Why I Have Trouble Taking BLM Seriously

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2016, 09:19 AM)fredtoast Wrote: yes you did.  You made it very clear that people who see the color of their skin are racists, and you are not racists because you don't see the color of your skin.

No, I didn't, fred. I said, "I think many people think of themselves as their skin color first.

fredtoast Wrote:The only think worse than a racist is one who is not man enough to own what he said.  

You like to make allegations of racism, but then try to weasel out of them.

The only "think" worse than a racist is a LIAR who falsely accuses others of racism. 

I've also made no allegations in this thread, let alone one of racism.

So, please, fred, continue to preach how their needs to be racial reconciliation in this country all the while undermining your own efforts by falsely accusing me of racism simply because you don't like what I have to say and/or you disagree with me.

(10-13-2016, 09:21 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Yes it does.  It is the very definition of white privilege.

White people are not the suject of racial profiling and that is a privilege.

Whites ARE subject to racial profiling.
http://www.grantmeahigherlove.com/racial-profiling-it-happens-to-white-people-too/


So is there black privilege? Or maaaaaaaaaaybeeeeeeeeeeee, there is no white privilege.

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2016, 09:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that the same percentage of black people and white people use illegal drugs yet many more black people are arrested for it due to racial profiling.

http://www.grantmeahigherlove.com/racial-profiling-it-happens-to-white-people-too/

Between 1990-2010, over 1 million white people were arrested for "drug abuse violations". Less than 520,000 blacks were arrested for the same. Under "drug possession/use", the demographics  are 900,000 whites and 400,000 blacks.

[Rotobeast]

(10-13-2016, 12:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: http://www.grantmeahigherlove.com/racial-profiling-it-happens-to-white-people-too/

Between 1990-2010, over 1 million white people were arrested for "drug abuse violations". Less than 520,000 blacks were arrested for the same. Under "drug possession/use", the demographics  are 900,000 whites and 400,000 blacks.

Thanks !
After reading the link address, I'll be singing Steve Windwood all day.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2016, 12:34 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Thanks !
After reading the link address, I'll be singing Steve Windwood all day.


Sent from my SM-S820L using Tapatalk

You're welcome.

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 12:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Between 1990-2010, over 1 million white people were arrested for "drug abuse violations". Less than 520,000 blacks were arrested for the same. Under "drug possession/use", the demographics  are 900,000 whites and 400,000 blacks.

Link?

Plus this still shows a disproportionate number of arrests for blacks.

Here is what I found with a linbk to back it up

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/02/us-drug-arrests-skewed-race


 Blacks have been arrested nationwide on drug charges at higher rates than whites for nearly three decades, even though they engage in drug offenses at comparable rates, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.  Using data obtained from the FBI, the report reveals the extent and persistence of racial disparities in US drug-law enforcement. The data also show that most drug arrests are for nothing more serious than possession.

The 20-page report, "Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States,"  says that adult African Americans were arrested on drug charges at rates that were 2.8 to 5.5 times as high as those of white adults in every year from 1980 through 2007, the last year for which complete data were available. 





http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/The-Changing-Racial-Dynamics-of-the-War-on-Drugs.pdf


 As of 2005, African Americans represented 12% of the total population of drug users, but 34% of those arrested for drug offenses, 









https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2013/06/04/the-blackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

[/url]

In at least one year, the white usage rate was higher. The others, the black usage rate was higher, but in no year were results for the two races that different. For young people ages 18-25, the rates of use are higher for whites:


[url=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2013/06/marijuana_arrest_rates_by_race_year.png]

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 12:19 PM)PhilHos Wrote: No, I didn't, fred. I said, "I think many people think of themselves as their skin color first.

So you are denying that you said this?

(10-07-2016, 01:23 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Or maybe, it's because I'm not racist and don't see "color".

Did some one hack your account or what?

Because you are clearly saying that the reason you don't see color is because you are not racist like the people who do notice skin color.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2016, 09:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that the same percentage of black people and white people use illegal drugs yet many more black people are arrested for it due to racial profiling.  That is one of the privileges of being white.  

And you WOULD have a problem being pulled over by the police just because you were a white guy driving a pick up truck.  I guarantee it.  Why should you be late to work or pick up your children just because of your race and vehicle?  You are lying if you claim you have no problem being pulled over for no reason.

(10-13-2016, 12:28 PM)PhilHos Wrote: http://www.grantmeahigherlove.com/racial-profiling-it-happens-to-white-people-too/

Between 1990-2010, over 1 million white people were arrested for "drug abuse violations". Less than 520,000 blacks were arrested for the same. Under "drug possession/use", the demographics  are 900,000 whites and 400,000 blacks.

(10-13-2016, 03:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

Plus this still shows a disproportionate number of arrests for blacks.

The conversation wasn't about disproportionate, you made the claim about "many more black people", not "many more black people if you break it down based upon the population percentages".

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2016, 03:25 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Link?

Plus this still shows a disproportionate number of arrests for blacks.

Here is what I found with a linbk to back it up

https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/03/02/us-drug-arrests-skewed-race


 Blacks have been arrested nationwide on drug charges at higher rates than whites for nearly three decades, even though they engage in drug offenses at comparable rates, Human Rights Watch said in a report released today.  Using data obtained from the FBI, the report reveals the extent and persistence of racial disparities in US drug-law enforcement. The data also show that most drug arrests are for nothing more serious than possession.

The 20-page report, "Decades of Disparity: Drug Arrests and Race in the United States,"  says that adult African Americans were arrested on drug charges at rates that were 2.8 to 5.5 times as high as those of white adults in every year from 1980 through 2007, the last year for which complete data were available. 

My bad. I thought I included the link. This is where I got the info:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf
Anywho, my point was that blacks were not arrested more. Now, if you want to argue the RATE at which they're arrested, go ahead. But, in terms of overall numbers, whites are arrested more often for drugs than blacks are.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(10-13-2016, 06:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: My bad. I thought I included the link. This is where I got the info:
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf
Anywho, my point was that blacks were not arrested more. Now, if you want to argue the RATE at which they're arrested, go ahead. But, in terms of overall numbers, whites are arrested more often for drugs than blacks are.

BJs.gov

Any chance that site was made during the Clinton administration?  

[fredtoast]

(10-13-2016, 03:42 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: The conversation wasn't about disproportionate, you made the claim about "many more black people", not "many more black people if you break it down based upon the population percentages".

(10-13-2016, 06:50 PM)PhilHos Wrote: Anywho, my point was that blacks were not arrested more. Now, if you want to argue the RATE at which they're arrested, go ahead. But, in terms of overall numbers, whites are arrested more often for drugs than blacks are.

So you guys understood what I was talking about all along but just wanted to hide from the truth?

[*PhilHos*]

(10-13-2016, 03:37 PM)fredtoast Wrote: So you are denying that you said this?



Did some one hack your account or what?

Because you are clearly saying that the reason you don't see color is because you are not racist like the people who do notice skin color.

Okay, I can see where you might think that I was calling those who see skin color racist. That was not my intention with that post. I was trying (and clearly failed) to cut you off from trying to assert that I was somehow racist. If I'd known (which, in hindsight, I probably should have) that you were still going to find some way to call me a racist, I would've not made such a pithy post.

[Beaker]

(10-13-2016, 09:28 AM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that the same percentage of black people and white people use illegal drugs yet many more black people are arrested for it due to racial profiling.  That is one of the privileges of being white.  

And you WOULD have a problem being pulled over by the police just because you were a white guy driving a pick up truck.  I guarantee it.  Why should you be late to work or pick up your children just because of your race and vehicle?  You are lying if you claim you have no problem being pulled over for no reason.

We're not just talking black people here. We're talking all races. I am looking at the issue in the context of limited manpower and resources for law enforcement. They should be able to target the demographic that has been proven over time to statistically commit a large percent of whatever criminal activity they are investigating. So no, I actually wouldn't be getting pulled over for no reason. I would be getting stopped for fitting a profile. And I would not have a problem with it, despite your insistence. Just like I don't have a problem that airport security now takes longer because I have to take off my shoes, and cannot pack carry on liquids of over 3 ounces. But I do think that having to randomly pull obvious non-threats such as old ladies out of line for additional pat downs is a waste of time and resources. One inconvenience serves to make flying safer, the other is a waste of manpower and could be allowing a more obvious threat to pass through because it had to be random so as not to be "unfair", "insulting", or "racial".

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2016, 12:00 AM)Beaker Wrote:  So no, I actually wouldn't be getting pulled over for no reason. I would be getting stopped for fitting a profile. And I would not have a problem with it, despite your insistence. Just like I don't have a problem that airport security now takes longer because I have to take off my shoes, and cannot pack carry on liquids of over 3 ounces.

You can not compare a security search that applies to every flyer to a search that only applies to one race.

And despite what you claim I guarantee you would be upset if you were late to work and got in trouble just because the police pulled you over to search your car.  Anyone who has any sense of fairness would be.

[Bengalzona]

(10-14-2016, 12:00 AM)Beaker Wrote: We're not just talking black people here. We're talking all races. I am looking at the issue in the context of limited manpower and resources for law enforcement. They should be able to target the demographic that has been proven over time to statistically commit a large percent of whatever criminal activity they are investigating.

But what if the statistic is skewed to show a demographic group commits a larger percentage of a certain criminal activity because that group is targeted for investigation more? What if the reality is that other groups commit the same activity just as often, but are caught less often because investigations are targeted at the first group?

I don't offer this as an overall truth. But I think it may sometimes be a contributory factor to some situations. I work with a lot of statistics and I work with lawyers enough to know to be cautious and critical with the stats.

[Beaker]

(10-14-2016, 12:51 AM)Bengalzona Wrote: But what if the statistic is skewed to show a demographic group commits a larger percentage of a certain criminal activity because that group is targeted for investigation more? What if the reality is that other groups commit the same activity just as often, but are caught less often because investigations are targeted at the first group?

As we know, statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want. I am talking about law enforcement officers who face the public everyday and actually know via experience which demographic is more likely to commit a certain crime. I think they should be able to target their resources towards that demographic without fear of being called racist. It simply makes sense to target those most likely to commit those crimes and not a demographic that in their past experience has shown little likelihood of doing the same. To me I think the PC of having to be random just so they aren't called racist is a mass waste of already scarce time, manpower and resources. This thought process does not of course apply to the bad individual who may act in a racially motivated manner on his or her own.

[Beaker]

(10-14-2016, 12:16 AM)fredtoast Wrote: You can not compare a security search that applies to every flyer to a search that only applies to one race.

And despite what you claim I guarantee you would be upset if you were late to work and got in trouble just because the police pulled you over to search your car.  Anyone who has any sense of fairness would be.

The comparison in the context of targeting individuals due to limited resources is the same.

And despite your guarantee, you would be wrong. As to fairness, I already fully realize that life isn't fair...and never will be.

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2016, 07:10 PM)Beaker Wrote: As we know, statistics can be manipulated to show whatever you want. I am talking about law enforcement officers who face the public everyday and actually know via experience which demographic is more likely to commit a certain crime. I think they should be able to target their resources towards that demographic without fear of being called racist. It simply makes sense to target those most likely to commit those crimes and not a demographic that in their past experience has shown little likelihood of doing the same. To me I think the PC of having to be random just so they aren't called racist is a mass waste of already scarce time, manpower and resources. This thought process does not of course apply to the bad individual who may act in a racially motivated manner on his or her own.

But the same percentage of black people and white people use illegal drugs.  So you do disagree with targeting minorities in "stop and frisk" or motor vehicle stops, correct? 

[fredtoast]

(10-14-2016, 07:14 PM)Beaker Wrote: The comparison in the context of targeting individuals due to limited resources is the same.

And despite your guarantee, you would be wrong. As to fairness, I already fully realize that life isn't fair...and never will be.

White privilege at its finest.

"This has never happened to me and will never happen to me, so i will claim that I would NEVER complain aboiut suffering an injustice."


Easy to claim that you would just bend over and take it when you know it will never happen to you.

[Beaker]

(10-17-2016, 02:17 PM)fredtoast Wrote: But the same percentage of black people and white people use illegal drugs.  So you do disagree with targeting minorities in "stop and frisk" or motor vehicle stops, correct? 

Is use the same thing as transport and/or sell? I disagree with law enforcement not being able to profile a target demographic....even if they are not a minority group.

(10-17-2016, 02:19 PM)fredtoast Wrote: White privilege at its finest.

"This has never happened to me and will never happen to me, so i will claim that I would NEVER complain aboiut suffering an injustice."


Easy to claim that you would just bend over and take it when you know it will never happen to you.

Even easier to claim you know what someone else thinks or feels.

[fredtoast]

(10-17-2016, 11:46 PM)Beaker Wrote: Is use the same thing as transport and/or sell?

Yes.