-->
@Death23
Isn't wasting time what people do here? I mean, it's somewhat of a pastime for me.
Some people might but I think that's a poor usage of time. I'm here to have substantive discussion.
At What Point Does the "Racism" Boogeyman Go Away?
Posts
Total:
108
-->
@Trent0405
The 2012 Booker report found that, all else equal, black people were sentenced 20.4 percent longer than white people. Whenever I argue this I always hear people reference repeat offences, well luckily this report accounts for this stating that the gap between whit and black offenders fell from 20.7 percent to 20.4 percent after taking this into consideration.
I know this isn't addressed to me, but it's a pretty good argument and study and deserves an equally good response.
This study does an excellent job controlling for variables, and Conservatives in general don't produce sufficient counter-arguments. So, to be terse, it is true that black males receive longer sentences than white males for the same crimes, but some of the trickier variables haven't been taken into account.
The variables not addressed in the 2012 Booker report are as follows: (1) how the defendant presents himself in court, (2) and how likely he is to reoffend. The latter is partially controlled for by the Booker report in that it takes into account criminal history, but that isn't the only part in determining future likelihood of committing a crime (e.g. a new drug habit could have been formed). In particular, this Beaver et al. 2013 study found that when we did control for these variables (by measuring in particular verbal I.Q. and self-reported history of violence), we see that this disparity in sentencing evaporates. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470
Hence, the differences in racial sentencing can be explained by things other than "racism".
-->
@bmdrocks21
I would have replied earlier but I agree with pretty much everything you said, so I would have initially just wrote "agreed" to everything. However, I've had a bit of time to think, so I'll try to add to what you said where I can.
Precisely. Multiculturalism brings on a ton of problems to little benefit. As you increase the perceived differences among people and there is any different in outcomes, there is going to be a scapegoat.And when you bring people with different values, cultures, and languages to another country, you are much more likely to have wide disparities. Some cultures don't value delayed gratification, but Asians do a lot, which is obvious from their high savings rates. Delayed gratification is associated with success, so you are stuck with two options: blame people for doing something good that others don't do, or blame people for not making wiser decisions.
100% agree.
Interestingly, [East] Asians people do better under European laws/systems than Europeans do. It's only when they attempt to create their own rules that they experience trouble (consider how corrupt and poorly run China was under Mao Zedong, and then consider your fact of Asian higher savings in America).
That is a really good point. They put so much weight on not "culturally appropriating" and how you aren't allowed to critique other peoples' cultures, yet they do then act like they have no consequences. Even speaking a different language can greatly affect your perception. They studied languages and determined that it is powerful in determining how you deal with abstract issues and shaping habitual thought (like perceptions of time). https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0010028501907480
It's a shame the study is behind a paywall. I wouldn't mind knowing some statistics on how great the difference in conceptualisation are.
Think of how damaging it must be for kids growing up in a household where "ebonics" is the norm. It is improper English, which will lead to worse school grades. Who knows what other cognitive effects might results from it?
It's probably harmful when it comes to learning English, but perhaps it's useful in the sense it reflects Africans verbal ability. Compared to Europeans, they have lower I.Q. but, tentatively, I feel that they are superior in their musical ability, hence they rhythm generated in ebonics. Although, this argument is only a hypothesis for me.
The word I was thinking about the whole post. You teach people that things are hopeless and they stop trying. I would personally believe that if you are an authority figure and tell kids that no matter what they do, they will never succeed, they will be inclined to believe you.If you say that until reparations, they will never be able to succeed, do you think they will even try until they get reparations? Most probably won't.
I think that Africans in general have a lower ability to integrate into the cerebral European societies. So whilst this learned helplessness won't necessarily affect all Africans (in the sense that some really can't contribute to society), I think the ones that can may be inadvertently affected by what you describe. There are certainly Africans with sufficient 1st World genetics (e.gs. decent I.Q, delayed gratification, lack of criminal genes etc.) that could benefit and contribute greatly. Historically, we know this is correct from the emancipated slaves in America, wherein their average I.Q. (101) was actually higher than the average American White (100), and historical accounts show that this was a peaceful time in America (right before the civil war). Willing to dig up my source if required (just don't have it on hand).
This graph shows that if you ever get a doctor, you want them to be Asian or White lol. https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/new-chart-illustrates-graphically-racial-preferences-for-blacks-and-hispanics-being-admitted-to-us-medical-schools/It breaks down acceptance rate by MCAT and GPA by race.An MCAT between 24-26 and GPA between 3.2-3.39, Asian acceptance is 6% and Black acceptance is 56%!If diversity is our strength, why do they need to alter acceptance rates so blatantly? Why did California's Supreme Court lower Bar score requirements to diversify the law profession(supposedly because of COVID, but then why would it be permanent?)? This article found that the permanent 50 point deduction in score would only lower the racial disparity by 2.7% https://www.law.com/therecorder/2020/10/19/study-lower-bar-exam-cut-score-wont-solve-californias-attorney-diversity-problem/?slreturn=20201018201227In the end, medical and legal malpractice will just hurt all of us.
This stuff should be the most alarming to the average American. Affirmative action is producing doctors who are demonstrably worse than merit-based doctors, which will lead to an increase in medical and legal malpractice, as you rightly point out. Nobody wants to be on the wrong end of a doctor wrecking your open-heart surgery. These facts here should be the least controversial.
Thanks for the well-backed post, bruh.
Thanks for the responses to think about.
-->
@bmdrocks21
Well I would like to go one point at a time to make sure we don't get gallop-yIt says in that report that women of all races got shorter sentences than White men. Do you think that our country suffers from systemic sexism as well?
Cool, and to address your question, yes, there is undeniably systemic sexism in the US against me. Actually, systemic sexism against men is stronger than systemic racism against black people.
Remember when I stated that black people got sentenced 20.4% longer relative to white people, well for men, they have to endure sentences which are 63% longer than their female counterparts.(I know my link is a 538 article but it summarizes a 2015 study from Michigan state university)
In short, I have always contended that both systemic sexism and racism exist in the courts.
-->
@MgtowDemon
I must say, this data is very compelling even if it is (self admittedly) in the minority. I read the whole thing.
Also, I did find some scholarly sources poke holes in the study.
"only used a subsample of African American and White males and did not include any measures of disadvantage status."
This was a line from a study that did find systemic racism.
Plus I found a debunking of the study seen below.
It is unclear what methodology was used to account for confounding variables. Without that information, we have to allow for the fact that the study had only a 1 in 15 chance of getting reasonably matched populations, and even then, only on SES.
These were these were two of many points brought up to delegitimatize the study
-->
@Greyparrot
What is the exact shade of skin where a person has a superior outcome in all situations?
IDK, does it really matter,pinpointing the precise quantity of melanin needed to get the most favourable outcome is besides the point in my opinion.
-->
@Trent0405
if there are systemic benefits to a specific skin tone, I would like to know exactly what it is so I can cash in on a capital endeavor.
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, it has been seeming like any disparities among races are always just tossed up to "White Racism" or "Systemic Racism", and I was simply wondering, at what point do you consider minorities to be people who are responsible for their own actions?
When you no longer characterize someone a "minority", because you've renounced racism, then we can no longer point to "systemic racism".
That seems pretty straightforward.
-->
@Trent0405
Cool, and to address your question, yes, there is undeniably systemic sexism in the US against me. Actually, systemic sexism against men is stronger than systemic racism against black people.Remember when I stated that black people got sentenced 20.4% longer relative to white people, well for men, they have to endure sentences which are 63% longer than their female counterparts.(I know my link is a 538 article but it summarizes a 2015 study from Michigan state university)In short, I have always contended that both systemic sexism and racism exist in the courts.
So you don't believe that there are any other explanations for this than that it must be sexist? Most judges are male, so why do you think that they would be sexist against their own gender?
Additionally, this didn't break down the rulings based on the race of the judge giving the sentence. So, we don't know if Black judges gave preferential sentences to Black criminals and harsher sentences to Whites, and the White judges gave harsh sentences to Blacks and lighter sentences to Whites. We can't prove racial bias on the part of judges. Additionally, it didn't compare the same judge's sentencing based on White vs Black defendants. Maybe hard-on-crime judges are more prevalent in majority-Black areas?
Hundreds of factors go into sentencing: the type of weapon used, the type of drugs, if the attack was particularly cruel, if the attacker showed remorse in court, if the crime was done in a way as to try to avoid hurting people, etc. I think that the uniqueness of every case makes it very difficult to compare them on race, especially since I pointed out originally that different races have different cultures. They are going to go about crimes in different ways based on motivations and what they were exposed to.
I'd say that such broad studies can only be determined to be inconclusive and not evidence for or against racial bias.
-->
@bmdrocks21
So, we don't know if Black judges gave preferential sentences to Black criminals and harsher sentences to Whites, and the White judges gave harsh sentences to Blacks and lighter sentences to Whites.
Actually, I saw a study where White guilt caused white judges to be lenient while Black judges are not hampered by any sense of skin guilt.
-->
@bmdrocks21
So you don't believe that there are any other explanations for this than that it must be sexist? Most judges are male, so why do you think that they would be sexist against their own gender?
1, The conclusion of the researchers seems to be that this is attributable to sexism, this makes sense because all other relevant variables are taken into consideration, and the problem persists. More specifically, judges view women as less threatening even if they commit the same crime a man does, leading to lighter sentences, this doesn't necessarily mean that they hate men, but rather that they have preconceived notions about men and women that impact their decisions.
2, It is possible for men to be sexist against men. I think we both remember the images of ultra woke guys holding up signs that say "kill all men."
3, I suppose another explanation could exist, but the academic consensus suggests that sexist stereotypes fuel the disparity, so I just trust the researchers.
Additionally, this didn't break down the rulings based on the race of the judge giving the sentence. So, we don't know if Black judges gave preferential sentences to Black criminals and harsher sentences to Whites, and the White judges gave harsh sentences to Blacks and lighter sentences to Whites. We can't prove racial bias on the part of judges. Additionally, it didn't compare the same judge's sentencing based on White vs Black defendants. Maybe hard-on-crime judges are more prevalent in majority-Black areas?
Black judges can be racist too. Actually they have been proven to be racist. A 2010 study I read a while back took fictional robberies and put them in front of judges to determine sentences. So mock sentencing basically. The only thing that differed was the race of the robber, it found that even black judges sentenced black people longer. So this is the same fake robbery (judges think it's real obviously) but one variable changes, the race of the fake perpetrator, and the trend persists even with black judges.
Hundreds of factors go into sentencing: the type of weapon used, the type of drugs, if the attack was particularly cruel, if the attacker showed remorse in court, if the crime was done in a way as to try to avoid hurting people, etc. I think that the uniqueness of every case makes it very difficult to compare them on race, especially since I pointed out originally that different races have different cultures. They are going to go about crimes in different ways based on motivations and what they were exposed to.
That's why we have controls, I know for a fact that the Booker report took weapon possession into account. Plus, going back to the 2010 study, in that case the crime was literally the exact same from one judge to another except for the race of the perpetrator.
(Sorry for poor grammar, I am writing this in a rush cause I got some school stuff)
-->
@bmdrocks21
Here is another source also showing no or little difference between white and black judges. Though, the full text is not viewable.
-->
@bmdrocks21
You asked about policy recommendations. Honestly deporting illegal aliens would probably do a lot to help solve the problem. If you consider the conclusions -
Writing to Lyndon Johnson, Moynihan argued that without access to jobs and the means to contribute meaningful support to a family, black men would become systematically alienated from their roles as husbands and fathers, which would cause rates of divorce, child abandonment and out-of-wedlock births to skyrocket in the black community (a trend that had already begun by the mid-1960s), leading to vast increases in the numbers of households headed by females.
Illegal aliens compete a lot with high school dropouts in the labor market. Rates for general labor aren't sufficient for a man to be marriageable right now.
Other policy suggestion might be to reduce financial barriers to obtaining marketable job skills. Trade schools can allow people to obtain reasonably good blue collar incomes with minimal education cost in terms of time and money. Training for truck driving, handy man type work and the like perhaps should be subsidized. It's a lot more cost efficient than subsidizing the arts or bloated university budgets that study simply for the sake of academic interest rather than meaningfully improving lives. The student loan system is a joke, really. People get, effectively, a credit card to spend on education. They end up spending it on educations that don't give them good incomes, and then they can't pay back the loans. The winners are the schools. The losers are the students who wasted their time and are now deeply in debt, sometimes for life. The government ends up eating the losses.
-->
@zedvictor4
How Long Is a Piece of String?
A piece of string has a pretty defined length.
But let us pretend that some group gets paid and has huge benefits awarded to them because of their "string measuring" status. Do they have a perverse incentive to say the string is longer than it is and that they will need a lot of time to finish measuring it?
Do they benefit by gaining power through lengthening the length of the string?
(Translation: they benefit with political power from being "victims" and they get a lot of preferential treatment from the government by saying they are oppressed. Seems like they would have a pretty strong incentive to hype up the "oppression" as a basis on which to gain more power).
-->
@Death23
Illegal aliens compete a lot with high school dropouts in the labor market. Rates for general labor aren't sufficient for a man to be marriageable right now.
Yeah, I noticed that a surprisingly small amount of Black men voted for Trump in 2016 after his tough positions on illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are eroding wages in construction especially, which is what a lot of high-school-educated Blacks work in and are suffering from.
Other policy suggestion might be to reduce financial barriers to obtaining marketable job skills. Trade schools can allow people to obtain reasonably good blue collar incomes with minimal education cost in terms of time and money. Training for truck driving, handy man type work and the like perhaps should be subsidized. It's a lot more cost efficient than subsidizing the arts or bloated university budgets that study simply for the sake of academic interest rather than meaningfully improving lives. The student loan system is a joke, really. People get, effectively, a credit card to spend on education. They end up spending it on educations that don't give them good incomes, and then they can't pay back the loans. The winners are the schools. The losers are the students who wasted their time and are now deeply in debt, sometimes for life. The government ends up eating the losses.
I've heard that holding colleges responsible in some manner would make them more responsible with their spending and guiding kids towards useful careers. As of now, their only incentive is to get students to take classes.
Making them co-sign loans would make sure they are taking in students likely to succeed, would push these kids towards useful majors, or else they would get punished.
-->
@MgtowDemon
The variables not addressed in the 2012 Booker report are as follows: (1) how the defendant presents himself in court, (2) and how likely he is to reoffend. The latter is partially controlled for by the Booker report in that it takes into account criminal history, but that isn't the only part in determining future likelihood of committing a crime (e.g. a new drug habit could have been formed). In particular, this Beaver et al. 2013 study found that when we did control for these variables (by measuring in particular verbal I.Q. and self-reported history of violence), we see that this disparity in sentencing evaporates. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886913000470Hence, the differences in racial sentencing can be explained by things other than "racism".
Classic case of p-hacking in action
-->
@bmdrocks21
Yeah, I noticed that a surprisingly small amount of Black men voted for Trump in 2016 after his tough positions on illegal immigration. Illegal immigrants are eroding wages in construction especially, which is what a lot of high-school-educated Blacks work in and are suffering from.
It's because they don't see it, and there's probably some political aspects to it. It's a macroeconomic effect that's having a huge impact.
As a correction.
The 2010 study does not evaluate black judges perceptions of black criminals, but rather evaluates minority judges perceptions of black criminals and proved they also had the same biases white judges did (Asian/Latino judges for instance). But the study self admits that black judges couldn't be tested. Instead it cites external sources sources to justify the claim that black judges discriminate against black criminals.
Anyhow, my other source also justifies my claim, and the 2010 study doesn't support the opposing argument at all.
-->
@Trent0405
"only used a subsample of African American and White males and did not include any measures of disadvantage status."
Unfortunately, African Americans are far more likely to be disadvantaged than Whites because there is a large, negative genetic component (i.e. not racism). In essence, African Americans create their own disadvantage, and thus that doesn't need to be controlled for. If we were to control for it, I suspect (but not know) that the racial gap would disappear entirely, because you would be eliminating the undesirable genes (and the expression thereof) that create the gap in the first place. Genetic components such as lower I.Q [1][2], poor delayed gratification propensity [3], presence of the 'warrior gene' [4] etc. create this gene differential between African American and White populations, and thus one group, on average, becomes more "disadvantaged".
To put it extremely bluntly: being African American is an inherent disadvantage -- "disadvantaged status" is heritable.
Conversely, non-disadvantaged African Americans are such because of their better genes (for the most part). I'm struggling to rediscover my source, but during the early stages of slave emancipation in the United States, the average I.Q. of the emancipated slave was 101 I.Q (1 point higher than the White I.Q.). These were African Americans who had genes that made them capable of earning their emancipation, thus acting as a proxy for desirable genes, and, therefore, they were then able to integrate very well into a civilised society.
Without that information, we have to allow for the fact that the study had only a 1 in 15 chance of getting reasonably matched populations, and even then, only on SES.These were these were two of many points brought up to delegitimatize the study
"SES" and "disadvantaged status" seem to be functionally the same thing. Hence, my above response applies to this.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Unfortunately, African Americans are far more likely to be disadvantaged than Whites because there is a large, negative genetic component (i.e. not racism).
holy shit. do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?
you are using a wildly racist argument do argue that racism isn't an issue. that is some serious irony.
-->
@HistoryBuff
holy shit. do you actually believe that black people are genetically inferior to white people?
No. In regards to I.Q, yes. But there are instances wherein black people are genetically superior to white people (and other races).
For example, African Americans are the majority of professional NBA basketball players in the United States https://www.statista.com/statistics/1154720/nba-ethnic-diversity/ . This would indicate that in regards to a conglomerate skills involving basketball (e.g. vertical jump height), that blacks are genetically superior to whites (among other races).
In regards to other black populations, Kenyan long-distance runners are vastly superior to every other ethnic/country on the planet. Thus, when it comes to slow-twitch genes, aerobic potential etc. Kenyans are genetically superior https://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2012/04/why-kenyans-make-such-great-runners-a-story-of-genes-and-cultures/256015/ .
you are using a wildly racist argument do argue that racism isn't an issue. that is some serious irony.
Please keep the toys in the pram.
-->
@ILikePie5
Classic case of p-hacking in action
Merely stating something doesn't make it true or convincing. You need to demonstrate how "p-hacking" occurred.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Merely stating something doesn't make it true or convincing. You need to demonstrate how "p-hacking" occurred.
I thought it was evident in the post I replied to lmao. The two variables not accounted for led to completely different results. Both approaches are obviously conceivable, but then the question becomes whether overfitting is a problem with the added variables. My personal belief is that there are so many variables that it’s impossible to tell the true effect.
On a side note “p-hacking” isn’t indicative of intent. Both studies have great approaches but their results of contradictory. That’s my biggest problem with statistical analysis. There are so many approaches that can be right, it just comes to justification and personal belief of which is actually “right”
-->
@ILikePie5
I thought it was evident in the post I replied to lmao.
You realise bare assertions aren't arguments in themselves? If I say 'dogs are racist', it isn't self-evident why, and thus requires elaboration?
The two variables not accounted for led to completely different results
In a subsequent post to Trent I briefly explain how "disadvantaged status" and "SES" is a result of black genetics https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5177-at-what-point-does-the-racism-boogeyman-go-away?page=2&post_number=49 . Hence, there is no need to control for them in the study, otherwise you would be controlling for literally black people.
Both approaches are obviously conceivable, but then the question becomes whether overfitting is a problem with the added variables. My personal belief is that there are so many variables that it’s impossible to tell the true effect.
We have sufficient data to prove otherwise; there is no need to have personal, unfounded beliefs that merely speculate.
On a side note “p-hacking” isn’t indicative of intent. Both studies have great approaches but their results of contradictory. That’s my biggest problem with statistical analysis. There are so many approaches that can be right, it just comes to justification and personal belief of which is actually “right”
No. Usage of other studies can explain the lack of SES consideration to be a reasonable approach, in regards to the study I presented. To make it ultra clear: you don't need to control for SES when the lower SES is produced by black genes. If you control for SES, you are controlling for black genes, which defeats the whole purpose of the study.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Even if what you're saying is true regarding a purported genetic inferiority, it really has no impact on any policy decision from where I'm standing. Lets suppose, hypothetically, that 50% of one group of people - Group A - is stupid while 20% of another group of people - Group B - is stupid. As time goes on, people become prejudiced against all members of Group A - even the half who aren't stupid, and even those of Group A who are intelligent. That prejudice against all members of Group A is unfair, unreasonable and damaging to the collective life experiences of members of Group A.
-->
@Death23
Even if what you're saying is true regarding a purported genetic inferiority, it really has no impact on any policy decision from where I'm standing. Lets suppose, hypothetically, that 50% of one group of people - Group A - is stupid while 20% of another group of people - Group B - is stupid. As time goes on, people become prejudiced against all members of Group A - even the half who aren't stupid, and even those of Group A who are intelligent. That prejudice against all members of Group A is unfair, unreasonable and damaging to the collective life experiences of members of Group A.
Yes, and it's reason why these groups should be separated in the first place. That's the ideal policy decision, hence it directly affects policy decision.
-->
@MgtowDemon
Separation is very expensive. There are alternatives which you might not have considered.
-->
@Death23
What do you mean it is expensive? Detroit has self-segregated for years.
-->
@Greyparrot
They're already settled in to their lives. Separate an entire population on the basis of whatever you'd like - The degree of separation I'd contemplated was to form two separate nations. There are many costs associated with that. A lot of people would have to move. That's going to permanently terminate an enormous number of personal and business relationships. Further still, it would probably suck a lot to live in a nation full of Group A people compared to the status quo of living in a nation with both Group A and Group B people. It would be something like a divorce, in the sense that a legal community is terminated and justice would require a substantial transfer of value to the Group B nation from the Group A nation on account of that diminished life quality.
-->
@Greyparrot
What do you mean it is expensive? Detroit has self-segregated for years.
That's because of White flight, and I'm sure it was very expensive for those White families lol