Saying stuff like this and ignoring history of oppression is how you lose elections. Easy for him to say coming from his place of privilege.
Saying stuff like this and ignoring history of oppression is how you lose elections. Easy for him to say coming from his place of privilege.
- “You are gonna commit more crime you are going to have more police engagement"
From what I’ve read, there is more reported violence in most lower income areas. But this violence is not connected with actual police interactions. As I said before, the majority of interactions are pretext stops (“your tail-light is out, but you seem ‘suspicious’ so I’m going to search you”).
The connection between general violence and police interactions is not that cops are “responding to specific instances of violence” but that PDs typically base their patrols and stops and frisks on areas with reported violence. More interactions and the higher the likelihood that one goes bad... and since these interactions are mostly random small nonviolent things, the greater the chance that cops choke someone to death for selling individual cigarettes on a street corner.
So in short, you are advocating collective punishment for certain working class communities. There is general violence in the area, so when police are deployed to stop and search 97 people for 3 eventual arrests for violations (typically having a weapon, drugs, or some past parole issue) and then maliciously or accidentally kill someone... well that person shouldn’t have lived in a poor area with violence or been part of that ethnic group.Jun 9 4
- Not really, doesn't counter that Black and Hispanic people are being treated differently by cops and to the original point of this whole discussion race is a factor in making policy. Also, basing your whole argument on a single study that doesn't really make your point particularly well is pretty weak.
The study is based on data from Houston which spent literally millions of dollars (and fired dozens of police officers) in the process of fixing a known systemic racial bias in just the last few years before the study.
If you take the study as some kind of truth on its own (few researches will trust a single study/analysis) it seems like policies that spend money to fix issues like race in policing have some effect on reducing disparity in police shootings of minorites but there is more work to be done on the use of force.
- @QrJX75 - I tend to agree.
I think that everyone agrees that on the hand there are many racist bigots out there that really hurt (and sometimes ruin) people's lives and on the other hand that people have some responsibility over their lives and that you cant succeed by waiting for someone to fix your problem (at least that never successfully happened before).
Everyone in the debate places different weights to these items, but the real discussion is more nuanced and it should focus on what the big problems are today and what should be done to improve them.
On the data side - I've been convinced that the racial + slavery narrative is insufficient to explain most of the present day gaps and issues. There are many other groups that faced no less racism and ended up in a better place. There are also other people that came from slavery (not in the us, some are black) that have been much better off. Most policies that try to "fix the situation" have, so far, failed miserably. Most blacks benefiting from affirmative action are not descendents of America slaves and their families immigrated at a much later point in time. Without restarting the police brutality discussion, the violence within the community dwarfs the police brutality figures and their (police) absence has been shown to make things worse.
On a personal note - my grandparents survived the holocaust and lost their entire family there. They were the sole survivors in large families with 8+ kids each and their were left with nothing. This traumatized them and it completely messed up their relationships with their kids (my parents). Still, that generation and that group stood up, with it any starting wealth less than 100 years ago and was able to build successful lives for the next generations.
I dont discount atrocities that were done by evil people, but I am strongly convinced that focusing on them instead of strengthening and empowering a community to succeed is unhelpful at best (and probably much worse)
- The “Racial (by which I think you mean “interpersonal bigotry“, right?) + slavery narrative” would skip over a hell of a lot of history of robbed wealth.
Present day racial inequality has less to do with slavery than events of the 70s and 80s. In fact racial inequality had been improving in the post-war decades because of migration to urban areas where the civil rights era struggles were typically efforts to end job segregation. The infamous “ghettos” of the 1980s were the black working class areas of the 60s and 70s. These areas were also the only place black people could buy houses due to redlining. West Oakland was where black people who worked in shipping and rail were allowed to buy houses; south central LA was where black manufacturing workers were allowed to buy houses.
So what happened in the 70s: manufacturing moved to the suburbs or even the US south. The ports automated away most of their large workforce. Neighborhoods that had been redlined and were located next to now empty warehouses and plants dropped in home value.
I could go on through suburban housing discrimination for black people who tried to follow jobs to the suburbs, the war on drugs etc. But the point is that it’s not like there was slavery but then recent history has been neutral. Middle class black people have increased their mobility - racial inequality today is the result of the decimation of the black working class by the early 80s which has decreased mobility for urban black people.
Suggesting that the issue poverty and so on is somehow due to some biological or cultural failing of black people is as ridiculous as saying: look at Midwestern manufacturing towns... they’re all killing themselves or taking drugs and no one is working: there must be something inherently wrong about white people!Jun 9 3
- I did not suggest there is anything biological. Yes - I do think there is currently a big cultural issue and that's very visible when you compare to other marginalized populations. The fact that racism and oppression was present does not simply explain everything else.
Many of the patterns existing today are relatively new and were not present in the years following slavery.
I really do recommend the book black rednecks and white liberals by thomas Sowell (Harvard economics professor that also happens to be black, not that I think that matters).
The patterns of violence, crime, broken families or even preaching style in churches Are not unique to black culture. This was present in the (relatively) failed white south and in northern England where their ancestors came from. It failed in all these places, but present black culture is the only one that persisted.
I am not ignoring racism, but i think that ignoring some fundamental historic perspective is detrimental to the black community and even if you were able to take all the racism away - things will still be shitty
- I’m familiar with the booker t school of black community self-improvement type arguments.
But if you are looking at racism as some kind of bad attitude, you are not understanding it. Redlining has material effects on the wealth of multiple generations of black families. It meant that those workers were stuck in declining home values while suburban workers who did not face redlining built equity. This equity allowed urban working class families to send their children to college, to increase build wealth through homeownership. Meanwhile white Appalachians, white loggers in the pnw, urban black workers, American Indians on reservations were left stranded. Mysteriously drug epidemics seemed to follow the closing of factories and manufacturing shops and automation of various industries.
It just seems a little too convenient to say every group of poor people are just poor due to their “dysfunctional” culture. And isn’t this argument basically just an update of the same old “well they aren’t civilized” line?
- Here’s another way to look at it, since the 60s we seem to have all the legal framework necessary to ensure that any systematic discrimination outside of the most private parts of life has legal protection
if we actually had systematic racism in the police forces etc. then we have all the tools necessary to bring those at fault to justice. The fact that we’re not really seeing these evidence driven cases is really telling.
This definitely feels more like a political emotional narrative used by the left. It’s profoundly ironic how the quest for social justice nearly inevitably results in more Tyranny
- I actually dont think it is convenient at all - it requires a lot of hard work. A claim that "it is convenient" could be valid if I was a white American and I was shirking off responsibility. I am not.
I am quite familiar with the wealth building argument. Of course it makes sense, otherwise no one would use it.
The issue with this argument is that there are a lot of other groups that suffered no less hurdles and was able to still come up on top (or at least in the middle).
In that sense - my arguement is not that people can push you down- they can. The difference being that people that pushed back hard , ended up succeeded in history (starting from scratch within 1-2 generations). And I'm not referring to pushing back against oppression, but rather to focusing on working up to success. In the us- it is very visible in some immigrant populations.
Being born to a wealthy family and inheriting everything is easy, but time and time again, it was shown that driven attitudes lead people to succeed. Some Asian populations and Jews out of the holocaust were some good examples. Blacks from the Caribbean is another.
- Lol, yeah that’s just a very common US fairy tale. Mobility in the US is less than in other similar established industrial powers.
Re: convenience. I think you misunderstood - or at least I don’t understand your point there. I said it was convenient for people (specifically pundits and politicians and so on) to say, “well the Irish are drunkards and Catholicism stresses obedience over industriousness, so of course they are poor and have to be conscripted into work gangs/black culture is inferior so of course they are poor and we can cut their schools because they don’t want to learn anyway/Those rust-belt white trash never diversified their skills in that two mill town, so it’s their fault they’re poor when the mills got tax breaks to move to Alabama and automate more of their production.” It’s ideologically convenient.
As far as ethnic group comparisons - first I’ll say that I think your argument treats populations like they exist in isolation. Second these populations are not monolithic. As I said, middle class African Americans have increased their wealth whereas working class African Americans have basically faced depression-like conditions. This is the same with some white groups as well but since white Americans are not treated as a monolith, they get separated out: white trash, rust belt folks etc. There were huge mobility differences between middle class Jewish immigrants and Jewish communal peasants from Eastern Europe. The same with various Asian groups today. (Middle class Asian or black folks or whoever still have to deal with bigotry and social restrictions, but i don’t think this prevents social mobility as much as say 50% youth unemployment in your neighborhood because the media has everyone thinking that poor Black or Vietnamese kids are all thugs and so even retail jobs won’t hire them.)
When comparing the history of bigotry faced by various groups and mobility, white ethnic groups largely gained mobility at the same time in the US. Partially through a general increase in wealth for working class Americans due to high unionization rates (Polish, Irish, Jewish, etc workers were often central to building the unions). Also socially accepted due to WWII which drew together white workers from various regions and backgrounds in the military (blacks were still segregated in the military) and patriotic propaganda that stressed the US’s egalitarianism vs Nazi racial hierarchy. (Black folks, of course, were left out due to Jim Crow in the south and housing/job restrictions in urban areas)
I think you seem to see advancement as though each ethnic group is a student in a classroom and they are all taking the same test. But I don’t think history reflects this.
- Microsoft 🤦🏻♂️🤮🍿Thank god there is a sane democrat who does not want to go down the sink hole of identity politics, and actually speaks policy
- Google ℹ️OP is an A+ troll.
“Identity politics” is a made up label that the racist, homophobic right uses to dismiss anyone who isn’t racist and homophobic simply for not being racist and homophobic.
Yang isn’t racist or homophobic, so he’s actually doing something interesting here: trying to get the sort of people who are susceptible to dishonest Republican claims of identity politics (the Reddit / tech bro crowd mostly - the sort of people who aren’t really involved in politics) on board with his campaign. Even though his social politics aren’t really different than any other Democrat.
Of course that needs to not backfire by alienating the Democratic base who is involved in politics enough to see the Republican “identity politics” attacks for the dishonest bs they are.
- Yeah, really hard to find the left being aggressors.
Rights such as what? Gay marriage is a federal law. Everything else is at a state level and haven’t seen a significant impact outside of whether homosexuals receive a special designation for protection (vs other smaller minorities that do not).
- "actively working to use government to strip LGBTQ people of their rights"
There's the solution right there: Right and Left hate it when the other side uses the might of the US government to attack their rights. So they retaliate by turning that big bad bully back on the other side.
What if we all agreed to protect all human rights and to "demilitarize" the battle, by stripping the government of the power to violate either side's rights?
- Oh there's still plenty to do. Why do you need the government's permission before you can get married?
Why do 1/4 workers in the US need to first ask the government's permission to work in their current profession?
Why can the police pull over anyone they don't like and charge them with speeding?
These are just opportunities to discriminate and punish people those in power don't like.Jun 10 2
- Yeah, that's the problem. The list I gave is how any unpopular group of the day gets discriminated against.
One day it's Jews, then Irish, then Blacks, then Mexican immigrants, then Japanese, then Muslims, then LGBTQ...
I'm not interested in discussing which group identity has the most sympathy today. I'm interested in how we learn our lesson and create permanent solutions to eliminate the opportunity for discrimination for all time. "Gay rights", "women's rights"... Instead of the endless victim group fights, why don't we make sure everyone has constitutionally protected rights and be done with it?
Eliminate licenses (marriage, employment...). Repeal laws that everyone ignores and aren't enforced unless you're black/gay/whatever. Repeal all victimless crime laws -- if I want to consume a substance, you're not helping me by locking me up in jail, making me lose my job and making my kids fatherless.
There's a lot to do to reverse government overreach from stepping on our rights. It's always the most vulnerable who are most victimized by government.Jun 11 1
- Credit Karma yir312I thought intersectionality was a derogatory term to describe a thought process of clueless liberals.
It’s actually a class?
- Identity politics is about identifying issues that matter to groups of voters, it is nothing new.
Those saying that identity politics are bad, are typically those that want to discount issues faced by others, because they aren’t impacted by those issues.
- False. You could have fixed your understanding by simply looking up the definition of "identity politics" in Google:
identity politics: a tendency for people of a particular religion, race, social background, etc., to form exclusive political alliances, moving away from traditional broad-based party politics.
In order words, higher taxes vs lower taxes is not identity politics. Marijuana legalization vs prohibition is not identity politics. Those are issue politics.
Identity politics is trying to convince people to vote based on who they are (race, gender, sexual orientation) vs what they believe the government should do or not do.