Rob's House

I agree with a lot of this, but disagree with some. I think that there are some police who are biased against the black community. But I think the overwhelming majority are not. Some judges are probably racist, but most of them are not. The problem is that we tend to paint with a very broad brush and assume that the problem is widespread, pervasive, and only flows one way. One of the biggest problem is that we frame the cognitive functions that are present in all humans as a moral issue. As long as humans are manning the police force there will always be cognitive biases in place. In all likelihood this probably does lead to some level of disparate treatment, even if it is unintentional. If, for example, you were a used car salesman, and people in blue shirts were twice as likely to take up your time without buying a car, you would subconsciously be less inclined to go out of your way to assist people with blue shirts. By the same token, a cop is likely to be more suspicious of a young black guy just because on average there is a higher probability that he is engaged in criminal behavior. Now that isn't fair to the majority of young black guys who aren't committing any crimes, but it's not based on hatred. Further, if you are pulled over for a busted tail light when the cop may not have pulled someone else, that sucks, but it's not the great tragedy we make it out to be. This does not apply only to black people. When I was 19 driving around in a sporty looking red Saturn with shaggy hair, a subwoofer in the back, cigarette in my mouth, clothes that were just a little too big, and the general appearance of a guy who didn't give a *****, I was more likely to have a cop ask to search my car than I am now as a 40 year old man in my late model sedan with a professional looking haircut and no big beats bumpin in my trunk. In the cop's experience, he doesn't often find drugs on guys that look like me, and I'm allowed to have beer in the trunk. By contrast, he's more often found those things on the guy who fit my 19 year old description. My 19 year old self will get searched more often and in more places than a 40 year old black guy driving a sedan in a suit. And my brother in law with his baggy pants, gold chain, street lingo, and beat up car is going to get searched more often than both of us. Contrary to popular belief it really does cut both ways. Overall, the benefit probably does fall to white people more often, not because of a deep seeded hatred for blacks, but simply as a circumstantial benefit of being in the majority. But it's not absolute. Some cops, judges, and prosecutors are actually more inclined to give the black guy a break, especially if there's some indication he's getting his ***** together, because they want to give him a chance, and they feel like the white guy should know better. It doesn't always happen that way, but sometimes it does. There are some benefits that are simply inherent to being in the majority group, whether it's based on race, ethnicity, religion, or any other criteria. These are not typically major, life-changing benefits, but simple, circumstantial benefits, like having most of the hair care products designed for you. If the conversations about "white privilege" and "systemic racism" addressed this phenomenon in this context it would be much more acceptable. Instead it's typically framed in moral terms, and exaggerated beyond any reasonable measure to the point that it becomes absurd, and focuses on blaming and shaming people for the crime of being human. The idea that cops shoot black men en masse is patently false, and the idea that those who are shot are done out of a sense of racist hatred is utterly baseless. I'm not even a big pro-cop guy. I've dealt with some cops that are straight up bullies that have no business wearing a badge. (Incidentally, the worst case of police brutality I've witnessed was a cop that went Hulk on a 60 year old white man who lightly touched the officer while trying to get past him in order to help his son who was suffering a PTSD induced panic attack. After the cop knocked him out, he charged him with felony AB LEO). But the majority of cops are just regular guys doing a dangerous and thankless job that they were hired to do, and doing it the way they were trained. Most police shootings are not done in anger or hatred, but out of fear. There are ways to reduce these incidents that don't include dividing people, inflaming passions, destroying property, and vilifying those who disagree. Body cams are a great addition. They protect the public against abuse of power and protect the police and against false accusations of misconduct. Prioritizing their use would go a long way towards allowing us to quantify the problems that exist, and address them constructively. We also talk about better training for police, which is good, but we ought to focus on training the population on how to deal with the police. I was arrested with a friend on my 21st birthday for being drunk in public. I chatted with the cops before they politely cuffed me, made sure they weren't too tight, helped me into the car, and took me to the drunk tank. My friend, however, got roughed up, thrown up on the hood of the cop car, and had a mag light jabbed in his kidney while they forcefully handcuffed him as tight as they could, and threw him headfirst into the back of the car. The difference was that he mouthed off and resisted when they tried to cuff him. I was pleasant, offered no resistance, and even told my friend to chill out. Luckily for him we were well outnumbered, they could tell he wasn't armed, they sensed no threat from me, and felt perfectly capable of physically dominating him. Under different circumstances he could have been a statistic. To your last paragraph, those are one-off situations that are not indicative of any broader trend. The guy selling loosies wasn't "murdered" by the cops. He had a heart attack while being wrestled to the ground after he resisted arrested. Personally, I think it's a stupid law, and if I were a cop I wouldn't go out of my way to arrest a guy for selling cigarettes, but the cop didn't make the law and he was doing what he was hired to do. He may have been a little overly aggressive, but you can't decide to let someone go because they resist arrest. Otherwise you're encouraging resistance. It's unfortunate that it happened, but the fact that we're citing THAT example from six years ago is evidence itself that the problem may not be as bad as we make it out. The only story I know of a cop shooting the person who called for help is a white woman who was shot and killed by a Somali cop who she had called to report an attack in an ally. He shot her as she went out to tell him where the crime was taking place. The cop who killed the guy who passed a counterfeit $20 is sitting in jail charged with murder. The jogging incident didn't involve cops, and the guy sitting in his living room (if it's the case I'm thinking of) was an idiotic reaction from an off-duty cop who thought she was walking into her own apartment and saw a strange man inside. It was incredibly stupid and unfortunate, but it wasn't even in the line of duty. It's hardly indicative of a scourge of police brutality or racially motivated killings. The point isn't that there's nothing to see here and we should do nothing, but rather that we should have some sense of perspective. Overstating the problem is not helpful, treating it like it's the greatest issue of our day is just silly, and grabbing our pitchforks to join the witch-hunting lynch mob is not productive or moral. If this really is the greatest threat facing America people we have it pretty damn good. All of us. In short, if anyone's sitting around in genuine fear that they're going to be the next guy murdered by a racist cop, they're either suffering from paranoid delusions or they've been brainwashed by a corrupt media with a nefarious agenda. They might as well sit around worrying that they're going to be struck by lightening.

I'd be interested to see some other studies on the issue. The link you posted doesn't provide enough information to make a meaningful analysis, but I'm not going to dismiss your theory out of hand. The methodology is unclear and it makes no meaningful distinctions between those who sell drugs. Someone selling small quantities of pot would count the same as someone moving large quantities of narcotics under that graph. Further, the overwhelming majority of drug cases are handled in state court and your initial numbers dealt only with Federal cases, so it makes it even more difficult to draw any meaningful conclusions from that data. Again, I'm not saying you're wrong, just that the data is insufficient to draw that conclusion. There are also other factors that come into play that don't show up in those charts. For example, I know plenty of white people who caught pot charges when they were younger but I can't think of any that have been charged after their mid 20s. They didn't stop smoking pot, but they no longer smoke in places where they're likely to be arrested. They buy from people they know who only sell to people they know, and they smoke and keep their stash in their houses where they're not likely to come in contact with police. When they were younger, and driving around and more inclined to smoke in public they were more likely to get caught. That's not to necessarily suggest black people are more likely to smoke in public. I don't have any data to support that. Just pointing out that a lot of times there are other factors that aren't immediately apparent that cause certain disparities.

I was going to follow up with you on that but the thread was closed. The problem with using raw population number is that it assumes all other variables are held constant, which isn't the case. Police shootings usually happen in the course of a police encounter brought about by suspected criminal activity. For that reason, a more accurate number is found by looking at the rate of occasions of deadly force per police encounter. With young black males committing a disproportionate amount of violent crime, it necessarily follows that police will have a disproportionate number of encounters with black males. When you look at shootings by demographic relative to violent crime by demographic the disparities disappear. Simply for illustrative purposes, consider the disparity between men and women with regards to police shootings. As of June 4, the U.S. police shot 415 men and 13 women to death in 2020. Women make up over 50% of the population, so going on raw population numbers, it would appear that police are terribly sexist against men. The reality, of course, is that the overwhelming majority of violent crime is committed by men (and men pose a greater physical threat to the safety of officers during encounters) which explains the discrepancy. Other factors must be considered to get an accurate picture. The Wapo numbers come from their database. Interestingly enough, they've modified those numbers in the last 2 weeks to show 14 black and 25 white people were shot and killed by police while unarmed in 2019. It should be noted again that unarmed does not necessarily mean unjustified. If I punch a cop and charge at his partner I'm probably going to get shot whether I have a weapon or not, and regardless of my pigmentation. Another interesting factor to consider is the crime rate and economic outcomes of black people who immigrate to America compared to native born black Americans. The former have lower crime and incarceration rates, and better rates of economic success, which indicates that there are factors other than race that contribute to these outcomes. The factor you're failing to account for is that people serving federal prison sentences for non-violent drug offenses are there for distribution, not consumption. Your statistics give the implication that you have more white offenders, but more minority convictions for the same offense, but you are comparing distribution to use. It's an apples to oranges comparison. If you want to argue for drug decriminalization I'm with you, but the idea that this disparity comes from turning a blind eye to whites is inaccurate.

I actually agree with this. I'm not going to hold this guy up as a martyr or assume their was a racial element, nor am I going to rush to judge the cop, who in all likelihood panicked in a dangerous situation caused entirely by the actions of Brooks. But it doesn't appear to me, based on what I've read, that shooting him was necessary. "Cancel culture" refers to the trend where one is banished due to having made (or being perceived as having made) a politically incorrect statement, or otherwise deemed to hold politically incorrect views. This most commonly refers to banishment from all or most social media sites and/or demonetization from YouTube which effectively ends the career of one who has spent years building their brand/following. It also refers to one's removal from his chosen profession, and often blackballed from that profession, for such perceived transgressions. Some notable figures who have been cancelled include Gavin McInnis, Milo Yiannopoulos, Pamela Geller, Alex Jones, Carl Benjamin, Owen Benjamin, and Jacob Wohl. There are countless others. A recent example is Grant Napear was fired from his job, after 32 years as the TV voice of the Sacramento Kings, for Tweeting "All Lives Matter." Cancel culture isn't reserved to the famous. Justine Sacco, a 30 year old PR exec, lost her job and was crucified throughout the media for Tweeting a bad joke. In short, "cancel culture" refers to a cultural phenomenon by which those who violate the tenets of political correctness are made to be silenced. This is where it gets a little dicey, because the terms are not clearly defined. The numbers don't really support the notion that police disproportionately shoot black suspects. In 2019, people shot and killed by police while unarmed (which doesn't necessarily mean unjustified) were as follows: White: 19 Black: 9 Hispanic: 6 Other: 4 Unknown: 3 - Washington Post For every 10,000 black people arrested for violent crime, 3 are killed For every 10,000 white people arrested for violent crime, 4 are killed The numbers don't really support the narrative. A more nuanced point was raised in a now closed thread dealing with racial disparities in policing that don't escalate to fatalities. Those issues, as well as issues about police practices generally, are certainly open to debate, but the numbers seriously call into question whether there is truly pervasive racial bias in policing.

@Hapless Bills Fan https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/04/09/key-findings-on-americans-views-of-race-in-2019/ This means 48% of black people do not believe that being black has been a significant impediment to them getting ahead.

This guy just doesn't get it. He needs an upper middle class white millennial to educate him on what it's like to be black in America.

This is a bunch of horse *****. If you agree not to use your mod status as a weapon I'm happy to discuss. Otherwise I ask that you not engage me.

Watching you twist & turn to justify your bias only reinforces my point.

People see what they want to see. It's clear that the guy approached the cops at a time and place where he should not have. They were clearing the area out because they were ordered to do so, and rather than clearing out he walked up on them. That much is not disputable. The fact that he's a long time political activist seems to be conveniently ignored. The cop that shoved him simply pushed him back away from the line. He didn't throw him with great force or slam him to the ground. He just pushed him back, with one arm no less, the way any normal person would push anyone who was intentionally crowding their personal space under normal circumstances, much less police a very tense high pressure situation where they've ordered people to disperse. The strangest thing about the incident was that the guy splattered his head on the ground after a minor nudge. It's not a natural looking fall. Even for an old guy it's strange that he fell at all. The fact that his head hit the ground like that is utterly bizarre. People say it was staged because it looks like a flop. But for people who desperately want to see an innocent victim being brutalized by the cops, they will see misconduct even if they have to stretch reality beyond reason to do so.

Just goes to show it's not really about what they say it's about.

Cool story, bro. Sorry to have triggered you.

This supports the position that they can use their platform to speak while they're not on the field. NFL players have far greater reach through traditional and social media, through which they can share their views. If he weren't in the NFL no one would give a rat's ass what Colin Kaepernick had to say about anything. But the celebrity status he enjoys because he played in the NFL gives him an exponentially larger audience than his intellectual acumen would ever afford him. I don't understand why that isn't enough and we have to be subjected to their already overexposed opinions on game day.

Does anyone else feel like half the country's trippin on strong acid and demanding that the rest of us see their hallucinations?

“When someone calls you racist, what they are saying is ‘hmm, you actually have a point, and I don’t know how to answer it, so perhaps if I distract you by calling you a bigot we’ll both forget how enlightened your comment was’.” - Morrissey

This is where dick licking gets you.

This is how the PC movement takes advantage of cognitive association to artificially dictate standards of morality through manipulation of language. The word "racist" has a very negative association because when you first heard it you likely associated it with images of innocent people being beaten, subjugated, tortured, or killed for no other reason than how they looked. It was probably deeply disturbing and troubled you for some time. That emotion is forever tied to that word for you. That's how the human mind works. Imagine the difference if your first association with the word "racism" had been linked to the image of a white woman unintentionally offending a black man by politely telling him he speaks well, and thus implying that she assumed, based on his appearance, that he was inarticulate. It's hard, if not impossible, because you already have your associations, but if you could you'd realize that in scenario 2 you may think the woman should be more thoughtful, but you certainly wouldn't have the traumatic visceral reaction to it, and you certainly wouldn't think she was evil. But under the new definition she'd be a "racist". If the latter example was your baseline emotional association with the word "racism," you wouldn't necessarily think that badly of someone based solely on the accusation of "racism" without more. The PC movement knows the association is the former, and not the latter and takes advantage of that. They re-define words to expand the definition to encompass things that are not terribly egregious, but as long as they can fit them into the same category, they will be perceived as such.

I agree. I've known in my gut for years that political correctness was the greatest threat to our society, but I couldn't really explain how it would manifest. I read up on the Bolshevik revolution last year and it started to become clear. I became convinced that the progressive movement is actually a covert marxist movement masquerading as social justice. It's the kind of statement that elicited eye rolls and calls of "conspiracy theory," but it is proving true. As I was reading the article you posted I was reminded of a conversation I had on OTW several years ago. I was angrily dismissed as the crazy anti-PC guy by a frothy spherical dude that insisted that PC simply means "perfectly courteous." The problems inherent in the demand of "perfect" courtesy aside, that perception illustrates how political correctness acts as a trojan horse. America was too strong for a Bolshevik style revolution to succeed. Communism was highly unpopular in America and an overt campaign would be futile. Instead they set upon a gradual subversive takeover from within. To succeed it was necessary to sow division, pit groups against each other, tear down the institutions and traditions that have formed our cultural identity, and break the common bonds that unite people and allow us to live in relative harmony as one nation. They've used political correctness to accomplish that. The theme of America as a racist and oppressive country with marginalized victim groups under the constant strain of active racism was steadily drummed into the national conscience. Speech codes with select buzz words were put in place to prevent people from stating truths that ran counter to the narrative. Swift and harsh retribution, demanded by an intolerant minority with the power of the pen, effectively coerced compliance. The buzz words are associated with concepts that evoke a strong emotional response. Once the association is established in the public psychee, language is manipulated to expand what falls under the definition of that buzz word. This enables them to deem that which would otherwise be acceptable as offensive simply by tying it to a buzz word with a negative association. The most obvious example is "racism." The working definition has evolved from something along the lines of unfairly discriminating against others based on race, to believing in one's own racial superiority, to a white person acknowledging any differences in minorities (unless admiring the superiority of that trait), to the act of being born white. That last example is not an exaggeration. In woke terms, racism is inherrent to whiteness and cannot be avoided. The only path to redemption is to accept your own racism and actively work to compensate for it. Consider this against the backdrop of a world where a "racist" is the lowest form of life, and one who must be expelled from society for the betterment of all. One need not actually do anything that is hateful or detrimental to anyone of another to be deemed evil as long as his action or statement can somehow be fitted under the definition of "racist," even if only in a very technical way. This manipulative association applies to symbols of culture and tradition as well. The Kaepernick movement is a perfect example of manipulating the perception associated with cultural symbolism to erode the spirit of the country. Whatever Kaepernick's reasoning, those pushing the narrative support it because it simultaneously stokes group division (a necessary ingredient) while stripping the flag and anthem, the symbols of our national pride and identity, of their sanctity. If you're trying to topple a society you certainly don't want massive displays of people standing with pride and showing respect to symbols that represent the system you seek to topple. For years they've bent over backwards to deter any public expression of Christianity because it creates a common cultural bond among people (and gives them a higher power to look to than the state). This is why they've fought so hard to suppress Christmas. It's the same reason they want to inject political controversies into sports. They want to pervert every cultural tradition that brings people together. This is the real reason why they need the confederacy to be categorically synonymous with racism and tear down all its remnants. Regardless of one's opinion of the Confederacy, this has nothing to do with eliminating racism or protecting black people from the trauma of being offended by homages to figures from the distant past. They're eliminating any sense of southern identity and dividing people along racial, regional, and cultural lines, but most importantly, they're setting the precedent for eliminating all historical vestiges of "racism." The next stage is the wholesale condemnation of the founding of America. The American people still overwhelmingly respect the founders and the Constitution. They're posturing themselves to jump that hurdle. We will soon hear growing cries that America was founded by racist slave owners who should not be honored. The ideals of individual liberty on which the country was founded were espoused by those racists and are then maligned by association. The Constitution is based on those ideals and did not immediately outlaw slavery, and is therefore illegitimate. When that time comes, speaking out in defense of the founders will be politically incorrect. It will be seen as an act of racism. It's entirely likely that failure to actively support the movement will put you in company with the untouchables. It's often said, and rarely true, but right now we are living in dangerous times. The foundation of the amazingly stable system of freedom, equality, and prosperity that we increasingly take for granted is being set ablaze. The useful idiots with no plan or direction other than an abstact sense of injustice and desire to be part of an abstract sense of change will ride the crazy train right up to the gates of hell. They don't realize that the people who start revolutions are not the ones who take power in their wake. They believe if things go wrong they can simply change their government. They're going to learn the hard way that once you let a fire get out of hand you can't just put it out.

This should be shared far and wide.

Yeaaaahhh. The Natalie Holloway story isn't remotely similar. I can't even give you credit for effort on that one.

We all know that's bullsh|t. The only reason we know anything about her is because she's black. Name a similar situation with a white woman that got this much attention. I'll wait.

Actually it clearly debunks your point which is proven by your pivot away from the race baiting message that was your point. Don't you remember your idiotic line, "if she was a white woman you would"? Take the L, bro.

Dude, everyone knows the name Breonna Taylor. Are you fu¢king stupid? Do you even know the name Autumn Steele? If she was a black woman you would. She was an innocent white mother who was shot to death by a police officer in front of her child in her own yard. She posed no threat to the officer. He was never charged and received paid leave. Do you even know the name Daniel Shaver? If he was a black man you would. He was a 26 year old pest control specialist with a wife and 2 daughters who was shot and killed at point blank range by a hyper-aggressive police officer while unarmed and on his knees begging for his life. Do you even know the name Zachary Hammond? How about Dylan Noble? Dillon Taylor? James Whitehead? John Albers? Ariel Roman, maybe? No? If they were black you would.

Thank you. This is an extremely reasonable approach. To be clear, it is not my position that there is no disparity anywhere in the country - it varies from locality to locality - but rather that the facts do not support the theory as it is being presented in the mainstream. The issue is far more complex than the current narrative would suggest, and there is certainly room to debate the topic, but the extreme rhetoric and absolute certainty, particularly wrt to some assertions that are patently and demonstrably false, is troubling. The fervent desire to brand others as racists for questioning the narrative is even more troubling. I don't have time at the moment to delve into your articles, but I'll try to circle back this evening. Based on the data I've seen, I don't think there's a strong case for the theory that racism causes black men face a disproportionate threat of death at the hands of police on a national level, but when someone presents their argument in a reasonable manner, and offers support for it as you have, I'm much more inclined to listen. I think if this was the approach being taken across the country we'd make a lot more progress.