commit those but are let off the hook, I don't see how this could be racist. Again, the simple fact that the poor people of Ferguson are mostly black seems to fit in much better here. Not because it's stereotypical, but because car maintenance costs money, and a notable characteristic of being poor is not having much money.
There's no such thing as a statistic for the stops not made. 'How many people didn't you arrest last week?' They don't end up on any kind of roll sheet because they weren't looked at. However,

Quote
(in which case I await evidence), or it is not statistically provable, in which case it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In my epistemic system, which is largely based on pragmatism, unfalsifiable hypotheses are not useful, because they do not lead to any useful conclusions about the world that surrounds us. So, if the systematic racism in Ferguson is invisible and functionally ineffective, it may as well not be there.
it's not unfalsifiable, it's just a matter of who is given voice in our culture and who is dismissed or silenced. Tausami's earlier mention of the stereotypical cop stopping people of color for stupid shit like license plates pointed to the common knowledge among them that that's the situation where police brutality lies. They pull you up on some minor BS and come completely unglued on you, sometimes grievously injuring you in the process. Hell, white people within the system pull teeth trying to get the same mistreatment to show that the system is equal and fail (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/i-got-myself-arrested-so-i-could-look-inside-the-justice-system/282360/). However, every time they bring this up, they're told that they're just one instance, not statistically-significant, written off, dismissed, ignored. Add to it, nobody's going to admit 'Yeah I saw a white dude driving around and I should've stopped him but I didn't' to anybody because it'd make them look bad -- and they won't admit it to themselves because they wanna think they handled the situation correctly. This isn't a conspiracy; it's what spawned the phrase 'cover your ass.' So the countless single voices of the people affected by this can't stand up to the 'official statistics,' omissions and ass-covering and all. How many millions of 'just one instance's will it take to finally match the statistics? This is what is meant by 'the voice of the people,' and it's being ignored.

Quote
We are discussing institutional/systematic racism. This means differences in equality of opportunity, not outcome. If you want to cry about the fact that many black people are poor, take it up with someone else.
To be clear, you're insinuating that hundreds of years of social stigma and generational wealth/poverty exacerbated by redlining and gerrymandering have had no effect on people's equality of opportunity? That they got the same head-start as anybody else in spite of all of those forces? That is an aspect of racism in and of itself: the belief that all the impoverished brown folks in the country got what they deserved and were in no way exploited by those with social and financial leverage over them. They're poor now because they got screwed continuously for generations. The fact that there are outliers does nothing to minimize that.

Quote
All of your points are easily explained without invoking a big bad racist white man conspiracy. Historical factors, education, economic disparity, attitude, and crime statistics simply fit reality better.
The fact that you just described several contributing factors to the very racism you deny shows that you're working off a flawed definition of racism. It's not a conspiracy, because it's not about any individual asshole sitting around going "God damn I hate brown people. How can I screw them over?" This isn't a video game and the villains aren't that easy to spot. Historical economic disparity worsens issues of education and crime because generational poverty taxes mental health and thus incentivizes sometimes unhealthy coping behaviors. The stress of working several jobs simultaneously, trying to find time to take care of other business, and still being so underpaid that you can't keep your head above water (http://www.raisetheminimumwage.com/facts/entry/hours-to-afford-apartment/) would wreck anybody's judgement. Shoving the blame for this off onto the people being exploited is a way of dehumanizing them, because you deny the stressors they put up with every day and ignore all logical reasons for them being where they are, instead painting this surreal portrait of some hick who doesn't want to be able to buy their own food at the end of the week. No human being is like that.

The biggest thing is that all of these points are interconnected, so it's impossible to refute just one of them at a time because you need to refute the very relationship between them. Which is incidentally a lot like the prejudices that got us into this mess in the first place. People are logical, so any one misconception causes their entire worldview to reorganize in order to support it, spawning countless other misconceptions which have logical consistency within themselves but not with the rest of the world.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 27, 2014, 05:24:37 AM
Densoro!  Your wisdom has been sorely missed.  Welcome back.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 27, 2014, 05:36:06 AM
D'aww, makin' me blush
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 27, 2014, 01:36:47 PM
Far as I can tell, Tausami only brought up the KKK to demonstrate how racism can affect different races in different ways and to different extents. For example, only Jewish people get accused of killing Jesus. So no, it's not surprising at all that black people find themselves in front of a greater amount of harmful bias than Hispanic people. It just shows that anti-black racism is more prevalent and deeply established. We think they feel less pain than they actually do (http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0048546) and so much of our culture places them in an animalistic role, from jokes about 'getting raped by a big black man' to outright calling them demons and animals, as was done several times over the course of the whole Ferguson thing. You don't hear them talking about Asian and Hispanic people like that because different racism is different.
Again, we are talking about institutionalised racism. Social attitudes are skewed - I already acknowledged that, but it's entirely irrelevant to this conversation.

Racism isn't an 'individual' thing. You're thinking of prejudice.
http://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/american-english/racism - TIL an individual cannot hold certain beliefs.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

If you want to redefine words to suit your narrative, you're gonna have to find someone else to discuss with. My statement is clear: the notion of institutionalised racism (as actually defined in reliable sources) is an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

There's no such thing as a statistic for the stops not made. 'How many people didn't you arrest last week?' They don't end up on any kind of roll sheet because they weren't looked at.
Correct. That's why I called the notion an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Because it's a hypothesis that's not falsifiable. Do you recall the reason why I said that? Oh, that's right - it's the exact same reason which you now seem to think somehow invalidates my statement.

it's not unfalsifiable, it's just a matter of who is given voice in our culture and who is dismissed or silenced.
Okay, please provide falsifiable evidence to that claim.

Tausami's earlier mention of the stereotypical cop stopping people of color for stupid shit like license plates pointed to the common knowledge among them that that's the situation where police brutality lies. They pull you up on some minor BS and come completely unglued on you, sometimes grievously injuring you in the process.
Please provide falsifiable evidence to that claim. We already analysed Tausami's data. If you disagree with parts of the analysis, point it out and provide reasoning. Just saying "the data points to <x>" won't cut it.

Hell, white people within the system pull teeth trying to get the same mistreatment to show that the system is equal and fail (http://www.theatlantic.com/national/archive/2013/12/i-got-myself-arrested-so-i-could-look-inside-the-justice-system/282360/).
Oh boo-hoo, some provocative piece of crap was identified for who he really is and the cops didn't fall for his race-baiting crap. What a shame. This happens everywhere (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30086069). Dumb people think that if they pretend really hard to be criminals, they'll be treated as criminals.

Add to it, nobody's going to admit 'Yeah I saw a white dude driving around and I should've stopped him but I didn't' to anybody because it'd make them look bad -- and they won't admit it to themselves because they wanna think they handled the situation correctly.
Please explain why you hold this belief. You assume that police officers are incapable of admitting to having made mistakes despite ample evidence (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=police+mistake) to the contrary.

This isn't a conspiracy; it's what spawned the phrase 'cover your ass.' So the countless single voices of the people affected by this can't stand up to the 'official statistics,' omissions and ass-covering and all. How many millions of 'just one instance's will it take to finally match the statistics? This is what is meant by 'the voice of the people,' and it's being ignored.
Evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence, evidence. Unsubstantiated claims are worthless. If you want to claim that official statistics are fabricated, show some evidence to it. More importantly, show it to the FBI whose investigation into this exact issue is ongoing (http://www.fbi.gov/stlouis/news-and-outreach/stories/updates-on-federal-civil-rights-investigation-in-ferguson-missouri) - that way you might actually achieve something.

To be clear, you're insinuating that hundreds of years of social stigma and generational wealth/poverty exacerbated by redlining and gerrymandering have had no effect on people's equality of opportunity? That they got the same head-start as anybody else in spite of all of those forces?
Of course. That's true by definition. They have had an impact on people's equality of opportunity in the past. Nowadays, it's an equality of outcomes thing.

That is an aspect of racism in and of itself: the belief that all the impoverished brown folks in the country got what they deserved and were in no way exploited by those with social and financial leverage over them. They're poor now because they got screwed continuously for generations. The fact that there are outliers does nothing to minimize that.
Again: not something I denied and not the subject of this discussion. Making true statements about things which are irrelevant doesn't make your case any more convincing.

The fact that you just described several contributing factors to the very racism you deny shows that you're working off a flawed definition of racism. [...]
No - you're just either dishonest or misinformed and act as if we're talking about "racism", when we're talking about institutionalised racism - specifically, Tausami's claim that institutionalised racism is statistically provable. If you'd like to start a discussion about social attitudes, historical factors, or anything other than institutional racism and the statistic provability/falsifiability thereof, feel free to. However, these points are completely irrelevant to this specific discussion.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on November 27, 2014, 01:58:51 PM
Do y'all think it's possible that white guys will shoot quickly when they find a black person because the area they're in has a lot of crime done by black people? 

I mean, you aren't a racist if you're in Iraq and shoot a kid who may have had a gun.  Why?  Because plenty of them do and will shoot you.  Just so happens that THAT one kid didn't.

Anyone got the statistics on white cops shooting ARMED black people ages 12-21?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 27, 2014, 02:08:21 PM
I'm surprised Pizza spent so much time responding to a poster who obviously didn't even read the argument before making a long winded rant.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 27, 2014, 02:35:11 PM
I'm surprised Pizza spent so much time responding to a poster who obviously didn't even read the argument before making a long winded rant.
Admittedly, I never know how to react to these arguments. I feel like if I don't respond, many will just think I'm conceding. It's also what makes me excellent trollbait.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 27, 2014, 04:01:42 PM
pizaa has been my hero in all this.

My FB is literally congested with nothing but emotionally charged rants and opinions for one side or the other. I'm really sick of it. But I'm glad at least one rational and logical person is speaking up.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 27, 2014, 04:55:38 PM
[Moving] I could imagine black residents of Ferguson being 20% more likely to commit traffic offences, or even 45%, but 400%? That's stretching my imagination. And I know that's an argument to personal credulity, but I also think it's a reasonable one. I'd need to see some fairly solid evidence before I believed it.
It makes perfect sense. Poor people are overall more reckless. Therefore, a demographic that has more poor people will have more bad drivers. Also, you're looking at 200% as likely, not 400%. You'd expect twice as many stops because there are twice as many black people. 4/2=2.

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/810995.pdf

If black people drove worse they would also have more car crashes. The statistics show they they have slightly fewer (12.3/10000 fatalities, vs 12.5/10000 for whites). Aside from Rooster's anecdotal evidence (and the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. I've seen people say similar things about women, and the evidence suggests that women tend to be better drivers than men), there's no reason to believe blacks are worse drivers. Certainly not twice as bad. I can see no possible explanation, aside from racism, for pulling them over twice as often.

I'll respond to the rest later, but it's thanksgiving. I just didn't want you to think I'd stopped responding.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 27, 2014, 05:30:13 PM
I said they drive slowly and change lanes without a care in the world. Not that they're always causing wrecks.
Just like you can tell a privilege asshole when they speed around you when you're just going the speed limit.
Or you can tell a redneck for having a super loud truck.
Everyone is a dick driver, it's just that the first stereotype forces me to go 10 under the speed limit if I'm stuck behind them.

This doesn't reflect their skin (as in anyway with black skin is this way) but it definitely reflects the careless and arrogant culture they come from. We owe them something and they live by that idea.

I will say that when I went to Memphis the traffic seemed much safer than in Nashville.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 27, 2014, 06:37:49 PM
If black people drove worse they would also have more car crashes.
Not if they were stopped from causing car crashes by an effective police force. Also, not all traffic offences lead to car crashes. In fact, most don't.

Also, to assume that nationwide data is applicable here is probably the most racist thing anyone has said in this thread. We're not saying that black people are bad drivers. We're saying that the black community of Ferguson consists of mostly bad drivers.

Also, you're still completely ignoring the fact that even if we completely concede this point, you're looking at a measly fraction of the disparity, most of which is still explained.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on November 27, 2014, 06:59:05 PM
And I should point out, you're taking nationwide statistics.

According to the 2010 census the racial makeup of Ferguson was 67.4% African American, 29.3% White.
If most of the population in Ferguson is black then it's not racist when black people are pulled over more often. There are just more black drivers.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 27, 2014, 07:03:16 PM
In all fairness, they're still twice as likely to be pulled over when you adjust for that.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on November 27, 2014, 07:52:09 PM
Do y'all think it's possible that white guys will shoot quickly when they find a black person because the area they're in has a lot of crime done by black people? 

I mean, you aren't a racist if you're in Iraq and shoot a kid who may have had a gun.  Why?  Because plenty of them do and will shoot you.  Just so happens that THAT one kid didn't.

Anyone got the statistics on white cops shooting ARMED black people ages 12-21?

Different thread, Dave.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Tau on November 28, 2014, 02:55:12 AM
If black people drove worse they would also have more car crashes.
Not if they were stopped from causing car crashes by an effective police force. Also, not all traffic offences lead to car crashes. In fact, most don't.

Also, to assume that nationwide data is applicable here is probably the most racist thing anyone has said in this thread. We're not saying that black people are bad drivers. We're saying that the black community of Ferguson consists of mostly bad drivers.

Also, you're still completely ignoring the fact that even if we completely concede this point, you're looking at a measly fraction of the disparity, most of which is still explained.

As I said, I planned to address the rest of your points later (meaning now).

If black drivers are worse drivers, they will cause more crashes. I really don't think you can argue with that. And if you want to claim that black drivers in Ferguson, specifically, are worse drivers than white drivers in Ferguson than you need to provide evidence for that. That's how debate works. Can you even provide a possible reason why blacks in Ferguson would be such horrifically bad drivers as to be twice as likely to get pulled over than whites there? That's some pretty awful driving. Why?

Even if it is a small fraction, it's a fraction which I have demonstrated can only be explained by racism. Thus, statistically proven racism. Even if we're talking 5%, that's a 5% which proves that there is racism in Ferguson.

Doesn't seem that odd to me. I'm not aware of the KKK lynching any asians, either (although I could be wrong)
Right, you need to pick a story and stick to it. Either you're accusing Ferguson police of discriminating against non-whites (or just blacks), or you're accusing them of being a secret society that actively lynches blacks. If you're in the latter camp - frankly, I don't know what to say. I had assumed we're talking about the former.

If you are talking about the former, I would be very surprised if Hispanics were somehow off the hook from the big bad white racist man.

I'm not accusing Ferguson cops of being members of the KKK. That was an analogy, the point of which is that racism against one group of people does not require racism against any other. Hispanics don't have a deep history of racism in America. Asians do, but it's still different. Racism against blacks is very different from other forms of racism.

Quote
[Investigative] Regardless of the overall number, I'm not sure you can just wave away a 1200% disparity like that. What could possibly explain such a difference? It's not like black drivers are 12X as likely to be found driving drunk, at least according to the statistics.
I'm not waving it away. It's quite possible that about 5% of all stops were caused by racism. In a town as small as Ferguson, this would require a few individuals to have racist tendencies. I am by no means not disputing that racist people exist. I am, however, dismissing as absolutely ludicrous any notions of this being a widespread or commonplace phenomenon in that town.

Once again, I never claimed that 100% of the disparity is caused by racism. I just claimed that the racism in Ferguson is statistically provable. We're now in agreement that there are two factors here motivated by race, and neither of us can come up with a possible explanation that doesn't include the words 'racism'. It's not quite enough to hold up in a court of law, but this is an internet forum. I have very little doubt that the more research we do, the harder it would become for you to dispute that there's a lot of racism in this town.

Quote
[Equipment] I actually got the opposite reaction from the amount of equipment violations. The cliche racist cop in Georgia pulling someone over for being black says that his lights are out. It just struck me as stereotypical.
The only way you can be stopped for an equipment violation is if you're committing an equipment violation. Unless you have some data to prove that white people in Ferguson are just as likely to commit those but are let off the hook, I don't see how this could be racist. Again, the simple fact that the poor people of Ferguson are mostly black seems to fit in much better here. Not because it's stereotypical, but because car maintenance costs money, and a notable characteristic of being poor is not having much money.

Agreed.

Quote
I've already disputed quite a lot of that, but let's go a step further. What are the warrants for?

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/08/28/1325453/-In-2013-Ferguson-gave-out-10-000-more-arrest-warrants-than-people-in-Ferguson

I know it's not an amazing source, but I trust you won't dispute the raw information
You're talking about a community that just torched up their own town.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1zSyA7cf_4

(Sure, the recent riot is more violent than previous ones, but we've had three of those in half a year now)

You're talking about a community that causes traffic accidents and then claims that those only happen because someone crossed a red light.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8jaOB-cN28E

You're talking about a community that destroys itself, and then blames others for its poor state. Does it seem suspicious to me that these sort of people would overall disrespect the law? Gee, I wonder.

Now you're just grasping at straws. You're blatantly ignoring half of my point. Their second largest source of funding is fines. By all accounts, the fines are for stupid things like jaywalking. The town is drowning in fines. In fact, the more we discuss this the more I start to think that the riots are about money, as much as everything else. You can't give out that many fines. It's Draconian.

Quote
We're talking about a city whose second largest source of funds is fines, which also has an above-average poverty rate and a disproportionate amount of blacks among the poor section of the population [...]
Quote from: http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger
Earlier this year, in the series Guilty and Charged, NPR's investigations unit found that the practices in Ferguson are common across the country.
Oh, okay, so you dislike how your courts work. No worries, just don't call it racism when it isn't that.

A system which disproportionately affects a particular minority is racist. That's the definition of institutionalized racism. We aren't talking about the police officers here, and I doubt that this institutionalized racism is racially motivated, but that doesn't mean the blacks in Ferguson (and indeed, in other places where this is the case) shouldn't be pissed off about it.

Quote
Even if the officers weren't racist (and neither they nor you have done a great job of demonstrating otherwise)
Yes, I also haven't demonstrated that God™ doesn't exist. Please repent immediately or He™ shall smite you.

You see, it is not my job to prove that there isn't a big bad white man conspiracy out there to kill all blacks in Ferguson. It's your job to show that it is there. So far you showed me data which doesn't show anything unusual going on and branded it as "oh I dunno it looks racist to me". No one gives a fuck if things look stereotypical to you. Either there is a
statistically provable, systematic racism in Ferguson, and many other similar places in America
(in which case I await evidence), or it is not statistically provable, in which case it's an unfalsifiable hypothesis. In my epistemic system, which is largely based on pragmatism, unfalsifiable hypotheses are not useful, because they do not lead to any useful conclusions about the world that surrounds us. So, if the systematic racism in Ferguson is invisible and functionally ineffective, it may as well not be there.

Saying I don't have any evidence extra loudly doesn't make it true. You sound like an angry noob in the upper fora. I've provided you with evidence that several things in Ferguson are racially motivated. You've been able to explain some of them, but your position on two of them is basically "I can't give a good reason for this, but it's not racism." That's not how logical arguments work.

Quote

So, going back to the 4 categories of stops. All of them disproportionately affect black people. 2 of them are difficult, at best, to explain without using the word 'racism'.
Yes, the two smallest ones. Like I said, I'm sure that several racist individuals exist in the police force. That in no way proves any systematic racism.

Unless those 'several racist individuals' are the only ones who pull people over for the reasons mentioned, your argument makes little statistical sense.

Quote
One of them also suggests racism.
No, you're just seeing what you want to see, and for some reason you appear to be convinced that I need to disprove your unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Once again, saying I don't have any proof very loudly is not the same as demonstrating that I don't have any proof. You've failed to do that.

Quote
Are you telling me that isn't suspicious at all to you?
I don't know what I could possibly be suspicious of. All of your points are easily explained without invoking a big bad racist white man conspiracy. Historical factors, education, economic disparity, attitude, and crime statistics simply fit reality better.

[citation needed]
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 28, 2014, 02:29:10 PM
If black drivers are worse drivers, they will cause more crashes. I really don't think you can argue with that.
It's a ridiculously racist hypothesis to propose. Rushy's assessment is quickly turning out to be quite true.

Also, you continue to fail to acknowledge that there exist traffic offences which do not lead to crashes, despite me pointing it out.

And if you want to claim that black drivers in Ferguson, specifically, are worse drivers than white drivers in Ferguson than you need to provide evidence for that. That's how debate works.
The amount of traffic offences committed is hugely disparate between whites and blacks in Ferguson. We already went over that. Also, you're forgetting that you're the one here who's making a proposition. If you want to be an asshole with your "ooh, that's how debate works" bullshit, then I'm going to have to produce a long list of claims you've made without providing any evidence other than "meh, looks kinda racist to me". My proposal, therefore, is that you stop being an asshole about it - it will only make your case harder.

Can you even provide a possible reason why blacks in Ferguson would be such horrifically bad drivers as to be twice as likely to get pulled over than whites there? That's some pretty awful driving. Why?
I've already done so. In future posts, if you're going to keep demanding that I say the same things over and over, I'm not going to co-operate.

Moving - We would expect twice as many black stops than white stops, we see four times the number. Part (or all) of that could be attributed to DWB. It could also be that Ferguson's black drivers are just statistically more likely to commit traffic offences. It could make sense, since American whites are generally richer, and are thus somewhat less likely to engage in certain risky behaviours. That said, we don't have enough data to tell for sure.

Even if it is a small fraction, it's a fraction which I have demonstrated can only be explained by racism. Thus, statistically proven racism. Even if we're talking 5%, that's a 5% which proves that there is racism in Ferguson.
No, 5% is not a statistically significant value. That's the whole point. You've proven that any disparities fall well within a reasonable margin of error.

I'm not accusing Ferguson cops of being members of the KKK. That was an analogy, the point of which is that racism against one group of people does not require racism against any other. Hispanics don't have a deep history of racism in America. Asians do, but it's still different. Racism against blacks is very different from other forms of racism.
It's very different from any other recent accusations of racism among the police force. The fact that you incessantly bring up the "deep history of racism" in a discussion about institutionalised racism is frankly becoming annoying. It's irrelevant to this discussion.

Once again, I never claimed that 100% of the disparity is caused by racism. I just claimed that the racism in Ferguson is statistically provable.
No, you claimed that institutionalised racism in Ferguson is statistically provable. Nobody disputes the fact that racist individuals exist in Ferguson, and that a few of them may be on the police force.

Quote
[Equipment] I actually got the opposite reaction from the amount of equipment violations. The cliche racist cop in Georgia pulling someone over for being black says that his lights are out. It just struck me as stereotypical.
The only way you can be stopped for an equipment violation is if you're committing an equipment violation. Unless you have some data to prove that white people in Ferguson are just as likely to commit those but are let off the hook, I don't see how this could be racist. Again, the simple fact that the poor people of Ferguson are mostly black seems to fit in much better here. Not because it's stereotypical, but because car maintenance costs money, and a notable characteristic of being poor is not having much money.

Agreed.
Okay, so your already tiny fraction just became even tinier. Even if we assume that all of the unexplained disparities are due to racism, we're looking at a completely insignificant figure.

Now you're just grasping at straws. You're blatantly ignoring half of my point. Their second largest source of funding is fines. By all accounts, the fines are for stupid things like jaywalking. The town is drowning in fines. In fact, the more we discuss this the more I start to think that the riots are about money, as much as everything else. You can't give out that many fines. It's Draconian.
I answered this once already, and you seem to have seen that, so I'm going to ignore your re-statement.

Quote
We're talking about a city whose second largest source of funds is fines, which also has an above-average poverty rate and a disproportionate amount of blacks among the poor section of the population [...]
Quote from: http://www.npr.org/2014/08/25/343143937/in-ferguson-court-fines-and-fees-fuel-anger
Earlier this year, in the series Guilty and Charged, NPR's investigations unit found that the practices in Ferguson are common across the country.
Oh, okay, so you dislike how your courts work. No worries, just don't call it racism when it isn't that.
A system which disproportionately affects a particular minority is racist. That's the definition of institutionalized racism.
No, it's not.

I doubt that this institutionalized racism is racially motivated
I'm speechless. Institutionalised racism is not racially motivated.

Ladies and gentlemen, what we have here is a man so blindly stuck in his argument that he's willing to claim that racism isn't racist, just so that he can carry on calling it racism.

Saying I don't have any evidence extra loudly doesn't make it true.
That's true. Luckily, I've provided ample rebuttals to your claimed evidence.

You sound like an angry noob in the upper fora.
no u

I've provided you with evidence that several things in Ferguson are racially motivated.
Well, you sure tried to. Unfortunately, your evidence pointed in the opposite direction.

You've been able to explain some of them
Where "some" means "98%".

but your position on two of them is basically "I can't give a good reason for this, but it's not racism." That's not how logical arguments work.
lol. Taking my claim, misrepresenting it, and plopping it back at me. I could've sworn I read about this somewhere related to how logical arguments work...

No, you see, the problem here isn't that it's not racism. The problem here is that it's not statistically provable institutionalised racism.

Unless those 'several racist individuals' are the only ones who pull people over for the reasons mentioned, your argument makes little statistical sense.
What? That doesn't even make sense. Why wouldn't there be a fair amount of non-racist cops who stop everyone according to appropriate merits, and then a few who do so more than they should?

Quote
One of them also suggests racism.
No, you're just seeing what you want to see, and for some reason you appear to be convinced that I need to disprove your unfalsifiable hypothesis.
Once again, saying I don't have any proof very loudly is not the same as demonstrating that I don't have any proof. You've failed to do that.
Once again, it is not my job to prove your unfalsifiable hypotheses and negatives.

Quote
Are you telling me that isn't suspicious at all to you?
I don't know what I could possibly be suspicious of. All of your points are easily explained without invoking a big bad racist white man conspiracy. Historical factors, education, economic disparity, attitude, and crime statistics simply fit reality better.

[citation needed]
Please don't use terms you don't understand. Putting a [citation needed] on a conclusion of a long post just makes you look silly.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 28, 2014, 02:58:54 PM
I doubt that this institutionalized racism is racially motivated

I know Pizza already commented on this, but seriously, what the hell does this even mean?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Fortuna on November 29, 2014, 12:18:24 AM
More black people are arrested or confronted in neighborhoods that have a higher percentage of black people than any other race. What a shocker.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 01:20:04 AM
Again, we are talking about institutionalised racism. Social attitudes are skewed - I already acknowledged that, but it's entirely irrelevant to this conversation.
Because the beliefs of the people who make up institutions have no impact on the institutions themselves, right? All ignorance and bias disappears and you become a by-the-book automaton devoid of any personal flaws which might impact how you and those around you perform your jobs.

No, see, societal racism is not actually separate from institutional racism. You call 'irrelevant' just because some overlap happens, but there's no such thing as institutional racism without overlap because institutions operate within society. If that wasn't the case, then institutional racism would just up and spring out of nowhere, which isn't exactly cool with the laws of cause and effect. The forms of racism are connected, and that is not grounds for dismissing them -- it's grounds for looking at the subject more complexly.

Quote
Correct. That's why I called the notion an unfalsifiable hypothesis. Because it's a hypothesis that's not falsifiable. Do you recall the reason why I said that? Oh, that's right - it's the exact same reason which you now seem to think somehow invalidates my statement.
Just because there are currently limited statistics, that doesn't mean it's impossible to falsify. It means that the statistics are one-sided which is the point I'm making in the first place. If somebody has a monopoly on information, then you can't beat them with the information they have a monopoly on because they have a monopoly on it. However, in the Darren Wilson case, these same people fudged their numbers multiple times. First, he said he got punched twice. Then he said it was ten times. Somehow after ten punches from 'demon Hulk Hogan,' his face was just a little rosy. First, Brown was 35 feet from the car when he died. Then it comes out they were about 100 feet off. (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2014/11/20/1346374/-BREAKING-VIDEO-Police-Lied-Mike-Brown-was-killed-148-feet-away-from-Darren-Wilson-s-SUV#) During the trial, they appealed to a statute 29 years dead (http://www.vox.com/xpress/2014/11/27/7298711/ferguson-grand-jury-mistake) to excuse Wilson's behavior. They can't keep up with their own laws, yet they're going to put this down in official statistics as a justified shooting, so the sources will support him in spite of all these flaws and more. That's why I say statistics are a rigged game. You can get away with referencing a law from the 70s, since removed, and nobody even bats an eye.

In light of this, the deaths of black people at police hands (http://www.thespectrum.com/story/news/nation-now/2014/08/15/data-white-cops-kill-black-people-week/14151677/) (a statistic thought to be flawed -- due to underreporting) seem much less infallible. Maybe Mike Brown was a one-off case. Or maybe Aiyana Jones got the exact same treatment. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Aiyana_Jones) Same for Cameron Tillman (http://wgno.com/2014/09/25/107346/) (who, notice, they write off as a 'freak accident.' Characterizing it as 'just one instance,' just like I said). Despite the open-carry laws in Cleveland, an officer got out of his car and immediately shot Tamir Rice (http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/video-shows-cleveland-cop-shoot-12-year-old-tamir-rice-n256656) for waving around a BB gun. John Crawford III (http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/30/opinion/williams-crawford-walmart-killing/) died under similar circumstances. Hell, Omar Edwards (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/black-killed-white-officer-horror-east-harlem-off-duty-rookie-shot-pursuing-suspect-article-1.372647) was mistaken as a criminal by a fellow cop and killed without a chance to diffuse the situation. To compare, twice as many white people are killed through legal intervention -- even though there's five times as many of us in the country. (http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2014/aug/21/michael-medved/talk-show-host-police-kill-more-whites-blacks/)

And shit, these statistics are just referring to the people they've killed. Dymond Milburn (http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/After-hung-jury-girl-won-t-be-retried-in-police-1601070.php), a middle-schooler, was mistaken for a prostitute and beaten; actress Daniele Watts (http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/gossip/daniele-watts-actress-allegedly-mistaken-prostitute-heard-arguing-police-audio-article-1.1939813) was given a lighter version of the same treatment. Have any of you ever been mistaken for a sex worker and taken into police custody? Me either. Black people who are still alive continue to speak about their lived experiences, but they get shut down because these 'freak accidents' aren't recorded statistically as failures on the part of the police force. The officers are rarely given more than a slap on the wrist unless they shoot a white family's dog (http://wgntv.com/2014/07/28/officer-fired-after-shooting-dog/). The same prosecutor who pardoned Darren Wilson's fatal shooting felt the need to bring a black cop up on felony charges for using his baton. (http://www.dailydot.com/politics/ferguson-prosecutor-indicted-cop-for-using-baton/) The amount of ass-covering the institution grants cops seems to change based on the race of the officers and/or the victims.

Meantime, James Holmes, the Dark Knight shooter? Taken alive. Eric Frein? Taken alive (http://abcnews.go.com/US/fbi-wanted-fugitive-eric-frein-captured-alive/story?id=26587018). You see a white guy waving a gun around in public like Tamir Rice was doing -- with the exception that it was a real gun (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-police-shoot-man-20140806-story.html) -- and after trying to talk him down, they shoot just once and take him alive. What did any of these openly violent people do right that Tamir Rice and John Crawford did wrong to get so enthusiastically gunned down by our famously objective police force?

That was really long but it addresses multiple points of yours, so don't freak out when you see there's blocks I'm not directly replying to.

Quote
Please explain why you hold this belief. You assume that police officers are incapable of admitting to having made mistakes despite ample evidence (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=police+mistake) to the contrary.
lol 'ew huffington post is gross i won't even waste my time with it
/links a search where the most prominent hits are HuffPo and others accusing police of making mistakes, rather than police directly saying they fucked up'

Quote
Of course. That's true by definition. They have had an impact on people's equality of opportunity in the past. Nowadays, it's an equality of outcomes thing.
Another dismissal based in false dichotomy. Inequality of one generation's outcomes limits the equality of the next generation's opportunities. Separating them is logically self-defeating. The line between the two types of equality doesn't exist as much as capitalists like to pretend for exactly this reason.

Quote
Again: not something I denied and not the subject of this discussion. Making true statements about things which are irrelevant doesn't make your case any more convincing.
"Brown people are systematically cheated by the system but lol that's not racism."

Quote
No - you're just either dishonest or misinformed and act as if we're talking about "racism", when we're talking about institutionalised racism - specifically, Tausami's claim that institutionalised racism is statistically provable. If you'd like to start a discussion about social attitudes, historical factors, or anything other than institutional racism and the statistic provability/falsifiability thereof, feel free to. However, these points are completely irrelevant to this specific discussion.
Again implying that none of those things are connected to the racist way the system has shaken out. I know I'm addressing this twice but I wanna make sure to highlight that this is what I'm talking about in the first paragraph of this post too.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 01:44:40 AM
If you cannot separate institutionalised racism from irrelevant factors, then we're going to have to agree to disagree.

Also, if you can't navigate a Google search, then I'm not going to repeat the mistake of writing a long response to a post of yours.

I've made my case, and the fact that you cannot address it without constantly moving the goalposts and attempting to belittle me with repeated strawman attacks makes me feel confident that we're done here.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 01:50:03 AM
You're not half the philosopher you seem to think you are if you can't handle dismantling a false dichotomy.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 01:55:14 AM
Ah, yes, you've stooped down to personal stabs. How surprising. Wait, wait, lemme try this one:

if u cant handle your false equivalence going kaplow then ur dumb lol

Yeah, we're done here. Tausami is at least capable of making valid arguments, so I'll just wait for him to come back.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 02:00:53 AM
but of course all the people belittling pro-Ferguson peeps, dismissing their points as rants, aren't making personal stabs at all
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 02:04:32 AM
but of course all the people belittling pro-Ferguson peeps, dismissing their points as rants, aren't making personal stabs at all
I'm sorry, do you expect me to take responsibility for what other pro-forensic-evidence people are saying? Because I'm not doing that.

To reiterate my point: If you have falsifiable evidence of institutional racism going on in Ferguson, report it to the FBI. They're currently investigating the case. They'll be able to help. Just make sure you don't start pointlessly insulting them if they don't believe you on a "'cause I said so" basis - it generally makes people much less open to your views.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 02:11:35 AM
I expect you to take responsibility for your leading language and inconsistent reactions to slips in debating form based on which side is making them. If this was really about personal attacks, then you'd have just as much a problem with all the hi-fiving and ass-slapping going on in this thread.

A great deal of philosophy is about examining the definitions of ideas and seeing where their boundaries really lie. For example, 'is there ultimately a difference between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity?' is a philosophical question. It examines the way in which the boundaries of these concepts contradict themselves. And hell, as contradictions go, that's an easy one. Refusing to even entertain that notion doesn't give you the right to brandish 'intellectual superiority' over your opponent just because they're trying to demonstrate logically how things you consider unrelated are actually more relevant than you might think upon closer inspection.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 02:16:22 AM
I expect you to take responsibility for your leading language and inconsistent reactions to slips in debating form based on which side is making them. If this was really about personal attacks, then you'd have just as much a problem with all the hi-fiving and ass-slapping going on in this thread.
No one, other than you, responded directly to an argument by saying anything quite as devoid of substance as "'Brown people are systematically cheated by the system but lol that's not racism.'" or "You're not half the philosopher you seem to think you are if you can't handle dismantling a false dichotomy."

Yes, there were slips, and yes, there were elements of diminishing language in between other arguments. You, however, resorted to using just that. To me, that's a dealbreaker. You're welcome to disagree or think I'm a big dum-dum for that, it's still gonna be a dealbreaker for me.

A great deal of philosophy is about examining the definitions of ideas and seeing where their boundaries really lie. For example, 'is there ultimately a difference between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity?' is a philosophical question. It examines the way in which the boundaries of these concepts contradict themselves. And hell, as contradictions go, that's an easy one. Refusing to even entertain that notion doesn't give you the right to brandish 'intellectual superiority' over your opponent just because they're trying to demonstrate logically how things you consider unrelated are actually more relevant than you might think upon closer inspection.
I'm not sure what on Earth makes you think we're discussing philosophy, but I sure as hell am not. I also repeatedly invited you to discuss other aspects of racism as a separate discussion. It's entirely your decision to ignore these invitations and instead insult me for not letting you derail this discussion.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on November 29, 2014, 02:18:25 AM
I expect you to take responsibility for your leading language and inconsistent reactions to slips in debating form based on which side is making them. If this was really about personal attacks, then you'd have just as much a problem with all the hi-fiving and ass-slapping going on in this thread.

A great deal of philosophy is about examining the definitions of ideas and seeing where their boundaries really lie. For example, 'is there ultimately a difference between inequality of outcome and inequality of opportunity?' is a philosophical question. It examines the way in which the boundaries of these concepts contradict themselves. And hell, as contradictions go, that's an easy one. Refusing to even entertain that notion doesn't give you the right to brandish 'intellectual superiority' over your opponent just because they're trying to demonstrate logically how things you consider unrelated are actually more relevant than you might think upon closer inspection.

I'm sure following your debate up with personal attacks and "ur not smarter than me I am the better fillosophur" is the correct way to go. I think a proper philosopher would have just let the debate go and moved on, not throw a tantrum like a petulant child.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 02:24:32 AM
^ Well sorry for being sick of watching this belittling shit pass for 'intellectualism' everywhere I go.

Philosophy isn't something sectioned off away from the rest of real life. It wouldn't be worth anything if it was. Philosophy is about real life and that's why it's included in this board's title. It influences how the data is interpreted in the first place because, for example, statistics on inequality inevitably bring up whether inequality of opportunity and outcome are all that different. If you don't examine situations like this from every direction, then you're going to miss something. Numbers mean next to nothing without application.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 02:27:53 AM
^ Well sorry for being sick of watching this belittling shit pass for 'intellectualism' everywhere I go.
But you're the only one guilty of that here.

Philosophy isn't something sectioned off away from the rest of real life. It wouldn't be worth anything if it was.
You may or may not have just uncovered my views on philosophy.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 02:33:11 AM
You arranged your goalposts in such a way that, if the evidence brought up had anything to do with socialization, it was suddenly inadmissible. This is a problem because socialization created the people who cause racial problems in the first place. You were asking your opponents to give you water without getting anything wet, which is a 'perfect' defense based on ignoring the very properties of water. You made this a philosophical issue by marking evidence of complex issues as inadmissible specifically due to its complexity, and that had to be challenged before any headway could be made otherwise. Then you didn't accept the challenge. That struck me as cowardly.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 02:36:13 AM
You arranged your goalposts in such a way that, if the evidence brought up had anything to do with socialization, it was suddenly inadmissible. [...]
I did not arrange the goalposts. Tausami made his claim, and I opposed that claim. He used certain terms, and I interpreted them to mean what they're defined as. You then came and said "Hold on a minute, let's stop using definitions and tweak them so that I'm right". I rejected that notion, because my issue is with the claim as originally made - not some silly revisionist interpretation thereof. If this strikes you as cowardly, then:

You're welcome to disagree or think I'm a big dum-dum for that, it's still gonna be a dealbreaker for me.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: model 29 on November 29, 2014, 02:41:53 AM
Densoro, if a person of one race uses racial epithets while assaulting a person of another race, do you consider that as a 'hate crime'?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 03:00:06 AM
PP: Demanding dry water would be a logical contradiction, objectively-speaking, no matter who said it. Demanding that we talk about social issues without talking about social issues is the same way. Highlighting a contradiction doesn't have anything to do with 'tweaking' anything 'so that I'm right.' A contradiction is a contradiction.

model 29: In the micro sense, almost definitely. Word choice shows where focus is placed; you'd call somebody an asshole if you were attacking them for being an asshole, but you'd call them a slur if you were attacking them for whatever demographic you're slurring.
However, two caveats: 1) that's not the only way that an attack could be racially-motivated. If a black person surprises you and your first reaction is fight-or-flight as with many of the news stories that I posted, then that shows a fearful bias against black bodies. 2) There's also a macro element that needs to be emphasized, composed of society's reactions to said attacks, institutional punishments/lack thereof, and the precedent set by past incidents. That affects the atmosphere and power dynamics at work. White people have done some heinous shit and still been taken alive, whereas black people know what could happen if they mess with white people, so they'd have to be pushed pretty damn far to take that risk. Granted, it makes little difference to the victim in the moment, but these things affect chances of being victimized in the first place. It's a bigger-picture kind of thing: hate crimes against minorities set a shitty precedent for other people in that minority, whereas hate crimes against those in power are swiftly dealt with.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 03:02:20 AM
PP: Demanding dry water would be a logical contradiction, objectively-speaking, no matter who said it. Demanding that we talk about social issues without talking about social issues is the same way. Highlighting a contradiction doesn't have anything to do with 'tweaking' anything 'so that I'm right.' A contradiction is a contradiction.
If you believe that the definition of institutionalised racism as defined in social sciences is incorrect, then so be it. But that does not affect my claim - merely your understanding of it. If, in your view, Tausami's claim becomes self-contradictory when current mainstream definitions are used, then surely you shouldn't have an issue with me saying that his claim is incorrect.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 03:07:31 AM
It's more that I think you're misusing that definition and its implications, which is why I see this as a philosophical issue =P Yes, institutional racism is a different thing. However, no, it's not completely 100% divorced from other kinds of racism, and basing any argument on the assumption that it is, just because it's a different item beneath the same umbrella, is inaccurate.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 03:14:23 AM
Of course they're not completely divorced. However, this isn't relevant when statistical evidence of institutional racism's existence/prevalence is questioned. Other types of racism can lead to institutional racism, for sure. However, it doesn't matter what led to it - I want to see evidence that it's currently there.

If you tell me that there's a car in a ditch and I question it, I don't care how the car allegedly ended up in the ditch. I want to examine the ditch and see the car in it. Telling me that the road surface around the ditch is slippery, that the driver was drunk and that there are oh-so-many reasons why it would make sense for the car to be in the ditch doesn't help in this particular case.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 03:20:31 AM
But if I show you the car and you go 'No that's more of a buggy tbh' or 'That's not a ditch so much as a pit' then I have to challenge your definitions because the fact is somebody's motor vehicle is still in a depression in the road and they need help. Furthermore, this discussion is about whether ditches are widespread hazards for motorists, rather than about a single isolated incident. I'm pointing to multiple depressions in multiple roads and you're essentially saying they're not deep enough to worry about, but I'm telling you the people who drive on that road say otherwise and trying to convince you that you probably don't know their road as well as they do.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 03:29:32 AM
But if I show you the car and you go 'No that's more of a buggy tbh'
Sorry, you're not doing that. You're showing me the slippery road and the drunk driver.

the fact is somebody's motor vehicle is still in a depression in the road and they need help.
That may well be, but it's simply irrelevant to this discussion. This discussion is very specific and very targeted. You're trying to make it not so. I reject these motions. You are still welcome to start a separate discussion about racism at large, or why you dislike the definitions of things.

I'm pointing to multiple depressions in multiple roads
And I don't care about them. Tausami said there's a specific car in a specific ditch. Don't show me other cars or buggies, don't show me other ditches. Don't show me moon rovers in moon craters. Show me this particular car in this particular ditch. If it's there and, as alleged, it's blatantly obvious and easily provable, then this is a very simple request. The fact that we're not looking at the car right now but are instead doing the macarena is a big tell here.

I'm telling you the people who drive on that road say otherwise and trying to convince you that you probably don't know their road as well as they do.
That's the thing. You keep talking about the road. I wanna see the bloody car in the bloody ditch. Yes, they're related, but my request is very specific.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 03:41:25 AM
We're doing the macarena because you aren't accepting multiple examples of black people being attacked in circumstances where white people get their hands held as evidence of an inconsistency when I'm pretty sure it's the very definition of one. For some reason, it doesn't count. I'm trying to figure out why that is, so I try analyzing the definition of institutional racism you're working with for reasons why people of different colors in the same situations being treated differently don't cut it.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 03:53:11 AM
Yes, you keep trying to abstract away from the specific case. That's exactly the problem.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 04:02:12 AM
I assume by 'specific case,' you mean Mike Brown. If so, then I have to point out the contradiction inherent to saying 'One case isn't enough to determine whether the entire institution is racist. Give me facts and figures,' and then calling it 'abstraction' when the opponent brings the discussion outside of Mike Brown's individual case. Do you want to go larger-scale or don't you?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 04:05:26 AM
I want to go Ferguson-scale, for the time being.

EDIT: Also, I disagree that the Wilson/Brown case bears any signs of racism at all, so the "one case isn't enough" debate never comes into the picture.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 04:10:04 AM
See, there we go. That was a lot more helpful than just repeating "I'm talking about institutionalized racism' as though I wasn't already aware of that. Now that you've shared your actual train of thought, I don't have to try and psychoanalyze you over the internet or try to provide a swarm of evidence to get at the numerous possible refutations I'm attempting to anticipate.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 04:14:39 AM
Now that you've shared your actual train of thought, I don't have to try and psychoanalyze you over the internet or try to provide a swarm of evidence to get at the numerous possible refutations I'm attempting to anticipate.
I think the problem is that you entered the discussion after I had already explained my train of thought, and perhaps didn't pay as much attention as you should have to the thread before hopping in.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 04:20:47 AM
I'll grant that I didn't read further than the post I jumped in on, but I was talking to Supes on Skype and she said Tau didn't bring up the points I did so I figured that justified making them, myself. Just for good measure.

The other problem is that you continuously assumed I wasn't thinking about how my points related to institutionalized racism when I made them, so rather than asking for clarification, you repeated yourself in a vague, unhelpful way -- again, as thought you thought I was too stupid to understand it the first time. So then I went off explaining how they were related and you essentially went tl;dr.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 04:23:23 AM
The other problem is that you continuously assumed I wasn't thinking about how my points related to institutionalized racism when I made them, so rather than asking for clarification, you repeated yourself in a vague, unhelpful way -- again, as thought you thought I was too stupid to understand it the first time.
Well, yes, if you join a thread where certain subjects have been thoroughly discussed and act as if they weren't at all, then I must assume that you were either too lazy to read them the first time (in which case you deserve no courtesy from me), or that for some reason you didn't understand it the first time.

So then I went off explaining how they were related and you essentially went tl;dr.
I don't think you're in the right position to tell others they went tl;dr when you skipped the first 5 pages of a thread.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 04:27:00 AM
5 pages > a few paragraphs and I was getting tired of all the ass-slapping =P
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 04:30:35 AM
5 pages > a few paragraphs and I was getting tired of all the ass-slapping =P
I read every word in this thread, including the ones you wrote. I ignored parts of your posts because I was getting tired of the irrelevant stuff.

For example, I didn't respond to any of the plentiful examples from outside of Ferguson because we were talking about Ferguson and Ferguson specifically.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 04:48:38 AM
Well now that I know why you're calling it irrelevant and it doesn't seem arbitrary and leave me trying to hokey-pokey around your irrelevant-beam, I know what to focus on. Attorney Lisa Bloom  (https://storify.com/tessalaprofessa/story) gave a play-by-play critique of all the standard procedures ignored in prosecuting Darren Wilson. We could believe that Bob McCulloch (president of the company that raised funds for Darren Wilson (http://www.snopes.com/politics/crime/backstoppers.asp)) was simply an incompetent, lazy prosecutor if not for his aforementioned railroading of Dawon Gore. He didn't ask questions of Darren Wilson that are standard practice in these kinds of trials, nobody questioned his conflict of interest with regard to the case, but as much as he went out of his way not to incriminate Wilson, he didn't extend the same courtesies to Gore.

McCulloch is not the beginning and the end of racially-biased law in Ferguson, but he seems to be a major player.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 04:56:07 AM
I agree that McCulloch potentially should have recused himself due to conflict of interest. However, the forensic evidence was collected independently of McCulloch and speaks volumes about what actually happened. The pro-Brown stories simply do not fit the data, and virtually all "eye witnesses" who previously defended Brown have retracted or changed their statements when testifying to the grand jury.

That said, there is an independent FBI investigation going on, and since there's no such thing as double jeopardy for grand juries, we may yet see Wilson taken to court. I doubt we will - I firmly believe in the forensic evidence and the testimonies already given - but if the original investigation fucked things up, these errors will be corrected. Importantly, there is also a second FBI investigation looking at Ferguson at large.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Densoro on November 29, 2014, 05:06:39 AM
I'm curious what evidence you've seen that has you so convinced. I haven't seen anything that compellingly defends him.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on November 29, 2014, 05:38:57 AM
there is an independent FBI investigation going on, and since there's no such thing as double jeopardy for grand juries, we may yet see Wilson taken to court

It wouldn't be double jeopardy even if it had gone to trial.  Dual sovereignty.  That's how they convicted two of the cops that beat Rodney King after the L.A. riots. /nitpick
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on November 29, 2014, 05:49:17 AM
It wouldn't be double jeopardy even if it had gone to trial.  Dual sovereignty.  That's how they convicted two of the cops that beat Rodney King after the L.A. riots. /nitpick
ok Saddam.

I'm curious what evidence you've seen that has you so convinced. I haven't seen anything that compellingly defends him.
All of the evidence used by the grand jury can be accessed here: http://apps.stlpublicradio.org/ferguson-project/evidence.html

My personal favourites are the autopsy report and the witness interviews. I'd recommend reading the autopsy report verbatim, the witness testimony is covered well by this article: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/078c82ad45ff4ec6aa1c7744dfa7df14/grand-jury-documents-rife-inconsistencies
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 02, 2014, 08:59:29 PM
Today in the lounge of my dorm hall I overheard a conversation about the court decision. Everybody was in agreement that the jury decided incorrectly.

The things they were saying were infuriating. They all went on and on about how Mike Brown was running away when he was shot. About how he was absolutely no threat to the officer. The official court transcripts (provided by Junker) show that all bullets entered from the front. Other evidence shows Brown did attack the officer.

I don't mind people having an opinion. What I do mind is a loud, uninformed opinion.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 02, 2014, 09:49:00 PM
The official court transcripts (provided by Junker) show that all bullets entered from the front.
Not just the front. One of the bullets hit the very top of his scalp.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 02, 2014, 10:15:06 PM
The official court transcripts (provided by Junker) show that all bullets entered from the front.
Not just the front. One of the bullets hit the very top of his scalp.

Correct, my bad. If I recall correctly, forensics said that supported the officer's testimony as well.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on December 02, 2014, 10:19:07 PM
Why don't you just call them out if it bothers you so much?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 02, 2014, 10:24:00 PM
Why don't you just call them out if it bothers you so much?

It's not worth it. I can argue on a forum full of naysayers, because I only have to read one post at a time and I can take my time in responding. However, in a room full of people who disagree with you, it's tough to get a word in edgewise without being interrupted. I prefer one on one discussions in matters like this.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on December 02, 2014, 10:37:38 PM
Why don't you just call them out if it bothers you so much?

It's not worth it. I can argue on a forum full of naysayers, because I only have to read one post at a time and I can take my time in responding. However, in a room full of people who disagree with you, it's tough to get a word in edgewise without being interrupted. I prefer one on one discussions in matters like this.

That's when you start bustin' knee caps.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 02, 2014, 11:39:45 PM
Correct, my bad. If I recall correctly, forensics said that supported the officer's testimony as well.
Yeah, there aren't all that many scenarios in which you could shoot someone in the top of their head. You basically have to be facing the shooter and leaning - which is pretty consistent with Brown charging at Wilson.

Why don't you just call them out if it bothers you so much?
Personally, that's what I try do. Many people refuse to even discuss it (immediately proposing that we should agree to disagree), some choose to immediately call me a member of the KKK, and the few meaningful discussions I've had ended inconclusively ("Well yeah but maybe he should still be indicted so that the evidence can be reviewed in court", etc.).

If I weren't so stubborn I would agree that it's completely not worth the effort. These people are guided by ideology and blind belief, and rarely adjust their views in light of new information.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 03, 2014, 12:39:38 AM
If I weren't so stubborn I would agree that it's completely not worth the effort. These people are guided by ideology and blind belief, and rarely adjust their views in light of new information.

Yeah, those people with their cognitive biases and their political opinions and maybe their lack of research coloring their perception of the facts.  It's almost as if they're human or something!  What morons.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Particle Person on December 03, 2014, 01:04:00 AM
If I weren't so stubborn I would agree that it's completely not worth the effort. These people are guided by ideology and blind belief, and rarely adjust their views in light of new information.

Yeah, those people with their cognitive biases and their political opinions and maybe their lack of research coloring their perception of the facts.  It's almost as if they're human or something!  What morons.

It sounds like they really are morons. Being human is not a defense against the accusation of being a moron. In fact, nearly all of the morons I know are human.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 03, 2014, 01:41:17 AM
Yeah, those people with their cognitive biases and their political opinions and maybe their lack of research coloring their perception of the facts.  It's almost as if they're human or something!  What morons.
I'm fully aware that you're trying to be 2edgy4me, but that is actually my take on things. If you didn't even bother to do your fucking research, you should not develop opinions so strong that you religiously reject any and all data that challenges your assumptions.

-HE DIDNDU NUTTIN'
-Yeah okay what about all this forensic evidence?
-SHUT UP YOU RACIS' KKK
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: junker on December 03, 2014, 02:15:07 AM

Yeah, those people with their cognitive biases and their political opinions and maybe their lack of research coloring their perception of the facts.  It's almost as if they're human or something!  What morons.
I'm fully aware that you're trying to be 2edgy4me, but that is actually my take on things. If you didn't even bother to do your fucking research, you should not develop opinions so strong that you religiously reject any and all data that challenges your assumptions.

-HE DIDNDU NUTTIN'
-Yeah okay what about all this forensic evidence?
-SHUT UP YOU RACIS' KKK


Sadman is just doing his typical counter-counter-culture schtick.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 03, 2014, 02:51:44 AM
If you didn't even bother to do your fucking research, you should not develop opinions so strong that you religiously reject any and all data that challenges your assumptions.

I've wanted to say these exact words ~20 times in the past two weeks.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Vindictus on December 03, 2014, 10:28:05 AM
Even with 20 minutes of Googling, it's pretty apparent that Mike Brown wasn't completely innocent (hindsight is 20/20). Do some Americans really think we live in this (http://i.imgur.com/seRfxv4.jpg) kind of society?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on December 03, 2014, 03:26:34 PM
Even with 20 minutes of Googling, it's pretty apparent that Mike Brown wasn't completely innocent (hindsight is 20/20). Do some Americans really think we live in this (http://i.imgur.com/seRfxv4.jpg) kind of society?

Yes.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 03, 2014, 03:46:21 PM
Even with 20 minutes of Googling, it's pretty apparent that Mike Brown wasn't completely innocent (hindsight is 20/20). Do some Americans really think we live in this (http://i.imgur.com/seRfxv4.jpg) kind of society?

I prefer  this (http://i.imgur.com/etuFvMr.jpg) one.

Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Vindictus on December 03, 2014, 09:56:10 PM
I've seen dozens of them so far, and all have been good.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 03, 2014, 10:35:24 PM
Sadman is just doing his typical counter-counter-culture schtick.

That would imply that the majority opinion in this thread is counter-culture, which is untrue.  My shtick could more accurately be described as counter-counter-counter-culture.

Even with 20 minutes of Googling, it's pretty apparent that Mike Brown wasn't completely innocent (hindsight is 20/20). Do some Americans really think we live in this (http://i.imgur.com/seRfxv4.jpg) kind of society?

The media's terrible reporting of what happened is part of the problem, yes.  I'm not saying that the people who think that this was police brutality aren't wrong or that they shouldn't do research, because they are and they should, only that this issue isn't so 100% self-evidently obvious that it really warrants all the smugness, condescension, and generalizing about detractors that a few people in this thread seem to think it does.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2014, 01:10:09 AM
I think the real lesson here is don't rob a fucking convenience store.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Particle Person on December 04, 2014, 01:23:12 AM
No, that is not the real lesson here. If that were so, the lesson would be that death is a reasonable punishment for robbing a convenience store.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Vindictus on December 04, 2014, 01:33:12 AM
The convenience store didn't really have that much to do with it. His real problems started when he assaulted the officer through the window, tried grabbing his gun, then running after being shot before finally turning to charge the officer.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on December 04, 2014, 03:03:45 AM
No, that is not the real lesson here. If that were so, the lesson would be that death is a reasonable punishment for robbing a convenience store.

Had he not robbed a convenience store, no punishment would be necessary, death or otherwise.

The convenience store didn't really have that much to do with it. His real problems started when he assaulted the officer through the window, tried grabbing his gun, then running after being shot before finally turning to charge the officer.

The convenience store is the only reason the cop showed up. He was responding to the report of a robbery.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Vindictus on December 04, 2014, 05:56:26 AM
I thought he radioed in asking if they needed him, but they said no. He just happened by them and noticed he fit the description of the guy who robbed the store.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: DuckDodgers on December 04, 2014, 06:09:02 AM
I thought the original story was that he didn't stop Brown in relation to the robbery at all?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: model 29 on December 04, 2014, 06:30:02 AM
Well.... this is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Y9FjtQ5Wc
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Vindictus on December 04, 2014, 06:35:04 AM
I thought the original story was that he didn't stop Brown in relation to the robbery at all?

I think the official story is he first asked them to move off the street, then he stopped further down the road and called him to the vehicle as he fit the description of the robber.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 04, 2014, 06:45:14 AM
Well, that certainly is something. I won't waste my time pointing out the religious contradictions he is running into.

Honestly, this is pretty startling. He blatantly condones the killing of white people so long as black people are being killed. In a country of 300+ million people, there are going to be murders. White people are going to kill black people. Black people are going to kill white people. White people are going to kill white people. Black people are going to kill black people. It's pretty simple.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 04, 2014, 06:46:35 AM
I thought the original story was that he didn't stop Brown in relation to the robbery at all?

I think the official story is he first asked them to move off the street, then he stopped further down the road and called him to the vehicle as he fit the description of the robber.

iirc, he put his vehicle into reverse to approach Brown after realizing he fit the description of the robber.

This, of course, is the cop's testimony.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Ghost of V on December 04, 2014, 07:35:49 AM
Well.... this is interesting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=97Y9FjtQ5Wc


Oh look it's black Jim Jones.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on December 04, 2014, 03:43:01 PM
169 Police Officers have died from the St Louis Metropolitan Police Department.
That's almost 100 more than the Memphis Police Department.

Most cop deaths are always related to gunfire; I wonder how many of those officers were killed by black people.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on December 07, 2014, 06:32:58 PM
I can't seem to find the post I wanted to quote, so I'll just wing it.  Also, this isn't really meant to be a omg-you're-so-wrong post, but just an explanation of why I believe that people of color in America are still systematically oppressed.  If anyone is interested, I highly recommend the book Racism without Racists.  It's obviously a much more well-researched and persuasive text than this post will be, and you can find it online for free pretty easily.

Quote from: pp
You probably think I'm racist.
For whatever it's worth, I unequivocally do not think that you're a racist, and nothing you've said in this thread makes me think otherwise.  Our viewpoints likely only diverge from one another in just a few places.

I also don't think that systematic marginalization of people of color in America requires anyone in it to hate racial minorities.

Quote from: pp
On institutional racism.
I don't think that racism originates in institutions.  My original statement was that people of color are, in my view, systematically oppressed.  By that I mean that they are discriminated against and marginalized systematically, i.e. as a class; and, that this oppression/discrimination/marginalization is exogenous to skin color.  I believe that that marginalization comes from a multiplicity of sources, some of them institutional (more on that shortly), but most of them diffuse and subtle.

Quote from: pp
On falsifiability
Statements that take the form "All x are y," or "No x is y," are definitely falsifiable.  All swans are white.  No swan is black.  Totally falsifiable.  I don't see why similar statements, like, "No race in America is systematically marginalized," can't be falsified in principle.  It might be difficult, but I see no reason why we can't treat it as a null hypothesis and get to work crunching numbers.

Ultimately, though, I dislike falsifiability as a criterion for belief in this arena.  It's too close to logical positivism for my comfort.  The premise that falsifiability should be my criterion for belief is itself unfalsifiable.  The preponderance of evidence and a healthy dose of skepticism is good enough for me.

Quote from: pp
There is no evidence to support your claims.
This was your original claim, so I'll round things off here.  Again, I suspect that you will find these things unpersuasive, and that's no big deal.  But, for whatever it's worth, here are some of the broad strokes that cause me to believe that people of color are marginalized in American society:

(1) The most obvious in my mind is that people of color in America describe themselves as marginalized and without equality of opportunity.  There is an abundance of narratives to this effect in both academic and popular literature/media.  Not only are the narratives consistent with one another, but also they're consistent with the narratives of other peoples we know were/are oppressed and marginalized.  I have no reason or method to dispute such consistency across millions of accounts.

(2)  There's plenty of empirical research that demonstrates the existence of racial bias in many settings.  It's difficult for me to believe that this bias is unrelated to the material disparity between whites and people of color.  Here is a typical example:

http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdf

(3)  There are plenty of institutional sources of marginalization and oppression that don't on face discriminate against people of color, and thus can't be solved by Equal Protection.  Property taxes are an excellent example.  Poor urban communities (mostly people of color) face a massive disparity in spending on education, parks, libraries, police and fire, road maintenance, etc.  That white students overwhelmingly get better access to education alone is, to me, hugely debilitating to black communities.

(4)  History is still super relevant to me, and I think that centuries and centuries of literal enslavement are very relevant to the material conditions of today's minority communities.  Even if it were true that racial bias largely disappeared in the second half of the 20th century, I don't see how that alone can even come close to equalizing racial disparity in America today.

These are just some examples, but I'm sure you get the idea at this point.

Quote from: pp
On WWII
Entirely lightheartedly, I'll totally have a history fight with you.  I dunno anything about your family's migration (obviously), but I'd be shocked if one couldn't make the case that your current citizenship is a consequence of WWII.  And your current citizenship has an obvious impact on your current/potential material conditions.  It's hard for me to see how WWII is 'over' in that sense, either for you or your grandfather.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 07, 2014, 11:50:59 PM
Frankly, I'm tired of this conversation. I'll address a couple of points selectively and probably bail shortly afterwards.

(1) The most obvious in my mind is that people of color in America describe themselves as marginalized and without equality of opportunity.  There is an abundance of narratives to this effect in both academic and popular literature/media.  Not only are the narratives consistent with one another, but also they're consistent with the narratives of other peoples we know were/are oppressed and marginalized.  I have no reason or method to dispute such consistency across millions of accounts.
You do. It would be intellectually dishonest to take their word for it and assume a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude. Otherwise, there would be nothing stopping me from claiming that I'm institutionally oppressed due to WWII still being in full effect, and you'd have to take me as seriously as the Ferguson forensics denialists.

(2)  There's plenty of empirical research that demonstrates the existence of racial bias in many settings.  It's difficult for me to believe that this bias is unrelated to the material disparity between whites and people of color.
So, at the very best, you can make a claim about classism. Unless you're suggesting that a white person and a white person in an identical economic situation would still be subject to this bias, then the bias is not racial.

I don't think that racism originates in institutions.  My original statement was that people of color are, in my view, systematically oppressed. [...]
Systematic oppression (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oppression#Systematic_oppression) is oppression which became institutionalised. At this point, you're claiming that you're talking about racism but not racism, and institutionalised but not institutionalised. The concept you're outlining at this point is not just unfalsifiable, but self-contradictory.

(4)  History is still super relevant to me, and I think that centuries and centuries of literal enslavement are very relevant to the material conditions of today's minority communities.  Even if it were true that racial bias largely disappeared in the second half of the 20th century, I don't see how that alone can even come close to equalizing racial disparity in America today.
I am a very strong opponent of any such equalisation, and I believe I made it clear by insisting on the rigid distinction between the equality of outcome and that of opportunity. More racism is not the answer to past racism. If the bias is gone, the bias is gone, and now the community simply needs time to heal. Hopefully, they will eventually realise it and stop burning their own stuff to the ground.

Entirely lightheartedly, I'll totally have a history fight with you.  I dunno anything about your family's migration (obviously), but I'd be shocked if one couldn't make the case that your current citizenship is a consequence of WWII.  And your current citizenship has an obvious impact on your current/potential material conditions.  It's hard for me to see how WWII is 'over' in that sense, either for you or your grandfather.
Yes, WWII is over. If it weren't, I'd be either dead or a Soviet spy right now. Better red than dead!
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 08, 2014, 12:31:17 AM
Frankly, I'm tired of this conversation.

???

Is there a reason you're being so hostile in this discussion?  All throughout this thread, you've consistently been snide, condescending, and in general just unpleasant to people who seem to be, for the most part, bending over backwards to be respectful to you.  I'm not saying that you're breaking the rules or anything, but couldn't you tone down the snark and backhanded comments a little?  Please?  It would make for a much nicer experience for the rest of us.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on December 08, 2014, 03:07:36 AM
PP has put a lot of effort into this discussion, more than anyone else. I don't blame him for being tired of it.

I see no snide.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on December 08, 2014, 04:01:32 AM
Frankly, I'm tired of this conversation.

Is there a reason you're being so hostile in this discussion?

That's the best you could come up with for an example of hostility?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on December 08, 2014, 04:13:38 AM
No, just the latest example.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on December 08, 2014, 04:16:37 AM
Well, feel free to point out more, I for one would be interested in seeing them.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on December 08, 2014, 07:29:52 AM
No, I genuinely meant that I'm tired of it. Not because I think less of anyone here, but simply because I'd like to move on soon. I thought it would be better to say it a bit in advance than just stop replying out of the blue.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: model 29 on December 11, 2014, 05:24:44 AM
I just had to share this bit of irony....

A white man with "Stop killing black men" written on his shirt, is hit in the head with a hammer by a black man, during a "peaceful protest". 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jGmGiARnBo
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on January 01, 2015, 10:44:28 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/31/protesters-st-louis-police_n_6402150.html

rah rah fight the powa
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Lord Dave on January 02, 2015, 12:50:47 AM
I wonder what would happen if the police just went on strike. 
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: spoon on January 02, 2015, 12:58:49 AM
The cops should start killing black people in protest.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on January 02, 2015, 01:26:54 AM
Great, now the only people who will ever want to be cops in that area will be absolutely insane psychopaths.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on January 02, 2015, 03:00:21 PM
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/12/31/protesters-st-louis-police_n_6402150.html

rah rah fight the powa
lol, that "eviction notice"
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 12, 2015, 06:28:08 PM
http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2015/03/12/392470720/two-police-officers-shot-outside-the-ferguson-police-department

rah rah fight the powa
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rushy on March 12, 2015, 06:30:38 PM
Great, now the only people who will ever want to be cops in that area will be absolutely insane psychopaths.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 12, 2015, 07:04:27 PM
They also bullied the local chief out of his job. How the hell is their government fucking this up so badly?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on March 12, 2015, 07:06:44 PM
Great, now the only people who will ever want to be cops in that area will be absolutely insane psychopaths.

Yup. That was my first thought.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 12, 2015, 07:16:16 PM
They also bullied the local chief out of his job. How the hell is their government fucking this up so badly?

They being the Department of Justice?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on March 12, 2015, 08:55:36 PM
Yep.  Bullied out of his job.  Somehow.

Or maybe he was just shitty at his job and deserved to be fired.

http://apps.washingtonpost.com/g/documents/national/department-of-justice-report-on-the-ferguson-mo-police-department/1435/
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 12, 2015, 10:02:09 PM
They being the Department of Justice?
Yes.

Yep.  Bullied out of his job.  Somehow.

Or maybe he was just shitty at his job and deserved to be fired.
If he deserved to be fired, why wasn't he fired? Why is it that they must have talked him into resigning instead? Why resort to scare tactics when the case is so trivial?

Oh, that's right, because omitting public scrutiny is the cool thing to do in America these days. God forbid someone might read the report and notice how little evidence it provides for its extraordinary claims.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: garygreen on March 13, 2015, 12:17:23 AM
If he deserved to be fired, why wasn't he fired?

I dunno.  Probably a bunch of complicated reasons about which I can obviously only speculate.  I mean, it's not really uncommon for someone to be asked to resign over being outright fired, so whatever those reasons generally are probably apply here.  But you probably read some stuff about it on the internet, so I'll just defer to your good judgement.

Quote
Why resort to scare tactics when the case is so trivial?

The DoJ declaring your police department to be systemically racist is hardly trivial.  People lose their jobs over that sort of thing.

Quote
Oh, that's right, because omitting public scrutiny is the cool thing to do in America these days. God forbid someone might read the report and notice how little evidence it provides for its extraordinary claims.

Perhaps you could be more specific about which claims you felt lacked support.  Just sort of declaring that the report is bullshit isn't super helpful or persuasive.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 13, 2015, 01:33:13 AM
I dunno.  Probably a bunch of complicated reasons about which I can obviously only speculate.  I mean, it's not really uncommon for someone to be asked to resign over being outright fired, so whatever those reasons generally are probably apply here.
So you don't see anything suspicious about that at all? You openly declared that he was horrible and deserved to be fired, and yet he wasn't fired, but that's a good thing. No dissonance there?

The DoJ declaring your police department to be systemically racist is hardly trivial.  People lose their jobs over that sort of thing.
I'd say it is indeed trivial that he should be fired if these allegations are true, and you appear to agree ("People lose their jobs over that sort of thing."); which makes it particularly suspicious that he was not fired, but instead bullied out of his position.

Of course, the DoJ does not declare the Ferguson PD to be systematically racist (I refer you to the long discussion that already took place here about what the term means), and in fact takes great care to make sure that the problem is that of bias (sometimes explicit, sometimes implicit) among certain members of the police force. But you knew that and you're not interested in that. You're interested in your narrative, and that only.

Perhaps you could be more specific about which claims you felt lacked support.  Just sort of declaring that the report is bullshit isn't super helpful or persuasive.
Okay, I particularly enjoyed the accusation that Ferguson police is revenue-oriented. They point to the fact that the revenue is high, quote a few pieces of communication without actually citing them or showing their context, and happily conclude that Ferguson's police is revenue-oriented.

I also like the accusation of an "aggressive enforcement of the municipal code". Yeah, let's relax on law enforcement in a city that's already overrun with violent criminals.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 13, 2015, 03:32:15 AM
Firing a chief of police is never trivial, especially given that in this case, the person who would ordinarily be responsible for firing him is mired in his own fair share of controversy, and has already resigned himself (http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/10/us/ferguson-city-manager/).  Asking a problematic employee to resign is basically just a compromise.  The employee gets to save some face and/or keep their severance pay or whatever, while the employer gets to skip the hassle of the bureaucratic song and dance that the firing process so often entails.

As for your concerns about the report, I can't say that I agree with you.  For one thing, I don't believe that the lines from the emails about emphasizing revenue collection have been unfairly taken out of context, mainly because if they had, they'd have been called out on it by now.  You also took issue with their criticism of how strictly the police enforce the municipal code because the city is "overrun with violent criminals," but the report makes it clear that the rate of charging people with serious offenses - the "real" crimes, if you will - has remained the same over the recent years.  It's the rate of citations/summonses for minor violations that has skyrocketed.  Those are the violations, of course, that result in fines.  The report also mentions that the investigators talked to cops there who confirmed that they're always under pressure to bring in revenue.  I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that the police are squeezing the city.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 13, 2015, 03:48:30 AM
As for your concerns about the report, I can't say that I agree with you.  For one thing, I don't believe that the lines from the emails about emphasizing revenue collection have been unfairly taken out of context, mainly because if they had, they'd have been called out on it by now.
The context had not been provided, and the primary person to call out on it had just been intimidated into quitting his job. I didn't know that the city manager had also been bullied out of work, but that only makes it more understandable why people would be forced to remain quiet.

If there was nothing to hide regarding the context, the context wouldn't be conveniently hidden.

You also took issue with their criticism of how strictly the police enforce the municipal code because the city is "overrun with violent criminals," but the report makes it clear that the rate of charging people with serious offenses - the "real" crimes, if you will - has remained the same over the recent years.  It's the rate of citations/summonses for minor violations that has skyrocketed.  Those are the violations, of course, that result in fines.
We already looked at the numbers for those in quite some depth. My views are based on cold, hard data, not on what an important organisation said. If new evidence comes to light, I'll review my views.

The report also mentions that the investigators talked to cops there who confirmed that they're always under pressure to bring in revenue.  I'd say that's pretty solid evidence that the police are squeezing the city.
So they were previously firmly standing by their old bosses, and now that those are out of the picture, they are firmly standing by their new bosses. Funny, that. It's almost as if they had to fear for their jobs because their direct superiors have just been threatened out of their jobs.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rama Set on March 13, 2015, 12:30:19 PM
PP-I don't see any evidence for te police chief being bullied. Do you have any you can present?  It just sounds like a suspicion you have right now.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on March 13, 2015, 01:14:26 PM
PP-I don't see any evidence for te police chief being bullied. Do you have any you can present?  It just sounds like a suspicion you have right now.
It is very common for people to resign/kicked out/fired when there is perceived racism. No one wants to be associated with that and many organizations think they can save face if they remove a scapegoat.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 13, 2015, 02:05:30 PM
The context had not been provided, and the primary person to call out on it had just been intimidated into quitting his job. I didn't know that the city manager had also been bullied out of work, but that only makes it more understandable why people would be forced to remain quiet.

You keep using words like bullied, threatened, and intimidated.  I'm really not sure what it is that you think happened here, and how it's any different from any other resignation that results from being implicated in a scandal.  Nixon resigned.  Petraeus resigned.  Do you think that's evidence that either of them did nothing wrong?  And it doesn't look to me like anyone is being forced to remain quiet.  Shaw in particular hasn't been shy about voicing his disagreement with the report, and if he felt he was being unfairly quote-mined, it would be a fairly simple matter to prove his innocence to the media, if not to the DoJ.

Quote
If there was nothing to hide regarding the context, the context wouldn't be conveniently hidden.

The context isn't "hidden," no more than any quoting in any report or paper means that the context of the source is hidden.

Quote
So they were previously firmly standing by their old bosses, and now that those are out of the picture, they are firmly standing by their new bosses. Funny, that. It's almost as if they had to fear for their jobs because their direct superiors have just been threatened out of their jobs.

That doesn't make any sense, given the timing.  This report preceded the resignations.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Rama Set on March 13, 2015, 02:35:02 PM
PP-I don't see any evidence for te police chief being bullied. Do you have any you can present?  It just sounds like a suspicion you have right now.
It is very common for people to resign/kicked out/fired when there is perceived racism. No one wants to be associated with that and many organizations think they can save face if they remove a scapegoat.

I agree, but that does not necessarily mean anyone was bullied. Police Chief is a political job and this was resignation it seems, but I don't see any reason why it should be painted with the "bullying" brush. It could quite easily have been a mutually agreed upon decision based on a harsh political reality that neither side really desired.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 17, 2015, 06:58:12 AM
We already looked at the numbers for those in quite some depth. My views are based on cold, hard data, not on what an important organisation said. If new evidence comes to light, I'll review my views.

No, your views aren't based on cold, hard data, they're based on your interpretation of said data.  You're not a robot that flawlessly analyzes raw data and prints out the objective truth.  You're a fallible human being like everyone else, and also like everyone else, how you see these statistics is going to be heavily colored by your own knowledge, experience, emotions, and opinions.  That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, of course, but there's no sense in acting like you're somehow above exhibiting the subjectivity of us mere mortals.

As for the numbers themselves, it seems like you basically stated your position in this post:

Okay, I'm glad that we agree on the searches. I realise I'm beating a dead horse, but I realised something interesting: The search rate is not actually twice as high. It's 1.77 times as high. Compare and contrast with my 170% prediction. So that's searches not just mostly explained, but completely explained.

Okay, let's think about stops. Do you not find it strange that a supposedly racist police force is found to be extremely racist against black people, but not at all racist against any other ethnicity? Look at the disparity indices. They're pretty much identical all across the board - except for blacks.

Now, let's look at the data. Where does the disparity come from?

Moving - We would expect twice as many black stops than white stops, we see four times the number. Part (or all) of that could be attributed to DWB. It could also be that Ferguson's black drivers are just statistically more likely to commit traffic offences. It could make sense, since American whites are generally richer, and are thus somewhat less likely to engage in certain risky behaviours. That said, we don't have enough data to tell for sure.
Equipment violations - A much clearer offence, it would be rather difficult to unjustly do someone for equipment faults that aren't there. And we see a huge disparity between the numbers (blacks stopped 12 times as often as whites! Again, we'd expect around 2 times assuming all factors were equal). In other words, black people maintain their cars worse.
License - That's the bit where we pull them over because we ran their licence plate. Again, a disparity of about 12 times as many black stops. As you pointed out yourself, this is extremely unlikely to be affected by race, since they're pre-determined.
Investigative - This one is iffy. It could be very much down to prejudice, since it's difficult to formally establish "reasonable suspicion". And we do see a high disparity - again, about 12 times as many blacks stopped than whites. This could be significant, if not for the fact that this only amounts to 328 out of 4632 stops (7% of all stops) on blacks.

To summarise: The areas where most of the discrepancy comes from are equipment violations and license look-ups - things which aren't attributable to the person driving the vehicle at all. Most of the discrepancy, by far, comes from number plate searches and shitty equipment.

I'll be honest with you: I'm really struggling to see this supposedly statistically provable bias and oppression. It seems that one demographic provides more reasons to justify stops than the other, and is thus stopped more often.

Your main line of argument here is conjuring up just-so stories about how the racial disparities are totally justified.  Blacks are pulled over much more than whites?  They must be that much more likely to drive recklessly!  Blacks are cited for equipment violations?  They must keep their cars in that much worse condition!  It's not just speculative, it's downright silly, and the disparities are so enormous that your explanations can safely be discounted as almost certainly wrong.  I also bolded a couple of odd claims from you about how the race of the driver is apparently irrelevant to being pulled over for license look-ups or equipment violations, which just isn't true.  That's the whole idea of driving while black, which you're presumably aware of, because you referred to it in your post.  Police have discretion.  They can, within certain broad limitations, pick and choose who to pull over, who to ticket, who to merely warn, who to run the plates of, etc.  Racist cops would definitely pick on black drivers more for both plate checks and equipment violations.  And yes, blacks usually bear the brunt of racism in America.  That's nothing unusual here.

Oh, and here's a quote from you for extra irony points:

These are people who are completely ready to discredit everything they see, and everything they do, just to make things fit their insane conspiracy theory.

Get it?  It's funny because you're so critical of the idea that a small-town police department in the South is institutionally racist, but seem to have no trouble assuming that the highest law enforcement agency in the nation is deliberately pushing misinformation and destroying innocent people's careers just to score a few cheap political points and pander to liberals.  After all, the alternative would be considering the fact that you're the one who's been wrong all this time, and we can't have that, can we?
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: rooster on March 17, 2015, 12:38:07 PM
Damnit Saddam, Missouri is more commonly known as a midwestern state. Just because it's a border state dosen't mean you can chalk it up to being a southern state when it suits you.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Pete Svarrior on March 17, 2015, 04:29:55 PM
No, your views aren't based on cold, hard data, they're based on your interpretation of said data. You're not a robot that flawlessly analyzes raw data and prints out the objective truth. You're a fallible human being like everyone else, and also like everyone else, how you see these statistics is going to be heavily colored by your own knowledge, experience, emotions, and opinions. That doesn't necessarily make you wrong, of course, but there's no sense in acting like you're somehow above exhibiting the subjectivity of us mere mortals.
Yes, that's what "based on" means. The distinction stands. I base my argument on the raw data, you base your rebuttal on "important organisation said X". Your rebuttal will remain unconvincing to me.

As for the numbers themselves, it seems like you basically stated your position in this post
Yes.

It's not just speculative, it's downright silly, and the disparities are so enormous that your explanations can safely be discounted as almost certainly wrong. I also bolded a couple of odd claims from you about how the race of the driver is apparently irrelevant to being pulled over for license look-ups or equipment violations, which just isn't true.
I'd like to see some supporting evidence for these claims. I provided an analysis of the data. A response of "no u!" is not going to be effective as a counter-argument.

That's the whole idea of driving while black, which you're presumably aware of, because you referred to it in your post. Police have discretion. They can, within certain broad limitations, pick and choose who to pull over, who to ticket, who to merely warn, who to run the plates of, etc. Racist cops would definitely pick on black drivers more for both plate checks and equipment violations.
Correct. We've already discussed this in quite some depth and I pointed out that I never questioned the fact that there are racist cops in Ferguson. It's really difficult discussing this with you when you're trying so hard to address things I didn't say, or when you claim that I said the opposite of what I said.

Get it? It's funny because you're so critical of the idea that a small-town police department in the South is institutionally racist
I'm critical of it because it contradicts the data.

but seem to have no trouble assuming that the highest law enforcement agency in the nation is deliberately pushing misinformation and destroying innocent people's careers just to score a few cheap political points and pander to liberals.
I made no such claims. You putting these words in my mind is a testament to how thoroughly dishonest you are, and just how disinterested you are in anything other than reinforcing an echo chamber for your own views. I did not accuse the DoJ of deliberately pushing misinformation. I suggested that they did not present enough evidence to convince me - something that you appear to have a problem with, despite the fact that my opinion has very little weigh in any practical terms. In fact, you seem so concerned by it that you feel the need to brand me some sort of conspiracy theorist.

But hey, let's strike the iron while it's hot: Remember when Mike Brown was innocent and Darren Wilson was literally the devil? The same law enforcement agency determined that Wilson acted within reason and that the matter lacks prosecutive merit. Interestingly enough, the no-justice-no-peace side of this debate are having none of it. Strangely enough, the "DoJ said so so it must be true!" defence appears to only work when the DoJ's stance already agrees with your own.

After all, the alternative would be considering the fact that you're the one who's been wrong all this time, and we can't have that, can we?
I said it before several times (including directly to you on IRC, which for some reason had a much bigger impact on you than any previous times), and I'll say it again: if new information comes to light, I'll happily review my views. No new information came to light, and your misconstrued attempts at taunting me are quite unlikely to change my mind, especially when they show that you didn't even read the thread.

Of course, even if I am wrong about this particular detail, I wouldn't have been wrong all the time, but, again, you've made it clear that you're only interested in insulting those you disagree with and not an actual discussion, so you making this jump is probably no surprise to anyone.
Title: Re: R.I.P. Ferguson
Post by: Saddam Hussein on March 18, 2015, 08:35:38 PM
Yes, that's what "based on" means. The distinction stands. I base my argument on the raw data, you base your rebuttal on "important organisation said X". Your rebuttal will remain unconvincing to me.

No, my rebuttal is based on the fact that your argument consisted of bizarre assertions that you pulled out of your ass, and is therefore worthless.  The appeal to authority is a side argument.

Quote
I'd like to see some supporting evidence for these claims. I provided an analysis of the data. A response of "no u!" is not going to be effective as a counter-argument.

Garbage in, garbage out.  A response of "no u!" is pretty much all that's necessary when your analysis boils down to "well black people must be shitty drivers with shitty cars."  The statistics are more than enough to show that while it's not a certainty, it's at least very likely that racial profiling is happening to a huge degree.  Jumping to the conclusion that blacks are simply several times more likely to be committing these minor offenses than whites after looking at these statistics is not a reasonable assumption to make.

Quote
I made no such claims. You putting these words in my mind is a testament to how thoroughly dishonest you are, and just how disinterested you are in anything other than reinforcing an echo chamber for your own views. I did not accuse the DoJ of deliberately pushing misinformation. I suggested that they did not present enough evidence to convince me

You accused the DoJ of "bullying," "threatening," and "intimidating" city officials into resigning, "scare tactics," dishonestly manipulating quotes to make them sound incriminating, and trying to "[omit] public scrutiny."  If that's not crying conspiracy, then I don't know what is.

Quote
something that you appear to have a problem with, despite the fact that my opinion has very little weigh in any practical terms. In fact, you seem so concerned by it that you feel the need to brand me some sort of conspiracy theorist.

What's that supposed to mean?  No, really, please explain, because I hate to think that now you've resorted to sceptimatic-style ad hominem attacks.

Quote
But hey, let's strike the iron while it's hot: Remember when Mike Brown was innocent and Darren Wilson was literally the devil? The same law enforcement agency determined that Wilson acted within reason and that the matter lacks prosecutive merit. Interestingly enough, the no-justice-no-peace side of this debate are having none of it. Strangely enough, the "DoJ said so so it must be true!" defence appears to only work when the DoJ's stance already agrees with your own.

No, I don't, because I never thought or argued that Brown's shooting was unjustified.  In fact, it doesn't look like anyone in this thread did.  There are more than two sides to this debate.

Quote
you've made it clear that you're only interested in insulting those you disagree with

honk honk