Trump-BOYCOTT NFL teams whose players refuse to stand for the National Anthem

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

But yes, I get that the narrative is that this country is horribly ra isy, and to ask for evidence of question that is frowned upon.

I guess you're right. The civil rights movement of the sixties was all about nothing, it was a long, long time ago, and everything is all better now.

What?

Who said otherwise?

So because the civil rights movement in the 60s, that proves racism is horrible now?

a reply to: Grambler

No of course not.
It proves that it's all better now. Everything is fine. Racism is not a problem. And all it took was 50 years to do away with hundreds. You convinced me.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

But yes, I get that the narrative is that this country is horribly ra isy, and to ask for evidence of question that is frowned upon.

I guess you're right. The civil rights movement of the sixties was all about nothing, it was a long, long time ago, and everything is all better now.

Can you cite any examples of institutional racism that oppresses black americans?

There is certainly institutional racism that helps blacks, like affirmative action and college admissions and artificial test score inflation.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

... and now you want to play semantics.

Numbers don't lie.

As I said. You found what you want to believe. But don't pretend that you haven't been shown differently.

Numbers don't lie.

Blacks are 12 percent of the population and commit around 50 percent of homicides.

That's what you believe right?

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

No of course not.
It proves that it's all better now. Everything is fine. Racism is not a problem. And all it took was 50 years to do away with hundreds. You convinced me.

Hahaha!

Ok I will play your game then.

Hey I am the victims of racism!

The cops hate me because of my skin color!


Want proof?

The civil rights movement happened!

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

... and now you want to play semantics.

Numbers don't lie.

As I said. You found what you want to believe. But don't pretend that you haven't been shown differently.

Numbers don't lie.

Blacks are 12 percent of the population and commit around t0 percent of homicides.

That's what you believe right?

No, they are arrested, tried and convicted at a higher rate ... because they are targeted. You have admitted that.

You can't prove than Blacks commit more crimes, and you know it.

Also, you're proving to be hypocritical on this issue. Either proportional measures mean something, and more unarmed Black men are killed by police, or not.

You can't have it both ways.

a reply to: Deny Arrogance

Can you cite any examples of institutional racism that oppresses black americans?

Not offhand. But it doesn't have to be legal. Seems our president indulged during his landlord days.

There is certainly institutional racism that helps blacks, like affirmative action and college admissions and artificial test score inflation.

I'm not sold on that practice, but when considering that many start with a disadvantage simply because of their race it makes some sense. Some kids have learning disabilities, they receive special accommodations (like being able to use a calculator). I can see that aspect to it.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

No of course not.
It proves that it's all better now. Everything is fine. Racism is not a problem. And all it took was 50 years to do away with hundreds. You convinced me.

At least they stopped lynching.

a reply to: Grambler
What?

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: Grambler

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Grambler

... and now you want to play semantics.

Numbers don't lie.

As I said. You found what you want to believe. But don't pretend that you haven't been shown differently.

Numbers don't lie.

Blacks are 12 percent of the population and commit around t0 percent of homicides.

That's what you believe right?

No, they are arrested, tried and convicted at a higher rate ... because they are targeted. You have admitted that.

You can't prove than Blacks commit more crimes, and you know it.

Also, you're proving to be hypocritical on this issue. Either proportional measures mean something, and more unarmed Black men are killed by police, or not.

You can't have it both ways.

See, you want to look at the factors that lead to those numbers.

Yet with police shootimgs, you won't look at the factors.

Again, the Harvard study showed unarmed whis are more likely to be shot.

I am sorry you won't look at it.

Do you honestly believe that the 3000 hours they put into that study could have been avoided by simply counting the shootings?

a reply to: Grambler

Thing is, all things aren't equal.
Here's what the man who conducted the study said: (again)

Mr. Fryer: I agree that blacks are more likely to be stopped, more likely to be harassed and more likely to be arrested.

Ideally we would be able to set up an experiment to understand potential differences before an encounter. Unfortunately, that would require us to randomly assign civilian race in encounters of police, which isn’t possible!

Given this limitation, we need to make the best out of available data. There are two important things I want to note:

1. The types of encounters that lead to police shootings in the videos that we have all seen are not the most common that actually occur in the data. In Houston, for instance, most of the officer-involved shootings come from calls for service resulting from burglaries or violent crimes, not from chasing down people with broken taillights.

2. I totally agree that deciding who to stop in a police stop is highly problematic and there certainly may be racial bias in that decision. So let’s think about the officer-involved shootings in which there’s a robbery in progress or a violent crime. Those are less likely to be plagued by selection bias in the decision of who to harass or stop. Analyzing only those cases yields similar results. Moreover, when we analyze only cases in which the officer-involved shooting began with a routine stop or a traffic stop, we do not find bias. But these results are susceptible to your point that there’s more traffic stops of blacks.

www.nytimes.com...

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler
What?

Saying the civil rights movement happened does not prove that racism is a huge problem now.

Of course racism still exists, it always will.

But it exists from people of all colors. There are not institutional policies anymore that are against blacks.

If someone says they are experiencing racism, I think it acceptable to ask for proof, as opposed to just saying the civil rights movement happened, therefore this must be proof of this person experiencing racism today.

a reply to: Grambler

I've no interest in bickering with you.

You stated here that you'd like to be shown that more unarmed Black men are killed by police. I reminded you that I had shown you that, and your retort was that I had shown you that proportional to population sizes ... which wasn't the game you wanted to play.

Yet, when pushed, you retreat right back to your statistic (which you continually misrepresent, by the way) that PROPORTIONAL TO POPULATION Blacks commit more crimes.

So, proportion is good for your argument, not for mine.

And by the way, the real problem with your argument is that you don't know jack crap about how many crimes are committed, you know about arrests.

And you know that Blacks are targeted heavily for arrest.

Now, believe what you want, and have a great evening.

a reply to: Willtell

I feel like I'm in a bizarro world. We literally just had an entire wing of posters here defending neo-Nazis on "free speech" grounds. Even many members who didn't agree with them still would give that "I may not agree with what they say but I'll fight to defend their right to say it" spiel. So they'll defend the free speech rights of neo-Nazis but not of football players? Huh?

And to top it off, we just got hit hard by hurricanes. An entire branch of my family is in central Florida & they're in the rebuilding phase. But instead of focusing on the rebuilding efforts, the looming crisis w/North Korea, and the healthcare bill in Congress right now, the president is tweeting against NBA players like Steph Curry and giving speeches (and more tweets) against football players. Like really????

a reply to: Grambler

So, because it is not "institutional", it means that is not a problem. It means that people are not harmed by it? It means that people with authority do not abuse that authority based on racism?

a reply to: Phage

Yes what are you not understanding about that.

He says that the majority of police shootings aren't like the videos we see, they are actually vient robberies and such, and race bias is NOT a factor in them.

Yes, he says that race bias may play a role in other things.

But this is conclusive in the stidy, unarmed white men are more likely to be shot than unwed black men.

The majority of the protests are about police shootings of black people because of racial bias, and this study clearly shows that is not the case.

a reply to: enlightenedservant

You are in bizzarro world. We got there, willing or not, on the Trump Train.

originally posted by: Deny Arrogance

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: Grambler

But yes, I get that the narrative is that this country is horribly ra isy, and to ask for evidence of question that is frowned upon.

I guess you're right. The civil rights movement of the sixties was all about nothing, it was a long, long time ago, and everything is all better now.

Can you cite any examples of institutional racism that oppresses black americans?

There is certainly institutional racism that helps blacks, like affirmative action and college admissions and artificial test score inflation.

www.bloomberg.com...

Read these staggering statistics

The gap between blacks and whites in income is big, but nowhere near as big as the gap in wealth. According to the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Consumer Finances, as of 2013 the median white household had $13 in net wealth for every $1 in net wealth of the median black household. For whites vs. Latinos, the gap was only a bit smaller, $10 vs. $1.

It’s natural to assume that if blacks have less wealth it’s because they’re doing less saving—i.e., more of each dollar of income is going to consumption. The opposite is the case, according to a Duke University study published last year and cited by the authors. At every income level, blacks spend less than similarly situated whites, the Duke researchers found: “Retail desertification in racially segregated neighborhoods, restricted access to affordable credit for blacks, and consumer racial discrimination, we argue, result in lower overall spending for blacks at all income levels,” they said.
To some, the report is depressing. “Bottom line, for people of color, working ourselves to the bone and doing all the right things is getting us nowhere,”

Fortune Senior Editor Ellen McGirt wrote in a commentary on fortune.com.

So what does account for the racial gap in wealth? Traub admits that “we haven’t fully penetrated the mystery.” One powerful factor seems to be that whites are five times as likely as blacks to receive substantial gifts and inheritances, and the sums they get tend to be much larger.