Black Lives Matter are defending murderers and drug dealers.

While I agree with this sentiment, mainstream BLM is unfortunately NOT an example to prove your point. At least not as portrayed by media (both right and left).

*shrug*

Seems like people do both. The whole point of bringing up "whites are profiled too!" or whatever, isn't merely to be "defensive" but also to discuss what all is specifically going on. But then people often start talking past each other or get aggressive/defensive about their own positions and it doesn't get past that.

That said, BLM doesn't just say: "Blacks are being profiled." They are ALSO saying: "because of White racism and culture." The discussion has started by being divisive in this instance (or at least by the time BLM was a largely recognized national movement).

On a different note:

"Maybe?"

On a different, different note:

This wasn't addressed at me (I'd like to hear Newsbuff's answer as well), but it would be interesting to get more data about this. For example "Similar crimes." Obviously, one generally won't have literally the same crimes (unless it's a mixed racial group, and even then it could be technically different), but I'm curious to know the specific details of how similar they are. For example, I'd imagine for the most part they are using the same offenses, "armed robbery" for example, if Black people get longer sentences than White people... but there are more potentially important details which I haven't had the time to read up on.

For example, in specific cases, what level of threat was presented, if there's a large difference in punishments for different targets of these similar crimes. Etc.

MW brought up the completely reasonable example of how Crack vs. Powder Cocaine is handled. His statement, essentially, is that Crack has higher penalties due to it's high use by Black people relative to Powder Cocaine used by White people. This is actually a reasonable example of issues, though I do contend that it is in large part lesser on Powder Cocain because the uses of it tend to be wealthier (a class issue, on top of potential racial motivations when the laws were first put down).

That said, part of the issue is with the nature of Cocaine in the first place. Crack is generally smocked, which according to at least this article: http://www.attn.com/stories/2643/crack-vs-cocaine has different physical effects than other methods of consuming Cocaine, basically coming down to the timing of onset and duration.

Since then however, I believe that the negative stereotyping of Crack use is precisely that, a stereotype.

So why persist in the unequal treatment? In this instances in particular I think that MW and BLM have a solid point (and same with the person interviewed in the linked article), though again I don't think it's limited to racial issues.

On the other hand, there is also the issue of the high incidence of violent crime (historically, I haven't seen solid numbers for the last decade and then some) by Black people. While this is undoubtedly in part due to the War on Drugs (but not all, if you look at the stats the FBI put out*, the majority are NOT drug-related according to their records), I think it allowed for the furtherance/creation of racist stereotypes particularly among Legal professions. Especially of Poor Blacks. Not the study by the FBI mind you, but rather the drumbeat of experiences that the FBI published about.

On that third hand, I'm also curious if having more "standard" prison sentences might not have resulted in reduced rate of homicides. And which came first (obviously, prison time is not the sole factor in which one decides whether or not to try and kill someone, but... my questions were rhetorical in that thread dammit! )

EDIT: BTW, do we have data for all races re: sentencing? Not just "minority" or "blacks" vs. "whites" specifically.

EDIT2: Tangent: It's (not) funny to me that on the one hand, so many people are in favor of criminalizing drug use, and many of those very same people will scorn Trump for even briefly voicing the idea that (if abortions were illegal) women seeking abortion should be punished. That kind of hypocrisy is... impressive, if maddening.

*(Of course, it's possible the FBI fudged the numbers at the time, I don't discount that possibility, but I find it unlikely to have been significant if so, since it's relatively easy to check their sources and such).

 

Blacks "dividing" because they stick up for their rights..

My lord, reason takes a beating from the right when it comed to racial issues. I can't understand how you can completely ignore reality and assume that everyone is born equal, with equal opportunity and resources and thus we will treat everything that follows as racial division for they are trying to prop them up and put us down.

I don't like the phrase white privelige one bit, but some people seriously need to stop thinking from inside their bubble.

 

A lot of good discussion points. I read the study that sok posted and it touches on a lot of what you bring up here. The main point of the study is that after controlling for everything, it appears that the prosecutor's charges and minimum-sentencing laws are the primary driver of black-white sentencing disparities.

Indeed, they control for charge as well as numerous other factors, exhaustively, which does close the racial sentencing gap partially but not entirely.

Excellent question, and something that isn't represented in the data. The idea of "Big" Mike Brown strong-arm robbing the small asian grocery clerk before rushing the cop for his gun is a bit different from a smaller, less-threatening white counterpart performing the same actions - and may provoke a different response from a scared cop. Is this racism, or a valid perception of threat? Sok's study sort of touches on this by discussing perception of black defendants by prosecutors as being more threatening, more-likely to relapse, or less-intelligent due to racism:

The study also suggests that statistical discrimination may take place to explain prosecutors' charging differences - i.e. prosecutors observe, over time, statistical differences between blacks and whites and begin applying those observed aggregate differences in their prosecuting decisions.

The really interesting thing about the study is that it admits in the discussion section that more blacks may happen to live in areas with minimum sentencing laws, naturally driving up their sentences versus whites who live in other areas - and that race may be incidental to zip code demographics.

You asked "which came first" - the high violent crime rates in black areas or the minimum sentencing laws to try and reduce the violent crime (of which BLACKS themselves - innocent ones - are often the victims of). That's an interesting question, highly relevant to the conclusion of Sok's study. Since charges are driving black-white sentencing disparities, and charges are influenced by sentencing laws applying to high-crime areas - not racist whites trying to keep a brotha down as sok and burnpyro like to imagine - then, the study straw-grasps - maybe the sentencing guidelines were enacted in high-black areas by racist law-makers!!

Absurd. And you'd have to conveniently forget that efforts to reduce violent crime in black zones like urban centers primarily benefit law-abiding black people. Sok, explain to me how trying to reduce violent crime in black areas is an evil white conspiracy.

 

Blacks and whites smoke an equal amount of weed. Blacks are arrested 3,41 as much.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...ackwhite-marijuana-arrest-gap-in-nine-charts/

Article for ya'll entertainment.


Equality.

 

Case closed, ya'll. Boom. Ban ice cream.

^this is you, BP. Learn to distinguish causation and correlation fool.

 

God you're just willfully ignorant to the facts at this point.

Keep up the racism

 

likewise.

race correlates with sentencing differences.

race also correlates with poverty, education, zip code (and associated sentencing minimums). For you to take a surface reading of race/sentencing correlation and try to claim a giant racist conspiracy perpetrated by fair-skinned folk is ignorant, offensive, and irrational - just like the ice cream/crime correlation.

Keep up the racism and ignorance.

 

When fair-skinned folk are accused of racism in a generalized, racist way, I take it personally, being of light complexion myself - and I will defend myself and my tribe to the death.

I'm a hiring manager for a small accounting department. I've hired a Ghanan man, Thai woman, Chinese woman (all immigrants), a black man, a white man, and a white woman. All based on their merits as human beings and professionals. My roommate is black, my girlfriend peruvian, my step father mexican, my cousins mulatto. To sit here and be lectured about how racist and privileged I am because I was born with fair skin really pisses me off, on a personal, visceral level.

Everything I've observed in my personal life has indicated to me that white folk aren't any more racist than non-whites - and in fact, are probably far less racist and sensitive to racism than non whites. I've also observed constant advantages in education and business for non whites, at the expense and exclusion of whites. I grew up lower-middle class. I went to a black school in the ghetto where I was an extreme minority and endlessly harassed and assaulted for being white and nerdy. Nearly every boss I've ever had in my professional career has been a woman or a non white. I'm an atheist with tattoos, I get followed around stores and mistrusted by people based on my religion and appearance. To be told that I'm privileged is deeply offensive to me. To be ridiculed and insulted based on my skin color by you, BP, is annoying, and if I respected or knew you personally, would be hurtful.

 

I'm not racist, my white brothers and sisters aren't racist, and I'll be damned if I'm going to apologize and grovel for being born the wrong color.

 

Who was that again making those ridiculous comments about slavery or whatever?


#noracism

You're so opposed to people with a different color fighting for actual equal rights instead of just equal rights on paper, that you're acting as if you're a victim because of your white skin. It's one of the most laughable things I've read in a long time.

You embody whats wrong with common sense in the 21st century.

 

The feeling of contempt is mutual. You're so entrenched in the anti-white zeitgeist and invested in white guilt virtue-signalling that you don't care about actual human beings you're hurting, and the damage you're doing to your own race.

You embody what's wrong with common sense in the 21st century.

 

It's like @Sokolov said. There is a difference of premise between @BurnPyro and @newsbuff. Burn believes that the disparity in arrest rates, convictions, and sentencing of black people over white people is due to race. Newsbuff believes that it is due to other socioeconomic factors such as income, education, and zip code.

Personally I don't know which of the elements is causal, and which is correlated. I do believe that at one point affirmative action was necessary to help end segregation. I feel that time has passed. Now I believe jobs, scholarships, and admittance to college should be based solely on merit. I would even like to see it progress to the point that job candidates and prospective students are given numbers to further hide identity, until later in the selection process.

 

You would think, but the point about Trump's position being attacked was that it was attacked even by people that believe it should be illegal, as "misrepresenting" their position (which is to make the performing of abortions illegal, but not seeking to have that action taken care of, evidently). In other words, they can spare sympathy towards expectant mothers that are going through difficult times and looking towards not being a mother, but they can't spare any sympathy towards drug users, similarly (ostensibly) looking for some way to "improve" (from their perspective at least) their life.

Obviously it's not the same action overall, but...

In this case, from the perspective of these people, it's like supporting the idea that homosexual behavior should be banned, while specifically allowing for murder.

That's what gets me.

 

@Sokolov : An example of people talking past each other. Though I'm sure you've seen it plenty times before this.

 

Yes, but it's (Schedule 1 and 2) Drug use that is illegal and what we have been discussing.

That said, people that abuse Drugs are doing so to make themselves feel better, generally (at least compared to when not high/numb/whatever). If someone is abusing Morphine or Cocaine it's to try and make their lives more enjoyable (to them). That is trying to make "their life better" from their own perspective. They might be failing in the overall scheme of things, but that is what they are trying to do with it.

Which is why it's illegal to, for example, drive with certain levels of otherwise legal drug doses (most notably alcohol, but also others) but not sit around at home drunk as a skunk (provided of course you don't do anything else illegal while you're at it).

I completely understand, of course, those that want Abortion legal (even if for some only in certain situations) to then say that it's legal to look for an abortion. What I don't understand is why the same people that want minimum, mandatory sentencing for drug possession (not even with intent to sell, not even having used the drug) without exception, whom also want abortion to be illegal in most cases, would also wish for people wishing to perform whom are seeking to do that hypothetical illegal act, should be left completely alone in terms of legal action.

No sympathy for drug use. Sympathy for what would be (ostensibly) in their eyes someone wanting to illegally kill their child?

It's just a big schism in method of thinking to me.

But I've gone on this for too long and am getting somewhat off topic.

 

Oh I know what he's saying.

I just believe it's a veiled attempt to not look racist, especially coming from newsbuff. If socio-economic issues are at the base of said article I linked, than surely he is in favor of programs that would help out black people with poor socio-economic conditions?

Somehow I doubt it. It's just a "it's not racism when black people face way more injustice by a group than white people", it's more of a "blacks are Bane Shift outta luck, oh well, I'm not racist".

With the usual yada yada about his pale skin colour and not apologising. Which strawmanning the Firk out of this whole argument, as if we're pointing at him and blaming him for the inequality black people face. It's the age old argument the right uses to just divert the issue and maintain that there's nothing wrong.