What is your answer to "The Race Problem"?

[The Berean]

i think billybob was black :think:

and i'm pretty sure trad's black

Trad is white. See my other sig below.

 

[bybee]

i think billybob was black :think:

and i'm pretty sure trad's black

Don't you remember his posts when he first got on here? He was quite anti-black.

 

[ok doser]

...it would be good to have an actual black voice here.

maybe we could advertise in Ebony or Essence

 

[kmoney]

maybe we could advertise in Ebony or Essence

Or prisons. Do they have computers with the interwebs? :liberals:

 

[aikido7]

I wish we had more black TOLers. I can only think of one black TOLer in all my years here but he no longer posts. I suspect actual black people would find this thread humorous, a bunch of mostly white people talking about black problems and offering their "solutions". :chuckle:

Why do you suppose that is?

Is it really a surprise?

 

[ok doser]

Why do you suppose that is?

black people fear keyboards? :idunno:

Is it really a surprise?

Spoiler

 

[Alate_One]

Or prisons. Do they have computers with the interwebs? :liberals:

No they don't actually. It's considered a security risk. It's apparently impairing prisoners from getting their GEDs, since the new GED is on computer.

 

[TomO]

i think billybob was black :think:

and i'm pretty sure trad's black

The only thing "black" about Trad is his soul. :chuckle:

 

[TomO]

"TomO" is an American-Italian whose family works in the construction business, the olive oil business, the casino business, and own a Cocacabana club (see my sig below).

We don't have the Club anymore.....Yeah, there was a fire....Terrible tragedy. :nono:

But, yanno...We get by. lain:

 

[TomO]

For some reason I am under the impression that this poster is "black". I could be wrong. lain:

MarcATL

 

[Alate_One]

If I write a scoring rubric, there's a chance that all of my students might fail, or all of my students might get straight As (neither of which, to my mind, is a reasonable alternative). I mean, implicitly, there is something like a "scoring rubric" that I have in mind. If I said A, but the student didn't talk about A, then the student has deviated from the ideal. That doesn't mean that his or her grade should suffer, though. Maybe nobody got that point.

Then you could at least write one after the fact so your students know what standards you were using. Or as I do, go over their exams in class and tell them what I was expecting.

The problem, Alate_One, is that you simply have no concept of prudence. Human beings don't live and breathe in universals. They live and breath in and deal with particular circumstances.

Indeed, and you should consider that when evaluating the race problem. People are exposed to many things beyond their control and that affects their judgement. Police and people in impoverished communities need to be taught de-escalation since it doesn't come naturally. This is likely what causes a significant proportion of the increased incarceration rates.

Did I owe it to the student to get intoxicated, to grade his paper first or to give his paper a second look later? No.

In fairness if your standard is changing significantly over time you do.

I do sometimes go back to earlier papers if I recognize my standard was too harsh, or give a curve or something like that. Of course maybe it's easier in science where most of what is said is either right or wrong.

It's a case by case basis. And it has nothing to do with white or black, hispanic or asian, male or female. It's all about what I'm grading right at that moment in these particular circumstances.

That's probably true for most professors.

Probably. But perhaps you have an unconscious bias you're not even aware of. Most people do.

I disagree. Fairness has nothing to do with equality; it has everything to do with equity.

We are talking about equity here, not that every person should have the same outcome, but that everyone should have a similar opportunity to reach said outcome. When we carry out societal actions that we know will be unequal in their effect, significantly harming the chances for one group to achieve their goals, how is that fair?

 

[aikido7]

black people fear keyboards? :idunno:

Spoiler

Thanks for the "laughs out loud!"

Love that little kittie!

 

[aikido7]

i think billybob was black :think:

and i'm pretty sure trad's black

I saw BillyBob as a white redneck runnin' scared.

What ever happened to him?
Does anyone know?

I sure enjoyed having him around. He used to chase me all over TOL to blow his cigar smoke in my face. We had a lot of good-natured fun.

 

[Traditio]

Thanks for this.

I do not need a long explanation. I am extremely upset by the direction this entire thread has taken- and not just by you.

For many here the focus is: Do Black commit more crimes? Are they treated fairly by the police and courts?

What I don't see is the concern for our fellow humans. Or concern for society. Or concern for the future.

This infuriates me. I apologize again if I have taken it out on you, but that is the common attitude I see here. And I find it, shall I say, unappealing.

Chair

I think that the issue that we are having (and by that, I mean you and the social conservatives on this thread) is a matter of how the problem is being set up and the attendant political, social and cultural connotations that the problem implies.

Since (as far as I know) you are an Israeli, you may be, I think, simply missing a lot of uniquely American undercurrents to the discussion. You don't hear what they're not saying, but strongly implying and hinting at.

The common social liberal complaint, in America, is that blacks are systematically oppressed and unfairly treated (and all of us evil white people are helping contribute to it; "check your privilege, whitey!"). The answer to that, by the social conservative is, "No, they aren't."

Liberals are constantly crying racism and bringing racism into every single issue that they possibly can bring in racism, even if racism has nothing to do with the issue. As a social liberal acquaintance of mine put it, as I remember him, and here, I may be paraphrasing, "if race can be an issue, then it should be made an issue."

It gets real old, real fast.

Thus the conservative attitude that you are witnessing on this thread.

Of course, your concerns are completely reasonable: "But where's the concern for those who are less well off than everyone else, for those who feel the need to take on criminal lifestyles, etc. Where's the concern to improve society, to improve the general lot of the common people?"

I agree with you that these are excellent questions which require a practical answer. It's a question which, not only is called for by human practical reason itself, but also by the Jewish and Christian traditions.

But that's not the question that the social conservatives are hearing from the social liberals. We're hearing something else entirely.

That's why we're not having the discussion that you're wanting us to have. That's not the challenge that the social liberals are bringing, that's not the accusations that they are making, and that's not the discussion that they are bringing to the table. What you are asking simply isn't the question being raised in the concrete conditions of US political discourse.

Social liberals are like the little boy who cried "wolf," and social conservatives are like the townspeople who are tired of hearing it. Of course, a visitor to the town might very well inquire why concrete steps are not being taken to reduce the general wolf threat. But that's not the problem at issue with the little boy and the townspeople.

 

[The Berean]

Why do you suppose that is?

I have no idea. Perhaps they are somewhat more culturally insular and pefer forums that focus more on Black issues? :idunno:

Is it really a surprise?

Somewhat.

 

[The Berean]

For some reason I am under the impression that this poster is "black". I could be wrong. lain:

MarcATL

Could it be his el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz profile picture? :wazzup:

 

[Traditio]

It bothers you, I understand that. It bothers most white people. We want to pretend we are "post racial" that the problem is solved and none of us have culpability, but unfortunately we all do.

Alate_One, like most people, I don't think you fully understand how reasonable discourse works. When A and B disagree, A and B should proceed in their discussion on the basis of propositions to which both A and B agree, and then proceed to a discussion of their disagreements based on their mutual agreement to other propositions.

Otherwise, the discussion is going to be utterly fruitless and question-begging. If you and I disagree about isosceles triangles, we should start with a discussion of, e.g., triangles of general, and then proceed to the particular point about which we disagree.

As it stands, what you've said is just social liberal soap box talk.

I'll simply respond: "I still see no evidence that there is a racial problem worth discussing, much less that I, or any person, white or otherwise, bears any responsibility for it."

No, I'm not hiding behind a label. I am saying individual actions are insufficient to address the problem. I recognize that I have biases, everyone has biases.

Again, I still see no evidence for a problem. You can't just presuppose when you talk to me, or any other social conservative, that there's a problem. You have to explain what the problem is and offer objective reasons to support the assertion that there is, in fact, such a problems to which the social conservative can assent.

I've already given you and others quite a few examples - see my previous post to you as an example.

Humor me. Why don't you briefly restate these things and then explain why they are racist or otherwise unfair.

If you look at the numbers there's a massive racial disparity in a variety of outcomes and areas of society.

So what? I've addressed this repeatedly. A mere disparity, however large, whether racial or otherwise, doesn't mean anything.

No. It isn't actually. I use the term racialized as the book I listed in my OP does (A book written by sociologists in a sociological perspective not "social liberals")

Lolz! Seriously. Just lolz.

I could explain, but I think you'll fully understand what I mean.

Again. Lolz. Roflcopter.

- the definition is simply that there are different outcomes in society which correlate strongly with race.

Racism = racial disparity?

1. That's not how most people use the word.
2. That's not the connotations that are clearly implied even by the people who do use the word.

Even if I granted that our society is racist as defined, I'll then proceed to ask:

So what? I don't see this, in and of itself, as problematic.

If the society were post racial as many people claim, there should be little to no disparity.

Doesn't follow.

The problem really needs changes to policy enforcement, punishment etc.

I understand that this is your opinion. I'm simply noting that what you said didn't address what I actually asked.

But there's also excessive focus on them.

Why on earth should I think that there's an excessive focus? I don't think that there's an excessive focus. Drug dealers need to be in jail. Period.

Not from the viewpoint of a just society. If anyone should know that, it is you.

1. I wish to note, first, your utter hubris. In your post, you outright admit that I should be in a much better position than you to make a determination about these things, given my education. You then proceed to tell me what determination I should be making, given that education, which you lack.

That would be like me telling you, given your superior education in natural science, what inferences you should be making given scientific data.

Congrats...I mean, really, just congrats on the hubris of the year award.

2. No. Again, a simple disparity doesn't in and of itself indicate injustice. You would have to argue that there shouldn't be such a disparity, given the concrete circumstances, and, furthermore, that the disparity could be alleviated by doing or not doing x, y and z (these things in themselves being just or at least not unjust), and that there is an obligation of justice to do such things.

Again: justice is that whereby each is given according to his due. To this it must be added, for the sake of clarity: "as prudence requires in these concrete circumstances."

I wouldn't necessarily say on the streets, but in rehab rather than prison.

1. What's the failure rate of rehab centers?
2. Crime has an objective merit for punishment.

If that man later becomes a murderer when before he was only dealing drugs, is society not inherently better off?

You realize that this argument, if it holds any water (in the absense of empirical data, I'm not convinced either way), just as easily could used to support the death penalty for drug dealing, yes?

The problem is that you are appealing to these general problems (e.g., recitivism rates), to which any number of solutions could be applied, and acting as though your solution were the only acceptable one.

The problem is that your solution is unjust/unfair. Criminals deserve punishment. The average citizen deserves to be protected from criminals. Period.

Here, I cite St. Thomas Aquinas himself:

"I answer that, As stated above (63, 1; 94, 3), man has a natural aptitude for virtue; but the perfection of virtue must be acquired by man by means of some kind of training. Thus we observe that man is helped by industry in his necessities, for instance, in food and clothing. Certain beginnings of these he has from nature, viz. his reason and his hands; but he has not the full complement, as other animals have, to whom nature has given sufficiency of clothing and food. Now it is difficult to see how man could suffice for himself in the matter of this training: since the perfection of virtue consists chiefly in withdrawing man from undue pleasures, to which above all man is inclined, and especially the young, who are more capable of being trained. Consequently a man needs to receive this training from another, whereby to arrive at the perfection of virtue. And as to those young people who are inclined to acts of virtue, by their good natural disposition, or by custom, or rather by the gift of God, paternal training suffices, which is by admonitions. But since some are found to be depraved, and prone to vice, and not easily amenable to words, it was necessary for such to be restrained from evil by force and fear, in order that, at least, they might desist from evil-doing, and leave others in peace, and that they themselves, by being habituated in this way, might be brought to do willingly what hitherto they did from fear, and thus become virtuous. Now this kind of training, which compels through fear of punishment, is the discipline of laws. Therefore in order that man might have peace and virtue, it was necessary for laws to be framed: for, as the Philosopher says (Polit. i, 2), "as man is the most noble of animals if he be perfect in virtue, so is he the lowest of all, if he be severed from law and righteousness"; because man can use his reason to devise means of satisfying his lusts and evil passions, which other animals are unable to do" (St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 95, a. 1, corp).

The Romans verse comes to mind: the earthly State does not wield the sword in vain.

You don't see a human being you see a risk to society.

A criminal, as such, actively makes himself such a risk.

Every human being is an inherent risk whether they are "criminals" or not.Will the punishment actually harm society more than the crime?

1. I fully agree that every citizen is a potential criminal.
2. However, not every citizen is in a proximate potency to crime.
3. Nor are all crimes equally dangerous and offensive.

You're going to have difficulty arguing to me, Alate One, that drug dealers and drug addicts are not dangerous, do not need to be locked up, and, in the former case, do not need to be severely punished, etc.

Again, an additional problem is that you are arguing like a consequentialist. That's inconsistent with Christianity.

If you throw a man in jail for drug use what happens to his children? His wife, the rest of his family?

Utterly irrelevent. Again, all that is relevent is that he has committed a crime, offended against society and against the State, and he deserves to be punished.

Again, you have completely ignored a question I asked previously:

How do you suppose he financed his little addiction? Hm? C'mon. I'm sure that you have an idea.

You have a society with millions of missing people and one thing that happens is there are fewer men in the society left for women to pick from. So they may feel they have to do things that they might not otherwise do just to get and keep a man. Again, there's a major source of family dysfunction right there.

Pffffft.

That's literally my answer to what you just said. I scoff at you, at the supposed problem that you are raising, and all of the presuppositions and states of character which are necessary for this problem even to arise. :nono:

"Dishonor! Dishonor on your whole family...dishonor on you, dishonor on your cow..."

Mulan - Meeting Mushu

I understand this, but putting them in jail doesn't fix the problem. It doesn't treat their addiction, it doesn't get them an education or a job so they can be a productive member of society.

1. It does solve the problem, if the problem in question is the injustice and the offense. Punishment, as such, solves the problem of the criminal deserving punishment.

2. It does solve the problem, if the problem is the threat to society. A meth addict in prison can't rob me.

3. It does solve the problem, if the problem in question is that you want the meth addict to stop using meth. Prison, I assume, is an excellent place to sober up.

The majority of people in prison are there because of drug crimes.

So what?

There's already plenty of evidence for this. Black men are far more likely to be killed by police than any other group.

The conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. Again, I ask: so what?

Not if you only add a handful of people to said neighborhoods. There won't be enough to fundamentally alter the neighborhoods. I'd suggest the mini-series - Show Me a Hero.

Somehow, I just don't feel convinced by this. Do you have studies to support this? If you move a ghetto family to a non-ghetto, and the ghetto family uses meth, then by that very fact, you've just increased crime in the non-ghetto, and not only that, but you've reduced the chances of the meth users getting caught. Not only that, but you've just made all of these middle class white people possible targets for robbery and mugging and all sorts of other crimes.

I dislike all of that.

Just what was done in the study I linked several posts ago. Give people with young children a certain number of vouchers for a high income neighborhood.

Go on. Why don't you flesh that out a bit more? Preferably a paragraph or more.

It becomes too big of a problem to fix concentrated poverty and crime. It needs to be broken up.

Concentrated crime, I imagine, is probably the easiest kind to deal with. Just put lots of policemen in that one...oh, wait, that's what they already do, and it works!

Making school systems have similar outcomes rather than having awesome suburban schools and terrible inner city and rural schools - revenue sharing maybe even teacher sharing across a state.

I'm not entirely sure what any of that means.

1. How do you distinguish terrible schools vs. non-terrible schools? And note, in order to answer this, I simply refuse to accept learning outcomes and success rates. You are a teacher. You should know darned good and well that success rates aren't entirely dependent upon what you do.

2. Why are suburban schools awesome and other schools not?

3. What do you mean by revenue sharing, and why would that be fair?

4. What do you mean by teacher sharing, and why would that be fair?

Policy makers have changed their expectation of school outcomes that everyone should be prepared for college. I think this is unfair to a lot of people and saddles them with debt by starting them on degrees they can't finish.

I'm not sure if policy makers have such an expectation, but I do agree with your general assessment, at least, in this respect: not everyone belongs in college. Most people don't. Technical training most certainly should be promoted much more than it is.

There's nothing wrong with being a plumber.

You need to stop thinking rigidly and simplistically about people who are fellow human beings, bearers of the image of God. Some may be criminals yes, but who did Christ go to and spend time with? Criminals. Your legalism sounds like the pharisees.

Utterly irrelevent if the discourse is on politics. Jesus didn't write the U.S. criminal code. He didn't even offer any suggestions. Just saying.

 

[republicanchick]

Blacks are angry

who can blame them

but some learn to live in society and do something smart w/ their anger and some do not

but you know.. there are many who are self destructive, feel hopeless... have given up.

it is NOT just Black people.

Are we to withhold sympathy from non-Blacks... who feel about the same as Blacks?

there are many who are angry... hopeless..



not just minorities...


+++

 

[ok doser]

Blacks are angry




+++

maybe we should sneak up behind them and tickle them

 

[Traditio]

maybe we should sneak up behind them and tickle them

I don't recommend it. You might get stabbed.