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 -
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