Ferguson unrest

[Michael Hardner]

So you're not talking about minorities in general but Blacks, and American Blacks at that. And you're talking specifically about economics.

Racism could be involved, perhaps this amorphous, difficult to define 'institutional racism' but we KNOW there are a number of reasons why Blacks are poor, and none of them are related to racism. The breakdown in Black families, for example, is a huge cause.

And what is the root cause of said breakdown ?

Now you can trace this back to racism, surely, such as all the Negros being freed, and flooding into cities, into those parts of the cities where they were allowed to live, and even to the sixties when school desegregation helped introduce the concept of white flight, where whites abandoned the urban areas for suburbs away from the perceived threat of black gangs harming their kids, or abandoned public education for private schools (and thus eroded support for public schools). And you can discuss economic policies which might do something to help this situation.

Uh-huh.

But demanding a cop be hung for shooting a criminal who happened to be Black really isn't the way to go.

I agree that he shouldn't be hanged.

[cybercoma]

Because the cycle doesn't just go away. That doesn't mean that systemic racism is the cause.

It has already been explained that systemic and institutional racism is an explanation not a cause. It's not predestination here. It is a social theory that explains what is clearly observed, just like gravity explains why things fall to the ground. But that's ok. Just keep saying racism doesn't exist. You've yet to offer a better explanation. You say poverty and education, but why are black people disproportionately poor and receiving worse educations? How is that explained? Institutional and systemic racism.

Again, it's nobody else's job to enlighten you to these things. If you want to understand what's going on, then it's incumbent upon you to find those answers and teach yourself. But to sit here and dismiss other people's experiences and say the explanation is crap is akin to denying evolution. Even then, at least those people provide an easily refuted counter explanation with creationism or intelligent design. You, on the other hand, provide nothing but a dismissive attitude towards those who study these social phenomena and even worse those who are affected every day by them.

[GostHacked]

Good post Cybercoma, a much better explanation of the institutionalized racism.

[TimG]

It is a social theory that explains what is clearly observed, just like gravity explains why things fall to the ground.

Except "social theories" are not falsifiable like real science. Any contradictory data is easily ignored or minimized by proponents. In the end, they are really just rationalizations constructed to justify what the proponents want to believe. There is really no difference between believing the flying spaghetti monster causes gravity and the "theory of systematic racism".

Your condescending assertion that your "theories" represent facts is most amusing, They are really nothing but statement of the narrative that best suits your ideological preferences.

Edited December 20, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

It has already been explained that systemic and institutional racism is an explanation not a cause. It's not predestination here. It is a social theory that explains what is clearly observed, just like gravity explains why things fall to the ground. But that's ok. Just keep saying racism doesn't exist. You've yet to offer a better explanation. You say poverty and education, but why are black people disproportionately poor and receiving worse educations? How is that explained? Institutional and systemic racism.

Again, it's nobody else's job to enlighten you to these things. If you want to understand what's going on, then it's incumbent upon you to find those answers and teach yourself. But to sit here and dismiss other people's experiences and say the explanation is crap is akin to denying evolution. Even then, at least those people provide an easily refuted counter explanation with creationism or intelligent design. You, on the other hand, provide nothing but a dismissive attitude towards those who study these social phenomena and even worse those who are affected every day by them.

And we have exactly the same problem in Canada especially with the Native population. I think at "street level" most of us get that. Apparently the federal government doesn't though, Harper in his yearender with Mansbridge admitted the issue "isn't really high on our radar".

[cybercoma]

Except "social theories" are not falsifiable like real science.

Of course they're falsifiable. Social sciences are academically peer reviewed just like the natural sciences. Studies require rigour and validity like anything else. What do you care anyway? You've made it clear repeatedly that you don't even care when the science is valid. You still claim scientists have an agenda and science is just an "opinion" or other some such nonsense. Now you want to appeal to validity.

Edited December 20, 2014 by cybercoma

[TimG]

Of course they're falsifiable. Social sciences are academically peer reviewed just like the natural sciences. Studies require rigour and validity like anything else.

ROTFL. I suppose you believe in the Easter Bunny too? I have seen how data is abused in hard sciences to support pet theories and how the peer review process is often part of the problem if the pet theories are widely held in within a particular field. In soft sciences there is zero chance of the results being anything other than a rationalization of pre-existing views.

You still claim scientists have an agenda and science is just an "opinion" or other some such nonsense. Now you want to appeal to validity.

Scientific theories exist when it is possible to consistently predict future events based on the theory. Anything else is just an opinion. I only object when people try to claim that an opinion is a 'scientific theory'. Your 'systematic racism' view is an opinion no matter how many academics claim to have researched the topic because you cannot set up controlled experiments and correctly predict outcomes based on the view. Edited December 21, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

ROTFL. I suppose you believe in the Easter Bunny too? I have seen how data is abused in hard sciences to support pet theories and how the peer review process is often part of the problem if the pet theories are widely held in within a particular field. In soft sciences there is zero chance of the results being anything other than a rationalization of pre-existing views.

Scientific theories exist when it is possible to consistently predict future events based on the theory. Anything else is just an opinion. I only object when people try to claim that an opinion is a 'scientific theory'. Your 'systematic racism' view is an opinion no matter how many academics claim to have researched the topic because you cannot set up controlled experiments and correctly predict outcomes based on the view.

"Controlled experiments" don't represent the real world, and thus have limited validity.

Systematic observation of real world behaviour varying with elements of natural contexts is much more informative, and can produce reliable prediction.

.

[TimG]

"Controlled experiments" don't represent the real world, and thus have limited validity.

They are not less valid because they are hard to do. They set the standard for how one establishes a scientific theory. If you can't do a controlled experiment then you have an opinion - not a scientific theory.

Systematic observation of real world behaviour varying with elements of natural contexts is much more informative, and can produce reliable prediction.

When it is possible to predict future outcomes given different real world scenarios then you have a theory. In many cases, these social science opinions are exercises in data mining that search for past data that fits the opinion while ignoring data that does not and claim that the opinion is a theory because it explains the selected past data. It is not. The only thing that can make the opinion a theory is if future outcomes with different starting conditions are consistently predicted correctly. Edited December 21, 2014 by TimG

[jacee]

They are not less valid because they are hard to do. They set the standard for how one establishes a scientific theory. If you can't do a controlled experiment then you have an opinion - not a scientific theory.

How does one randomly assign people to racial groups?

You are not making sense.

When it is possible to predict future outcomes given different real world scenarios then you have a theory. In many cases, these social science opinions are exercises in data mining that search for past data that fits the opinion while ignoring data that does not and claim that the opinion is a theory because it explains the selected past data. It is not. The only thing that can make the opinion a theory is if future outcomes with different starting conditions are consistently predicted correctly.

Precisely, and quite possible without narrowly constricted 'controlled experimentation' that generalizes to nothing in existence.

.

[cybercoma]

ROTFL. I suppose you believe in the Easter Bunny too? I have seen how data is abused in hard sciences to support pet theories and how the peer review process is often part of the problem if the pet theories are widely held in within a particular field. In soft sciences there is zero chance of the results being anything other than a rationalization of pre-existing views.

Scientific theories exist when it is possible to consistently predict future events based on the theory. Anything else is just an opinion. I only object when people try to claim that an opinion is a 'scientific theory'. Your 'systematic racism' view is an opinion no matter how many academics claim to have researched the topic because you cannot set up controlled experiments and correctly predict outcomes based on the view.

Tim, I don't need to sit here and educate you about the way inferential statistics work nor the validity of social scientific research. If you want to be enlightened go learn about it, but I can say with absolute certainty that you have no idea what you're talking about so you might want to go edify yourself.

[TimG]

Precisely, and quite possible without narrowly constricted 'controlled experimentation' that generalizes to nothing in existence.

Not true at all. Every piece of technology we have today is based on an idea that was once unproven opinion. But people figured out how to construct experiments that validated the theory and that led to innovations based on the theory. The same is true in medicine. I challenge you to give me one example of "social science" opinion that has allowed people to improve the world through the predictions made with it? I can't think of any. "social science" is really just a code for political activism. Edited December 21, 2014 by TimG

[On Guard for Thee]

Not true at all. Every piece of technology we have today is based on an idea that was once unproven opinion. But people figured out how to construct experiments that validated the theory and that led to innovations based on the theory. The same is true in medicine. I challenge you to give me one example of "social science" opinion that has allowed people to improve the world through the predictions made with it? I can't think of any. "social science" is really just a code for political activism.

So Orville and Wilbur were working with an unproven opinion?

[WestCoastRunner]

I think the black community needs to bear responsibility for itself instead of blaming everyone else for their problems. Crime in the black community is epidemic, that is a fact. But they choose to do nothing about it. The black community has been given Billions of dollars over the years yet still can't get it together.

I'm not condescending at all, nor am I a racist. I'm telling it like it is. Over 60% of the violent crime in the city is black crime. Those are facts. What is the black community doing about that?

The blacks refuse to cooperate with the police to solve crimes yet blame them for the crime in their neighborhoods....insane.

Let's try to not make it personal and concentrate on the subject at hand please.

Housing projects, schools in the poorest communities are receiving billions of dollars? Are single mothers being encouraged to obtain an education? Are the communities providing them with free daycare to pursue their goals? Do the absentee fathers have access to education programs, addiction programs. I suppose those billions of dollars will provide for that. But show them the money!

[Black Dog]

I get told that things that aren't racist are in fact racist all of the time. I don't buy some of it, and some of it I do. I can see why someone who has experienced racism would wake up looking for it, but I don't. Because of that it allows me to look at it and make a determination based on what happened.

Because of course your way of looking at the world is the white...sorry....right way.

You know, I did have a pretty good life though. My dad on the other hand, lived in abject poverty (which is why he spends so much money now) and my grandmother litterally had to walk bare foot through the snow to school. All my life I've lived with people who were a different colour than me. So did my parents, and so did my grandparents. I was taught to never look at them as being different than me and to treat them as I would treat anyone else. To you that's privelage. To me, it only makes sense.

It's still privilege.

To me, it only makes sense. Your arguments and views only serve to continue an unhappy past that we should all learn from and grow away from.

White privilege 101 right here. "I personally don't see a problem, I don't believe people who say there's a problem, so therefore, there's no problem."

Because it's a political construct that I don't accept. Laws that treat people equally are not racist. . [/size]

It's more than laws. I'd say do some homework, but you're so obviously uninterested in learning anything about this.

The most racist thing today is affirmative action. It's pandering and assumes that minorities who do badly cannot do better

Whatever the flaws of affirmative action, this interpretation of it is completely ass-backwards.

Race is almost never the root of the problem. Poverty, education, and violence are. Work to solve those problems on an individual basis and then you're actually making some progress.

Poverty, education and violence are inextricably and systematically linked to matters of race. You've got blinders on if you can't see that.

Edited December 22, 2014 by Black Dog

[Smallc]

Saying that a life of poverty is a life of privelage, just because you're white, is another ridiculous statement for the book. The reality is you're looking for racial issues where they don't necesarrily exist. These individual encounters must be judged on the available facts.

[Black Dog]

Saying that a life of poverty is a life of privelage, just because you're white, is another ridiculous statement for the book.

Better spend some time boning up on your reading comprehension. You're patting yourself on the back for being so colourblind, which is pretty easy to do when you have the privilege of not being judged or have assumptions made about you based on on the colour of your skin. You don't see the world in terms of race because race isn't a factor in your life.

Here's something else: you say you were taught not to look at anyone differently;y because of their skin colour and treat them as you would anyone else: why do you reckon that's something that needed to be taught?

The reality is you're looking for racial issues where they don't necesarrily exist. These individual encounters must be judged on the available facts.

What facts?

Edited December 22, 2014 by Black Dog

[GostHacked]

And we have exactly the same problem in Canada especially with the Native population. I think at "street level" most of us get that. Apparently the federal government doesn't though, Harper in his yearender with Mansbridge admitted the issue "isn't really high on our radar".

This is a good example that we do face in Canada. And that racism has as much systematic as it is in the US between whites and blacks. The history of how Canada has treated natives early on is appalling. Trying to mold them into white-ish type behaviours, while taking the kids away from mothers, putting them into school institutions, sterilization of indigenous groups, and on and on. Yeah they are still pissed about it overall and really, can you blame them? We cannot expect government to help correct the issue since the government was the group to start that process in the first place. Harper is contributing to the problem by saying it's not high on their list.

[GostHacked]

Because it's a political construct that I don't accept. Laws that treat people equally are not racist. The most racist thing today is affirmative action. It's pandering and assumes that minorities who do badly cannot do better.

Affirmative action does not treat people equally.

[Black Dog]

Affirmative action does not treat people equally.

It's not supposed to.

[GostHacked]

It's not supposed to.

I think I agree with you. If there was no racism to begin with, affirmative action would not be needed. The problem there is that a company is filling a quota for different groups. Need a certain amount of women, blacks, other minorities. With all that, it actually becomes harder for a white person to find a job because of the company needing to fill a quota instead of hiring the best one for the job.

This is an example of institutionalized racism.

[Smallc]

I think I agree with you. If there was no racism to begin with, affirmative action would not be needed. The problem there is that a company is filling a quota for different groups. Need a certain amount of women, blacks, other minorities. With all that, it actually becomes harder for a white person to find a job because of the company needing to fill a quota instead of hiring the best one for the job.

This is an example of institutionalized racism.

I agree with you completely.

[Smallc]

Better spend some time boning up on your reading comprehension. You're patting yourself on the back for being so colourblind, which is pretty easy to do when you have the privilege of not being judged or have assumptions made about you based on on the colour of your skin. You don't see the world in terms of race because race isn't a factor in your life.

Here's something else: you say you were taught not to look at anyone differently;y because of their skin colour and treat them as you would anyone else: why do you reckon that's something that needed to be taught?

What facts?

Where I live, I'm the minority. I was made fun of all my life for being white. That's part of the reason I'm so happy not seeing things in colour, and the majority of why I can't buy what you're saying. Quit lecturing me when you do t have a clue who I am. Edited December 22, 2014 by Smallc

[Smallc]

It's not supposed to.

Which is a problem no matter how you want to twist things.

[Black Dog]

I think I agree with you. If there was no racism to begin with, affirmative action would not be needed. The problem there is that a company is filling a quota for different groups. Need a certain amount of women, blacks, other minorities. With all that, it actually becomes harder for a white person to find a job because of the company needing to fill a quota instead of hiring the best one for the job.

Is that even a real thing that exists?

This is an example of institutionalized racism.

No it's not.