This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Because the rest of your framing is wrong.
Rosa Parks was one person but her case ended up helping the many not-sympathetic individuals who were kept in check by broad rules. If you want to assert that the system that produced order was "unjust" you also have to own what Detroit and Newark and Camden and Gary look like without that "injustice".
That's the problem with test cases - they present an implicitly false case intentionally designed to confuse people and play on sympathies. The legal principles would have been the same if the case was about Corner Man and it would have been much less deceptive.
Of all the problems Detroit has, blacks sitting in the forward portion of the bus isn't one. Let's not pretend that forcing old black women to the back of the bus was keeping the poor parts of the worst cities safe.
For the record, Rosa Parks was born in 1913, and so was 42 years old at the time of her protest in 1955, although she does look older in her mug shot.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I won't disagree with your contention that forcefully supressing a population keeps them, you know, surpressed. But I will contend that this imprudent and short-term civilisational management, because oppression degrades a people culturally and spiritually. Oppression makes brutes of a people, and the oppressor ends up riding a tiger.
I contend that there's strong empirical evidence in support of the brutalising effect of harsh oppression. If you're willing accept that premise then please skip the next two paragraphs.
Despite what a lot of activists will claim, the vast bulk of sub-Saharan Africa only experienced European colonialism for a bit less than a century: 1875 or so until 1965 or so, arguably starting later with the Berlin Conference in 1885. The obvious exception is South Africa, which had much earlier settler colonialism as opposed to the later and more popular extractive model. Looking at the societies that have emerged post-decolonisation, a really striking fact is how much more violent South Africa is than any other country in the continent, even those that have experienced recent military conflict. I'm talking specifically here about murder rates, by far the most reliable measure of violence even in extremely badly-run societies (ie most of Africa). South Africa is notably more violent than almost any other African country; in some cases up to 30× more (note that oppression is colourblind, and SA's only large competitor in the murder stakes is Nigeria, anothe country cursed with intense ethnic conflict, and jockeying, alternating subjugation of the Yoruba by the Hausa historically, and the inverse now).
This presents a serious challenge for a strictly white supremacist position; South African blacks had by far the most contact with civilising whites of any peers on the continent, and have come out of the encounter by far the most violent. This pattern shows up throughout the world; Russia is famous for tsarist oppression of its populace, and really high levels of interpersonal violence. Brazil was the largest slave nation in the world (surely an oppressive institution...) and is far more violent as a result than the vast majority of African countries. Even thinking of my own lovely nation of Ireland; historically oppressed, and authentic brutes for much of history as a result. In our case we were a big European outlier for most of the 20th century as a country with vastly higher levels of interpersonal violence than others; but the longer we went post-independence, the closer we tracker to the European norm. This was separate too and preceded our (literal) enrichment; getting richer didn't make us less violent and ignorant, it was a precondition for same.
I could go on and on but to my mind there are more than sufficient natural experiments around the world showing that, whatever the quality of the biological substratum of a people in the first place, oppression en masse tends to coarsen and degrade en masse. There are certainly very many interesting sub-mechanisms and processes behind this but, sinilar to your own big-picture view of oppression working as a large-scale system, I won't bother to speculate on them here.
Given this observation about the development of peoples, oppression as you propose it is storing up trouble for the future. In a world than has experienced the French and American revolutions, it just doesn't seem tenable to me politically that any Western society is going to have the will to keep oppressing its untermenschen forever (or at least, not in the form of coarse and ill-fitting explicit racial oppression; something a bit more subtle like a class system can of course coexist with liberal democracies forever). You can genocide them, or you can fully emancipate them, but history demonstrates that you can't keep kicking the oppression can down the road forever. And about genocide, let's be realistic; it is the civilisational equivalent of murder, the guilt of which is analogous to the guilt in a single (non-deranged) individual. It cannot have no effect. If you want to argue for the desirability of an America which had sent its formerly enslaved population to concentration camps once it was done with them... that actually would be interesting and I'd engage with it. But I doubt it's your belief.
Full legal and social emancipation, with all the calamities it entails, is a plaster (band-aid in American) that the US had to rip off sooner or later. An interesting counterfactual for you is this; what do you think would be the state of the US today if reconstruction of the slave regions had been completed in earnest and totally? This has been pulled off successfully in other societies; my understanding is that it's not a sociological impossiblitiy but rather a particular project which failed and was aabandoned in the 1870s US, only to be picked up again from the mid 20th. Really fascinating "what if?" there. And incidentally, lest you think Haiti is the only possible model of post-slavery societies in the western hemisphere: no! Look at Barbados, look at Jamaica; both pretty respectable societies that made a much better go of the same raw material, through better stewardship, institutions etc.
I’ll note that South Africa, Brazil, and Russia have some of the world’s highest levels income inequality, which broadly speaking tends to track quite well with a society’s general crime rate that typically determines murder rates.
More options
Context Copy link
How do you then explain the Mfecane, which was an exceptionally brutal and genocidal conflict fought between blacks in this area, before it was colonized?
Notice that midway through my huge screed I talked about oppression of the Irish by the English, or Russians by themselves. Oppressive social structures don't need a racial dynamic (though they are still helpful colour coding who is oppressing whom).
Africans are perfectly capable of oppressing one another brutally without outside help.
This says nothing either way about my central thesis that oppressing a group while people in your society have access to books about the French Revolution is not a tenable strategy in the long term.
In the long term, no political system survives. Even if takes the bare minimum standard of egalitarianism, female suffrage, it only has a track record of less than two centuries. Even French revolution is less than three centuries old, less than many monarchies, making the Chinese proverb that it is too soon tell what its long term consequences will be on point.
Speaking of the Chinese people, when do you expect them to truly stand up? The Reds have managed to hold on to power for more time than segregation is illegal on the US.
Akshually... oppression isn't a binary state, it's a scale. I'd contend that the leash on the Chinese people has been loosened gradually but meaningfully since Mao's era, very skillfully, in such a way as to uplift them and allow a more advanced society without slackening too much and causing social disharmony
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I won't contest that Jamaica and Barbados are better than Haiti, yet I'll contest 'pretty respectable society'.
Jamaica has one of the higher murder rates in the world. 44.5 murders per 100K as per 2020. Barbados is at 14.
Haiti was only at 6, surprisingly enough. I imagine a fair few murders are not reported there and even if that's not the case, it's still a very poor dysfunctional country outside of crime.
Chile was at 4, Argentina at 5. Neither of these countries are known for their spectacularly good governance, that's where a 'pretty respectable society' ought to be at or below.
Australia is at 0.8, Japan at about 0.25. These are definitely respectable societies.
The US, of course, is at about 6. Russia is at 7. Yet both countries have made many scientific developments, an ameliorating factor in my view. The entire black-African world, Caribbean included, has only a single Nobel outside Peace and Literature.
Source website is here: https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/ETH/ethiopia/crime-rate-statistics
What else should a society be graded on other than scientific achievement and not killing eachother? What is there apart from prosperity (albeit an abstracted precursor form) and harmony?
How does the US look if you break the statistics out by race? My suspicion is there a minority population with a disproportionate contribution.
Is it the extra-judicial nature of the killing that feel warrents a poor grade? Many of the precursors to current western governments executed far more people than today.
IIRC Scott did this back in the day. Blacks are high, Southern Whites are at about 4-5, so equivalent with the white and stable parts of Latin America, non-southern whites(he didn't make a distinction between old-stock whites, ethnics, and urban/rural) are below 4 but still higher than Europe or Canada, and Hispanics as a whole are higher than Southern Whites but lower than the rates in places like Mexico or Black America.
More options
Context Copy link
Of course there is, I considered including Detroit as a small Jamaica, the murder rate is about the same. I just wanted to be concise.
Absolutely, extra-judicial killing is the problem. Perhaps I should've been more specific in my last paragraph. If I included executions, I'd probably have to include war as well. Anyway, executions are for a different purpose. Chemotherapy kills healthy cells like diseases do but its purpose is to improve the health of the body, not reduce it.
Yes people are selected for death via execution much differently than war casualties.
Would you think over periods this selection would apply a selection pressure?
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/pdf/10.1177/147470491501300114
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Every country is the same for that. I don't think there has ever existed a country with equality in murder rate.
No multicultural country anyway.
Your suggesting honor games are behind the disproportionately murderous minority?
There is, surprisingly, quite a lot of evidence behind that hypothesis- it's notable that White Southerners also have elevated murder rates, although not as high as blacks, and for obvious reasons the two cultures are similar. In the case of White Southerners, their culture being acceptable to criticize, there's been a few articles alleging that honor games are behind higher rates of interpersonal violence. This probably generalizes at least partially to blacks, given that the cultures are extremely similar and the similar but more intense problem with increased levels of interpersonal violence.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Sub-Saharan Africans in RSA aren't native to the region and so don't even have traditional African levels of crime control. That's what you're seeing the effect of.
Detroit but with hot weather - the same results as you got when progressives actually did get to use their pets to enact their violence revenge fantasies on their class enemies.
You're getting some slack for the same reason a strident leftist often does - so many people reporting you that inevitably something will be over the line, and that's not a dynamic we want to encourage.
But this is over the line. It breaks most of our discourse rules.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Regardless of segregation’s general effect on crime, Rosa park’s case was about segregation of buses, and the rule of ‘blacks sit in the back of the bus’ has nothing to do with the crime rate except creating an additional crime that could be committed.
The connection is there, but it's a lot less direct than our local George Wallace fan is making it out. Once anti-discrimination became one of the core principles of the Federal government and any actions with disparate impact on blacks became suspect or verboten, crime was allowed to thrive; this crime was instrumental in driving whites out of Northern cities (and thus turning their rule over to Democrats), a phenomenon usually called "white flight".
Honestly, you seem to be making this all up.
First, you assume that issues of disparate impact had any legal relevance to the operations of the criminal justice system; outside the narrow issue of jury selection, I know of none, The closest is claims of selective prosecution, but those claims almost never work, and are limited to claims that a specific prosecution of a specific defendant is racially motivated, not that a prosecution is invalid because prosecutions have a disparate impact in general.
More importantly, the disparate impact of prosecution actually increased in the wake of the Civil Rights Movement, as is made clear by the data on page 5 here -- blacks made up 30% of prison admittees in 1950, 32% in 1960, and 39% in 1970.*
Finally, northern cities were largely governed by Democrats long before the "white flight" of the 1970s: [New York[(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_of_New_York_City) was, Chicago was, [Philadelphia]9https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Philadelphia) was, Detroit was, Cleveland was.
*Note to the inevitable person who will misconstrue what I just said. I am not saying that that is good, or bad, or evidence of improper discrimination, but only that it demonstrates the dubious nature of OP's claim.
Isn't disparate impact only increasing if actually criminality is constant, declining, or increasing at a rate slower than the prosecutions?
Otherwise is just an increase in crime and prosecutions by a criminal class.
Also something, something sexual revolution, something something marriage, family formation.
But the whole point of OP's bogus claim rests on the fact that African-Americans commit a disproportionate pct of crimes. Disparate impact by definition refers only to outcomes, regardless of cause: "disparate impact theory prohibits neutral employment practices which, while non-discriminatory on their face, visit an adverse, disproportionate impact on a statutorily-protected group." E.E.O.C. v. Joe's Stone Crab, Inc., 220 F.3d 1263, 1274 (11th Cir. 2000). In OP bizarro legal world, criminal laws violate civil rights laws because they disproportionately affect African-Americans. If OP's legal claim were true (it isn't, of course), then authorities would have been powerless to put a disproportionate pct of African-Americans in jail, regardless of rates of offending. Indeed, that is precisely what he claimed happened. The fact that the opposite happened demonstrates that his claim is wrong.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Well yes, but you can easily imagine a scenario where governments don’t carry out explicit racial discrimination, but laws still get enforced. Notably this policy is what drove down crime rates in the 90’s.
I can imagine such a scenario, but it didn't actually happen. And that wasn't mere accident.
That policy was mainstream democrats for a while- Clinton and all the rest actually did drive down crime by enforcing the law evenhandedly and not really caring if that meant blacks were more likely to be in prison.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
But no, you can't because then you have a dispute between progressives who say "the law is so unfair because mostly blacks get arrested" and a pathetic side who says "the law is even handed" - which concedes the frame that if the law was somehow unfairly applied, they'd concede and just allow the progressive pro-crime position. Of course, progressives are able to find some case that they convince themselves is unfair and GOPe types cuck on it as is their job.
On the other hand, if a society has an attitude of "we don't care if you find some specific unfairness, things happen and massive amounts of crime are way way more unfair" then the progressive gets shut down.
You'll note that crime did get driven down in the 90s and this low crime drove progressives into a frenzy and they desperately reversed it as soon as they were able.
You can totally have Michael Bloomberg policies and Michael Bloomberg policies totally work. The fact that progressives are often retarded is not specifically about race.
Except that progressives hated that Bloomberg's policies worked and only Bloomberg's persistence in the face of progressive opposition (rare) and the level of power he was able to exercise as mayor (also rare) allowed them to continue. Bloomberg would even point out when asked about stop and frisk "disproportionally" targeting blacks that blacks weren't stopped and frisked disproportionally compared to the population of felons.
Yes, progressives are retarded about crime(and likely many other issues). This does not mean you can't tell them to pound sand without reintroducing Jim Crow, which we know because Michael Bloomberg did that.
That's the entire point of my post.
Micheal Bloomberg demonstrates that you cannot allow progs any power or voice because they actually hate good governance because it's good governance.
Here's the cycle:
Traditional methods controlled crime pretty well
Progs wanted to undermine traditional methods and had a broad spectrum attack on them - legal about "rights" mainly (case clearance rates drop precipitously after the Warren court inventions)
As a way to head off a reaction to their attack, they create nonsense social science where they claim that crime cannot be solved without addressing "root causes" - the root causes being lack of programs. You see echos of this with the modern "trained deescalation personnel instead of police"
Progs win, crime skyrockets throughout the 60s and 70s, plateaus in the 80s and jumps in the 90s
Over time progs come to believe their own lies about "root causes" - that's what they're taught in universities and what trickles down from there
Giuliani / Bratton introduce the idea of addressing crime by addressing crime - Giuliani won in NYC due to support from more blue collar whites and progressives didn't go full out against him because they knew addressing crime by addressing crime couldn't work - it didn't solve the "root causes"
It did work, gets copied in lots of places - progressives are horrified by the decline in crime and pretend that concern over racial injustice is the reason they object to doing things that actually do lower crime - these objections escalate over time
Bloomberg is able to hold out against these objections because he's more entrenched but progressives elect the next mayor who basically undoes it all
Ultimately the problem is that their objection to enforcing the law isn't based on anything that they say it is - the racial unfairness angle falls apart under inspection - their objection is to anything effective. That's the only way to make sense of their behavior because every single thing done was done still under the framework they set out as being within the rules. No executions, no speedy trials, no executive authority vested in cops, no approval of men defending themselves, etc. - just very PMC style "dispatch the cops who follow proper procedure and protocols that follow every explicit progressive rule". There are no crime control measures that are effective that they will support and if they support it and it turns out to be effective, they'll withdraw support when it's shown to be effective.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
If I understand correctly, your argument is that forced segregation and requiring blacks to sit in the back of the bus was actually just because without those measures, blacks are criminals who make cities unliveable?
If the case were about Corner Man, the legal principal would still be whether it is just to treat black people, criminal or otherwise, different than white people. Making Corner Man sit in the back of the bus and use different water fountains doesn't become defensible because Corner Man is a criminal (unless you're actually suggesting we can identify criminals as a class and segregate them).
You may believe that blacks should be treated differently based on your moral or social principals, or you may believe blacks are extra-prone to criminality and this justifies treating them as such, but that's not a legal principal that can be found under the Constitution.
Breaking it down into specific rules which are questioned on the basis of the justice of the particular rule changes the framing of the question from one that is fundamentally about results - "we care that we have cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder" to one about process and procedure - "the most important thing is that our procedures be found valid by a cabal of people - but those people aren't responsible for the results of the system as a whole". Yes, without a framework of many rules - none of which is individually necessary or sufficient - blacks wage a continual war of aggression against whites. Stopping that is more important than the details of the rules. Having to sit in the back of a bus is a small price to pay to live in society where order hasn't broken down entirely such that someone on the bus is smoking meth which is the end result of subjecting every particular rule to scrutiny and finding an exceptional case where that rule seems unjust.
I could say that this is just as much found in the Constitution as any of the things that the Regime has found in it in since FDR threatened to pack the Supreme Court and Earl Warren decided to totally re-write American law but instead I'll be honest - I don't care at all if it's "a legal principle that can be found under the Constitution" because I have observed that my enemies don't care about that either and they don't care about having a functioning society either. Turning the legal system into a game of who can lie most convincingly about what is found in a document when it plainly isn't there has run its course - the incentives for playing such a game are nothing but bad.
You can, in fact, just criminalize someone on the bus smoking meth. And most places do.
Why criminal behavior goes unpunished has some racial influences, but extreme progressive ideologies that are theoretically race neutral have more to do with it than racial politics. So does general neglect of law and order in things poor people use(eg, public transportation, convenience stores).
Great, it's technically criminal.
Now lets see if the paper that the law is written on will enforce that prohibition.
Okay, then write down on a sheet of paper that old black women are forbidden from the front of the bus. Now let's see that piece of paper restore our ruined cities.
More options
Context Copy link
American authorities are generally reluctant to expend state resources enforcing the law in areas mostly used by poor people(such as public transit, section 8 housing, convenience stores, and payday lenders).
Solving this problem is more complex than ‘make the blacks sit in the back of the bus’, in large part because that doesn’t actually prevent anyone from smoking meth. If you can solve this problem(which a lot of countries have done), then you also don’t need to make black people sit in the back of the bus.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
I admire the skillful tap dancing you are doing, but this is merely using a lot of circumlocution to avoid stating your premise explicitly. If you believe that forced segregation and unequal treatment is the only practical way to avoid "cities that don't drive whites out through targeted robbery, rape and murder," then you need to make that argument explicitly, you don't get to handwave in the direction of "results" and therefore claim that forced segregation and unequal treatment was justified based on what you perceive to be the downstream effects of not doing that.
Actually, no, it isn't, because that's an infinitely generalizable argument. "Stopping rape and murder is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules." "Stopping narcotics trafficking is more important than the details of the rules."
The details of the rules matter a great deal. They matter even when you think they will only be applied to your outgroup.
I think this is nonsense, but even if it's not, until you get your white nationalist revolution and get to impose your will by force of arms, you are arguing for a position that can only be defended and implemented through the laws in existence.
There's no "tap dancing" going on here. Segregation and "unequal treatment" (we have equal treatment now? you sure?) aren't "the only practical way to avoid" [ethnic cleansing and people getting pushed in front of subway trains by "serial random assaulters"] but they are a way of doing so - certainly one that produced demonstrably better results. You seem to be operating under a very strange impression that what matters is that the proper procedure must be followed with zero concern over whether the procedures produce good results. This is an outgrowth of the mindset implanted by operating in a society run on the ideology of the bureaucrat - no one can be faulted for anything as long as proper procedure was followed. Though this seems normal to many people today, it is actually quite insane.
Sure, all those things are true technically.
Stopping rape and murder - more important than any societal rules because these are of the highest priority of men to stop and if you society does not stop them then you make an enemy of all capable men who will quietly step out of society which then make it impossible for your society to do anything as you lose all forms of cooperation.
Stopping terrorist attacks is more important than the details of the rules - plainly obviously true. Preventing military attacks on civilians is the most basic of government functions so it can have a prosperous society.
Stopping narcotics trafficking - this is only a problem that's downstream of about a zillion things that the current bizarre government we have does.
There are no laws in existence - there's only who / whom. That's not a reflection of the only possible state of affairs but it is a correct description of what we have now and I'm not going to pretend that it isn't.
Do you think we should reimpose racial segregation or not?
Yes.
Yes.
There is no "ethnic cleansing" happening in the United States. As for people getting pushed in front of subway trains, yes, we do have demonstrably better ways of preventing that than segregation: law enforcement.
In other words, all of those things are true.
Yes, we care about stopping rape and murder and terrorism and drug trafficking, but we also care how we stop those things, and just as we do not give the government infinite power to stop those things by any means necessary, we also do not endorse every solution that might, in theory, reduce or eliminate those things. What you're getting at is that black people commit more crimes (true) and what you're darkly hinting at is that we should segregate them or Do Something else to lower the black crime rate. Even accepting the first premise (higher black crime rate) it does not follow that a just solution is to to impose racial segregation or whatever else you have in mind.
That sounds like a catchy expression untethered to the legal reality in which you live.
Lets play dueling anecdotes.
My turn: black attacker, elderly asian victim, racial slurs used, charges dropped.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/SF-Bayview-attack-Second-suspect-surrenders-to-15098296.php
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9437615/Two-teenage-girls-accused-car-jacking-killing-Uber-Eats-driver-reach-plea-deal.html
Your turn: white attacker, elderly black victim, racial slurs used, charges dropped.
Did you read the actual articles or just go off the headlines?
In the first case Grayson (the person whose charges were dropped, but did not touch the victim) was the person videoing and the DA claims the victim expressed an interest in restorative justice for him and the charges were dropped, while the actual attacker WAS charged with robbery and elder abuse, his case is still pending. Charges were not dropped against the actual attacker. So this does not meet your own expressed criteria. Grayson was a racist asshole I would suggest but did not attack the victim. So we have black attacker, elderly asian victim, racial slurs used (though not by the attacker), charges not dropped (against the attacker).
**"According to the District Attorney's Office spokesman Alex Bastian, Grayson is not being charged for now and will instead be placed in a restorative justice program, at the victim's request.
Jonathan Amerson, 56, appeared in court Tuesday on charges of robbery and elderly abuse in connection with the attack on the unidentified 68-year-old man in front of a housing complex on Osceola Lane who was hauling large bags of recycled material."**
Charges were not dropped in the second case, as pointed out in the article and indeed the title(!). A Plea deal is not the same as charges being dropped. Indeed they both received the maximum sentences as noted below given they were juveniles.
**"A 15-year-old girl will be held in a youth detention facility until she turns 21 for a D.C. carjacking with another girl that left a Virginia man dead.
The girl received the maximum sentence in juvenile court Friday after pleading guilty last month to felony murder in the death of Mohammad Anwar, a Virginia man who was working as a delivery driver.
The second perpetrator, a 13-year-old girl, pleaded guilty Thursday to second-degree murder. Under the maximum sentence, she also would be released once she turns 21. "**
So given the charges were NOT dropped in your examples we just have to find a single case where a white attacker, racially motivated attacked an old black man and then charged to establish equal treatment by YOUR own standard, no?
Timothy Caughman 66 was killed by James Jackson 28 in New York because:
"Jackson also stated that the killing was intended to start a race war in a manifesto written by him: "The racial World War starts today. This political terrorist attack is a formal declaration of a global total war on the Negro races."
To be fair we don't know if he used a racial slur at the time given no witnesses, but the motivation seems clear.
If I can suggest that the lesson here is to pick your examples so that they actually match your contention? Because here, if nowhere else someone is likely to actually check.
Just to point out I am not condoning the behavior in the articles here, but if you are going to use dueling anecdotes (and this is a good example of why we probably shouldn't), you should at least make sure you are well armed. Check and clean your pistols carefully, before you consider issuing the challenge.
Murdering a black man: life in prison without the possibility of parole.
Murder while black: receive the maximum sentences for a lesser crime that the prosecutors gave them the option of pleading guilty to. No possibility of prison time but a few years in "youth care".
If you think that's comparable, I don't know what to tell you.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
No. Also, you've been told to change your username. Do it. The only reason I am not banning you right now is so you don't whine that I did it in the middle of a thread where I was a participant, but the next time you post with this username, you will be.
Yes, this nic was apparently bad only after I called the mods out on tolerating ilovenonasianminorities69, but banning bigdickpepe1488. I missed it because your message was sent on thanksgiving. Sorry about that.
Noted that you are unable to find a single comparable case of prosecutors letting white criminals get away with the kind of thing they routinely let black criminals get away with. But we definitely have "equal treatment".
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
We have racial segregation and it's ever more competitive as the legal system more and more reflects the progressive view that blacks are not subject to anything as mundane as "law".
Legal segregation would be an improvement over that system; do I think that's what should be imposed? Not necessarily - an Ottoman-style millet system would work as well as would Singaporean style legal environment - loads of workable options but they have to begin with the clear reality about the vastly different evolutionary backgrounds of the different species involved.
This does not match up with reality. The sheer volume of evidence that there's an entirely separate legal system for blacks where cops are sent out to arrest them when they make too much trouble but then they're let out vs the legal system for non-blacks where there are massive penalties for criminal conduct and downright glee on the part of prosecutors for getting to finally prosecute someone who isn't the usual was old enough to be described by Tom Wolfe in the 80s as the "hunt for the great white defendant". Almost every crime story you read about on the New York Post's twitter feed includes lines about how the latest perpetrator of a horrible crime had been "arrested 37 times before on felony charges". There are dozens of whites murdered by blacks every month with no spectacular media coverage and in fact, often times no charges filed in totally egregious cases like a firefighter defending a woman in a convenience store who gets executed by the attacking woman's boyfriend and wasn't charged - or the gas station robber in California who killed a clerk and wasn't charged because it was self defense when the clerk shot at him. Contrast that case to...
For this to be true, you would have to explain why so many blacks are in prison. You can't have it both ways and claim that the black incarceration rate demonstrates that blacks are more criminal but also they aren't subject to laws.
I'm not that familiar with the Singaporean legal environment, but do they actually assign people legally subordinate status based on their race? As for patterning our society after the Ottomans, I can think of many reasons besides my objections to your racialism why that seems like a terrible idea.
It does, actually. The argument you could credibly make is that law enforcement is often politically motivated and influenced by politicians, so in present times there is undue sensitivity about being perceived as racist, which results in minorities often being prosecuted less harshly. While this is true, it's certainly not some sort of carte blanche for black people to commit crimes (see above re: the high black criminal incarceration rate.) Moreover, we've discussed many times in this sub cases like San Francisco and Portland, where there are open air drug markets and homeless people basically allowed to do anything short of murder without prosecution. Most of those people are white.
There are many more whites murdered by whites and even more blacks murdered by blacks with no spectacular media coverage.
I don't know which specific cases you're referring and don't care, since almost inevitably when one digs into these one finds details that don't quite fit the picture the person offering them is trying to portray. But sure, there are are daily horrors committed by black people - granted. Scott wrote an article about this that is still valid.
It's not necessary to restrict the argument to specific cases though. We have statistics. While most murder is intraracial, blacks commit a disproportionate amount of it and they also commit a disproportionate amount of inter-racial murder. This isn't just Chinese people being smeared as robbers because the media is focusing on Chinese robbers in particular.
More options
Context Copy link
Because they commit an absurd amount of crime - most of which is "unsolved", a good portion of which is unreported. The famous 13/57 understates it because that only counts solved murders and there are massive numbers of unsolved murders in places where every single unsolved murder is committed by a black person.
The rest of your post is progressive nonsense.
Scott is a conscious, aware liar and has never written an article that is "still valid" - much less one which fell to a very simple rebuttal in the comments.
He knows his argument is demolished here so he backs into "toxoplasmosa of rage - they pick bad cases on purpose because it's a better loyalty test" - which doesn't fit at all (which he almost certainly knows) because there are simply no cases where the progressive narrative fits. You can see every day blacks getting away with crimes, you simply never see that with whites. Turns out it's actually really easy to catch criminals but the justice system doesn't do it for blacks because we don't have "equal protection".
More options
Context Copy link
There ought to be a lag time in this. What does the racial breakdown of carceration look like since, say, May 2020?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Is there any evidence for this claim anywhere?
More options
Context Copy link
Is that in evidence? Notably the segregation laws in question would have allowed Rosa Parks to push you in front of a bus she could only sit in the back of. She would have been prosecuted for murder but that is still possible today.
It seems a just so story which can be matched by another just-so story where the act of segregation and legalized racism is what fueled animus towards whites, and so not having segregation would have been better.
Things like blacks pushing people in front of subway trains don't happen randomly or in a single step. It takes years of wearing down the barriers that used to be in place to keep behaviors like that in check - even lifting those barriers didn't immediately result in the things in this thread (any item in there is a thousand times worse than the dreaded racially assigned bus seating):
https://twitter.com/GodCloseMyEyes/status/1414619671056297984
First you attack the cultural confidence which is reinforced by things like bus seating, then people test the new limits to see what's actually permitted (as people do when the rules are uncertain) and when the new rules turn out to be "everything is permitted as long as you're attacking enemies of the Regime" then you get an orgy of violence.
Even asking the question of "did this specific change produce that specific result" is asking the wrong question. The motivation for that change was ostensibly because the old rule wasn't permitted in the legal framework. On a technical level that assertion is absurd - "oh that rule was there but no one knew it for 50 years" - but even that's not important; grant for a moment that this wasn't just a transparent power grab - did it produce good results? This wasn't an isolated change and it wasn't made as one or thought of as one - it was a cultural revolution to change the way of life of a lot of people. Was it a positive change? Was it such a positive change that it justifies the crimes detailed in one single town in that thread above? Why? Just to live more in line with what a document says when no one who signed that document would even have understood it to imply the rules imposed? Absurd.
The fact that it wasn't actually justified by holy document is just the cherry on top of the disingenuousness sundae.
None of this ranting repeat of what you wrote above changes the fact that you have yet to provide any actual evidence of your proposed causal process. Based on some recent discussion in the CW thread (I believe), it seems like a lot of the specific issue of "pushing people in front of trains" is schizophrenics going off their meds. Their behavior is not based on a logical reasoning process and therefore cannot be influenced by a cultural more that (allegedly) allows some people to get away with such behavior.
Yet somehow it happens now and didn't happen 10 years ago. "He was arrested 36 times for violent assaults and let go each time" has something to do with it as well as noticing that "deranged men" (euphemism used in one of the news reports by the only source willing to actually notice these things happening) are sane enough to shove smaller, less dangerous people in front of subway trains. Oh look, there is a logical reasoning process going on there related directly to cause, effect and consequences. Calling the person "schizophrenic" doesn't remove that and if it did then that's all the more reason to immediately execute those people as an uncontrollable danger to everyone around them.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
You seem to be saying that Jim Crow kept crime in check. Yet, the places you mention saw crime rise in the late 60s to 70s despite never having Jim Crow. So removing Jim Crow could not have caused that. And if this data is accurate murder rose less in Mississippi and Alabama and Georgia and South Carolina
than in the US as a whole. So I am skeptical of your argument.
I think this is right, and I'll elaborate with stats.
From the 1940's to 1970's, the black population in the northeast and midwest increased by about 150%.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Great_Migration_(African_American)#Statistics
So you seem to be suggesting his theory is wrong because over the same corresponding time period, regions where the black population increased 150% (northeast, midwest) saw an increase in crime while regions where the black population went down 20% (the south) saw a much slower increase.
So quite possibly the issue was merely overall size of the black population, not Jim Crow specifically. Good noticing!
Except that the vast majority of that increase took place long before the increase in crime. And, the Second Great Migration was over by 1970, yet crime kept rising in the 1970s. And, in fact, the murder rate dropped quite a bit after a1960. If the theory that blacks freed from the constraints of Jim Crow commit violent crime" were true, then that would not have happened.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
The specific rules are not important - who rules and what they are permitted to do is what's important.
"The question is which is to be master, that is all." - USG asserted that it is to be master. Did USG provide better rule? Decades of horrific violence demonstrated that no, it did not. Why do I care about bus seating in comparison to that?
More options
Context Copy link
Don’t you need to control for large immigration during that time period?
I’m not saying Jim Crow was good (and it isn’t really on you to prove otherwise). I’m just saying this rebuttal isn’t iron clad.
Of course it's not ironclad, but if you aren't asking covfefe for data, this comment is just an isolated demand for rigor.
No it isn’t. I even noted proving this point wasn’t on the poster (because the poster was responding to a claim; not making one). But within the data laden argument made, I believe it is suspect.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link