Chicago-Torture/Race Conversation

[downzy]

15 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

If the position is that black people suffer more than white people through systemic racism which is ingrained in American history and culture and manifests itself in a constant barrage of disproportional maltreatment and oppression, then that would suggest that hate crime against whites is rarer than hate crimes against blacks. If that is the case then a hate crime by blacks against a white person, such as in this video, should gain more media traction, not less, for the fact of its rarity, rather than the media attention placed towards crimes against blacks which are awash in their deluge of commonality, such is the systemic racism that they face on a daily basis. A unicorn is more worthy of news than a horse after all.

Not sure how one can claim that the horrific events in Chicago is getting less or equal coverage; it was the lead on every network evening news program while dominating cable news for most of the day.  

But more to your point, the issue isn't the particular incident, but whether the incident speaks to an overall pattern or larger problem.  

[PappyTron]

6 minutes ago, username said:

On my immediate left is a co-worker of mine. But I really don't think he has anything to do with this. Further to the left is a window. 

Yeah, but that would make you on the right...

[PappyTron]

8 minutes ago, downzy said:

Not sure how one can claim that the horrific events in Chicago is getting less or equal coverage; it was the lead on every network evening news program while dominating cable news for most of the day.  

But more to your point, the issue isn't the particular incident, but whether the incident speaks to an overall pattern or larger problem.  

Not sure that I made any such claim. I did specifically state "such as (...) this video" not "specifically this video" though.

The wider issue is simply thus: do hate crimes, or crimes in general, committed against racial groups other than blacks receive less, more or equal coverage than those crimes committed against blacks and why?

 

[downzy]

7 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Not sure that I made any such claim. I did specifically state "such as (...) this video" not "specifically this video" though.

The wider issue is simply thus: do hate crimes, or crimes in general, committed against racial groups other than blacks receive less, more or equal coverage than those crimes committed against blacks and why?

 

I don't know if they receive less attention, but if they do (particularly if the crime is black/latino on white), it's again likely the result of those crimes not having (or tapping into) historical or current relevance.  Such crimes are not symptomatic of a larger issue or historical context.  There was never any period in American history whereby whites were systemically disadvantaged.  That's not to say that the incident in Chicago doesn't have anything to say about racial relations in the US.  It does, and hence why it's receiving national attention.  

[username]

33 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Yeah, but that would make you on the right...

I love it when people say I'm right. 

[PappyTron]

13 minutes ago, downzy said:

I don't know if they receive less attention, but if they do (particularly if the crime is black/latino on white), it's again likely the result of those crimes not having (or tapping into) historical or current relevance.  Such crimes are not symptomatic of a larger issue or historical context.  There was never any period in American history whereby whites were systemically disadvantaged.  That's not to say that the incident in Chicago doesn't have anything to say about racial relations in the US.  It does, and hence why it's receiving national attention.  

Whites as a whole may not have been systemically disadvantaged, but there are plenty of sub-groups of whites who have been, and some who have been treated just as bad, and worse, than blacks of the same period.

Current relevance? I'd make the point that a group of 3-4 people kidnapping, torturing and abusing a mentally challenged person is always "relevant". What isn't relevant is historical context if the sole aim of a news station is to report the news. A black man killing a white man after mugging him is no more, or less, newsworthy than a white man killing a black man after mugging him, and to argue differently is to strip people of colour of their individuality and personal responsibility by insisting that everything that they do, or have done to them, must be viewed in a culturally historic context. What can be more degrading to an individual of today, than to say that their actions require disproportionate coverage based on an entire nation's collective history, rather than treating them as an individual with personal actions, needs, responsibilities and requirements?

[SteveAJones]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

but whether the incident speaks to an overall pattern or larger problem.  

Anyone who doesn't realize we have a hood rat problem in America clearly hasn't been paying attention.

[Axl owns dexter]

10 hours ago, downzy said:

It's the fault of anyone who endorses or advocates for violence as a political response.

Racist are those who defend or support the notions of a racial hierarchy; that one race is superior (pick your basis: morality, intellectually, culturally, etc) to another.  That's the broad strokes basis.  We can delve deeper if need be, but for Molyneux, that's probably enough.

So you have to believe we are all blank states and there no evolved average difference in any meaningful way between different racial groups? That sounds almost like a religious belief to me. 

[Axl owns dexter]

Specifically, should George Ciccariello-Maher (leftist Drexel professor who called for White Genocide for Christmas) be apologizing for his dangerous rhetoric??

[Apollo]

The big issue a lot of normal thinking people have with this disgusting incident is the double standard in which the liberals, social media warriors and the Lena dunhams and Rosie Odonnels are reacting to it. And by "normal thinking" I mean people who are able to look at at issue and form an opinion without being 100% tied to a political party.

If the colors were reversed and it was "f*ck Hilary or Obama" then the outrage would be tied directly to Donald Trump and how he and his supporters have turned the US into a vile, hateful place where it isn't  safe to leave your house. Every Hollywood celebrity would be crucifying Trump and republicans.

Heck. Just look at all the confirmed cases of young liberal millenials claiming to be attacked by trump supporters - then later claiming they made up their story. 

If those people are going to hold Trump and republicans responsible for specific crimes...,,then why, when wouldn't this crime be tied to Obama and democrats? 

Both sides obviously agree this was a horrific act. "F*ck WHITE people" and "f*ck Trump".....but it isn't a hate crime, nothing racist about it, and it had nothing to do with politics? Lol - ok. This double standard is one of the reasons Hillary lost. Every time Lena Dunham posts about Trump being the Devil followed by saying she molested her sister and she wishes she would have an abortion ....the average joe looks at that and says "I need to vote for the opposite of who she votes for."

[downzy]

8 hours ago, PappyTron said:

Whites as a whole may not have been systemically disadvantaged, but there are plenty of sub-groups of whites who have been, and some who have been treated just as bad, and worse, than blacks of the same period.

Current relevance? I'd make the point that a group of 3-4 people kidnapping, torturing and abusing a mentally challenged person is always "relevant". What isn't relevant is historical context if the sole aim of a news station is to report the news. A black man killing a white man after mugging him is no more, or less, newsworthy than a white man killing a black man after mugging him, and to argue differently is to strip people of colour of their individuality and personal responsibility by insisting that everything that they do, or have done to them, must be viewed in a culturally historic context. What can be more degrading to an individual of today, than to say that their actions require disproportionate coverage based on an entire nation's collective history, rather than treating them as an individual with personal actions, needs, responsibilities and requirements?

You're going to have to qualify your first point.  What sub-groups of whites have suffered overt and systematic economic and social injustices as African Americans between 1800 and now?  

It's relevant, in the sense that it highlights the rising racial tensions that exist across the country.  But it does not speak to pattern or cycle of behaviour in the same way that African Americans getting killed, maimed, and treated differently than other races by the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.  

Another reason this is receiving as much attention as it has been receiving is because the assailants mention Trump and lamely excuse their actions because the person is white.  That is a hate crime and should receive the attention it's receiving.  But again, it doesn't speak to a pattern of behaviour by African Americans across the country the same way we're consistently reminded the level of state-sponsored violence levelled towards the African American community.  

[Dan H.]

7 hours ago, SteveAJones said:

Anyone who doesn't realize we have a hood rat problem in America clearly hasn't been paying attention.

The crime rate of our country has been dropping for a while. We got a few cities like mine, Chicago, that are seeing an increase in crime.

We can't fix the problems if we can't identify them. 

I wonder if you've ever lived in a city with crime problems, Steve.

[downzy]

1 hour ago, Axl owns dexter said:

So you have to believe we are all blank states and there no evolved average difference in any meaningful way between different racial groups? That sounds almost like a religious belief to me. 

There are slight differences between races, but the idea that this is the product of evolution, whereby one race is superior to another because of those slight differences, is the epitome of racism.   

1 hour ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Specifically, should George Ciccariello-Maher (leftist Drexel professor who called for White Genocide for Christmas) be apologizing for his dangerous rhetoric??

Yes, he should apologize even if he meant it as a joke.  

[downzy]

34 minutes ago, Apollo said:

 

If the colors were reversed and it was "f*ck Hilary or Obama" then the outrage would be tied directly to Donald Trump and how he and his supporters have turned the US into a vile, hateful place where it isn't  safe to leave your house. Every Hollywood celebrity would be crucifying Trump and republicans.

 

The difference is that certain leaders stoke racial tensions to endear them to a certain segment of America while others do not.  Trump is on record with supporting violence against agitators and disparaging entire ethnicities and races.  Care to find me similar examples coming from his ideological/political counterparts?

[Dan H.]

32 minutes ago, Apollo said:

The big issue a lot of normal thinking people have with this disgusting incident is the double standard in which the liberals, social media warriors and the Lena dunhams and Rosie Odonnels are reacting to it. And by "normal thinking" I mean people who are able to look at at issue and form an opinion without being 100% tied to a political party.

If the colors were reversed and it was "f*ck Hilary or Obama" then the outrage would be tied directly to Donald Trump and how he and his supporters have turned the US into a vile, hateful place where it isn't  safe to leave your house. Every Hollywood celebrity would be crucifying Trump and republicans.

Heck. Just look at all the confirmed cases of young liberal millenials claiming to be attacked by trump supporters - then later claiming they made up their story. 

If those people are going to hold Trump and republicans responsible for specific crimes...,,then why, when wouldn't this crime be tied to Obama and democrats? 

Both sides obviously agree this was a horrific act. "F*ck WHITE people" and "f*ck Trump".....but it isn't a hate crime, nothing racist about it, and it had nothing to do with politics? Lol - ok. This double standard is one of the reasons Hillary lost. Every time Lena Dunham posts about Trump being the Devil followed by saying she molested her sister and she wishes she would have an abortion ....the average joe looks at that and says "I need to vote for the opposite of who she votes for."

Blaming the left for the reporting of HuffPo and the social media sensationalism after the election isn't all that fair.

And no one on MyGNRForum as far as I know has come to the defence of Lena Dunham. Nor does any liberal I know identify with her brand of politics.

This is the reason why Hillary lost the election, and why the country is so divided. Neither side bothers to communicate. The left makes assumptions about the right, and then goes online and punches their strawman. Then the right goes and makes assumptions about the left, and punches at their strawman.

 

The handful of incidents of unrest after the election are not a responsibility of the right. It was an ugly election, and left a lot of toxic emotions and generalizations simmering in the hearts of a lot of people. Obviously there are some people out there regardless of party affiliation who were not mature enough to deal with those emotions without resorting to violence.

These attacks are coming from a climate of political hatred. And hatred is being brewed on both sides. Read a Facebook comment thread on even like, a BBC article. Its all just hate.

[Axl owns dexter]

17 minutes ago, downzy said:

There are slight differences between races, but the idea that this is the product of evolution, whereby one race is superior to another because of those slight differences, is the epitome of racism.   

Yes, he should apologize even if he meant it as a joke.  

Stefan has never (as far as I have heard) said one group is better than the other. He just lays out the scientific facts as we know them.

Because of natural selection and being in very different climates and lands for 50-100 thousand years, I'm sorry to tell you the differences between groups of peoples is more than skin deep. That's just the reality of it. The problem is the modern left has now changed the definition of the word racist to include just acknowledging that fact. 

[Dan H.]

7 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Stefan has never (as far as I have heard) said one group is better than the other. He just lays out the scientific facts as we know them.

Because of natural selection and being in very different climates and lands for 50-100 thousand years, I'm sorry to tell you the differences between groups of peoples is more than skin deep. That's just the reality of it. The problem is the modern left has now changed the definition of the word racist to include just acknowledging that fact. 

I'm sorry, but as far as I know science doesn't really support that. Do you have some examples of these differences, or some data or something

[downzy]

13 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Stefan has never (as far as I have heard) said one group is better than the other. He just lays out the scientific facts as we know them.

Because of natural selection and being in very different climates and lands for 50-100 thousand years, I'm sorry to tell you the differences between groups of peoples is more than skin deep. That's just the reality of it. The problem is the modern left has now changed the definition of the word racist to include just acknowledging that fact. 

But why go to the trouble of highlighting "scientific facts" if your intention isn't to justify the treatment of one race over another?  

If this were simply a biology discussion I'd get the reason for pointing out small biological differences between races (say, why African Americans are more likely to get skin cancer than white Americans).  But within the realm of politics and society, such discussions do nothing but justify and reinforce pre-existing biases.   They're used to explain and defend why sociological and economic discrepancies.  It's utter horse shit.  There is no scientific basis for why one race receives a worse fait than another.  Arguments to the contrary are simply bold faced racism.  

[PappyTron]

1 hour ago, downzy said:

You're going to have to qualify your first point.  What sub-groups of whites have suffered overt and systematic economic and social injustices as African Americans between 1800 and now?  

It's relevant, in the sense that it highlights the rising racial tensions that exist across the country.  But it does not speak to pattern or cycle of behaviour in the same way that African Americans getting killed, maimed, and treated differently than other races by the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies.  

Another reason this is receiving as much attention as it has been receiving is because the assailants mention Trump and lamely excuse their actions because the person is white.  That is a hate crime and should receive the attention it's receiving.  But again, it doesn't speak to a pattern of behaviour by African Americans across the country the same way we're consistently reminded the level of state-sponsored violence levelled towards the African American community.  

The Irish suffered systemic economic and social injustices between 1800 and now, for example.

African Americans getting killed, maimed, and treated differently than other races by the local, state, and federal law enforcement agencies

What is your evidence for this claim? If you are claiming that there is a city, county, state and nation wide campaign by those in power to disproportionately target and maltreat those of African-American heritage, based purely on the colour of their skin, then you're going to need to show what you are basing this on.

state-sponsored violence levelled (sic) towards the African American community

Now you're simply being hysterical.

[classicrawker]

1 hour ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Stefan has never (as far as I have heard) said one group is better than the other. He just lays out the scientific facts as we know them.

Because of natural selection and being in very different climates and lands for 50-100 thousand years, I'm sorry to tell you the differences between groups of peoples is more than skin deep. That's just the reality of it. The problem is the modern left has now changed the definition of the word racist to include just acknowledging that fact. 

Differences as in how? Are you suggesting one race is superior to another?

[downzy]

32 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

The Irish suffered systemic economic and social injustices between 1800 and now, for example.

 

 

What is your evidence for this claim? If you are claiming that there is a city, county, state and nation wide campaign by those in power to disproportionately target and maltreat those of African-American heritage, based purely on the colour of their skin, then you're going to need to show what you are basing this on.

 

The Irish in America are suffering economic and social injustices between 1800 and now to the same extent and scope as African Americans?  

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports structural racism that disadvantages African Americans over any other racial demographic.  It's widely available, but off the top of my head: discriminatory housing practices (redlining, denying access to housing), discriminatory legal treatment with respect to enforcement and application (African Americans generally receive more severe and lengthier sentences for the same crimes as whites; different punishments for drugs more commonly used by African Americans versus white Americans; discriminate targeting of African Americans for crimes that are generally committed proportionally by all races, i.e. drug use), to local and state education policies where black communities receive far less funding for schools and student assistance.  

 

[PappyTron]

24 minutes ago, downzy said:

The Irish in America are suffering economic and social injustices between 1800 and now to the same extent and scope as African Americans? 

The Irish were brought over in their hundreds of thousands, as slaves, and their individual value was less than that of a comparable African slave. They absolutely were treated just as badly, and worse, than their African fellow slaves.

 

Quote

There is a tremendous amount of evidence that supports structural racism that disadvantages African Americans over any other racial demographic.  It's widely available, but off the top of my head: discriminatory housing practices (redlining, denying access to housing), discriminatory legal treatment with respect to enforcement and application (African Americans generally receive more severe and lengthier sentences for the same crimes as whites; different punishments for drugs more commonly used by African Americans versus white Americans; discriminate targeting of African Americans for crimes that are generally committed proportionally by all races, i.e. drug use), to local and state education policies where black communities receive far less funding for schools and student assistance.

 

What does any of this have to do with your earlier claim that there is a city, county, state and nation wide conspiracy by law enforcement agencies to disproportionately maim, kill and treat differently those who are African-American in heritage? To claim that there is "state-sponsored violence levelled (sic) towards the African American community" is a bold claim that goes way beyond differences in housing, education, access to healthcare and fair legal representation. If you are claiming that there is a conscious effort on the part of law enforcement to actively maim and kill African-Americans then you'll need to show some evidence for that.

Edited January 6, 2017 by PappyTron

[Axl owns dexter]

1 hour ago, classicrawker said:

Differences as in how? Are you suggesting one race is superior to another?

All I said was different. You're the one inserting the word superior. Do you have a complex?

[Axl owns dexter]

2 hours ago, downzy said:

But why go to the trouble of highlighting "scientific facts" if your intention isn't to justify the treatment of one race over another?  

If this were simply a biology discussion I'd get the reason for pointing out small biological differences between races (say, why African Americans are more likely to get skin cancer than white Americans).  But within the realm of politics and society, such discussions do nothing but justify and reinforce pre-existing biases.   They're used to explain and defend why sociological and economic discrepancies.  It's utter horse shit.  There is no scientific basis for why one race receives a worse fait than another.  Arguments to the contrary are simply bold faced racism.  

You seem to take an approach that people who were separated for so many thousands of years only developed any differentiation due to natural selection from the neck down. That seems very unscientific and close minded. 

[downzy]

16 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

The Irish were brought over in their hundreds of thousands, as slaves, and their individual value was less than that of a comparable African slave. They absolutely were treated just as badly, and worse, than their African fellow slaves.

 

 

What does any of this have to do with your earlier claim that there is a city, county, state and nation wide conspiracy by law enforcement agencies to disproportionately maim, kill and treat differently those who are African-American in heritage? To claim that there is "state-sponsored violence levelled towards the African American community" is a bold claim that goes way beyond differences in housing, education, access to healthcare and fair legal representation. If you are claiming that there is a conscious effort on the part of law enforcement to actively maim and kill African-Americans then you'll need to show some evidence for that.

First, the myth of the Irish slave trade is just that, a myth.  Second, even if true or as accurate you claim, the fact that it supposedly ended in 1838.  There were a myriad of immigrants that were at one time victimized and discriminated against when they first arrived (Irish, German, Italian, Polish, Slavic, etc.), but these ethno-nationalist groups were later incorporated in "white" America.  All the while, "black" America have been at the receiving end of systems of control that have transformed and regenerated and called by different names (slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, mass incarceration).  Those same systems of control were never directed at other races or ethnicities (at least, to the same extent and for the same duration as experienced by African Americans).

It's not a conspiracy - laws were written and policy enacted that favoured one group of Americans over another.  Again, look up the policy of redlining that is largely the cause of modern-day slums and inner city ghettos.  The discriminatory effects were not unknown nor was this a tragic accident.  Other structural systems of discrimination, such as mass incarceration, were perhaps launched with good intentions but given how discriminatory the effects have been and how long such policies remain in place, it's absurd to suggest that there isn't some form of implicit consent for said system.  

Structural racism isn't overt, it isn't one person with nefarious or malicious intent imposing their racist attitudes on an unsuspecting society (though that does happen).  It manifests and represents much subtler forms of bias, from ignoring the effects certain policies to the failure to stop actions that are proven to be highly discriminatory.  The treatment of black American youth compared to their white counter-parts by the judicial system is a good example of how this works.  How black kids are treated by and consideration given by officers of the law in West Baltimore as a whole is completely foreign to the experience by their white counterparts living in upscale, well-off neighbourhoods.  

(BTW, in both Canada and Britain the word levelled is spelled with two Ls; so enough with the (sic) notation).