DoYouSeeWhatHappensLarry

I think thats on the table if the Bills can get a 10 point lead relatively early. I think if they fall behind, its not all that likely. Our run defense has been fine for most of the season except for a tiny handful of plays (Tarik Cohen for 46 Wk 1, Matt Stafford for 19 last week, Randall Cobb for 10). I think we can handle the normal approach to the run game simply because of our speed and the current personnel likely to play a lot of snaps. What will be interesting to see is whether the Bills can make some money on "tricky" run plays. Reverses, etc. That could work well against the Falcons' defensive speed and was a large part of Cohen's big 46 yard run. I also dont doubt that Tyrod will be able to move the ball on the ground. It should be an interesting game, for sure.

No luckier than the Lions were against the Falcons. I also dont buy the "lucky" narrative against the Bears. But whatevs. Matt Ryan had arguably his worst season as a pro in year 1 under Shanahan. He had his best season as a pro in year 2. Prior to Shanahan's arrival, Ryan had stacked 5 consecutive good+ seasons.

One of the strengths of McDermott Panthers defenses that tended to give Matt Ryan fits was....wait for it......super LB Luke Kuechly. His ability to cover intermediate routes was constantly problematic. He'd lurk around the middle of the field and get a great break on rhythm throws to the middle third. I don't think the Bills have that guy on this roster. But if the pass rush can consistently get pressure, the Bills may be able to force a turnover. The Bears had two things going for them that helped them out in that game: 1) A tremendously slow, grass field. 2) A fresh start with no real game tape available. 2.5) Tarik Cohen. With the game on the carpet, the Falcons are going to be much much faster than they were in that Chicago game. On both sides of the ball. Which I think is going to be a lot for the Bills to handle.

1) I like your Lovecraft sig. 2) I think many folks think white privilege is used to denote this idea that white people are more affluent or well-off or prosperous in general. That by being born "white" theres this assumption that you had a relatively easy upbringing or whatever. That idea is clearly false on multiple levels. Instead, I think "white privilege" is reflective of the American reality that to a large degree, being white affords you a number of "luxuries" that minorities don't receive. The biggest among them is the lack of a sense of otherness. We're historically a "white" country. Built by white men, engineered and conceived of by white men, populated by white men, etc. Blacks were initially property (yes, I know some whites were too) and upon being "freed" still could not shake off their blackness. Functionally, black folk were subdivided into a discrete legal class in the south for a 100 years after slavery was ended. In the north, they were still a discrete "other" class but more in a social/civil engineering way. The minute the law reacted to comingle whites and blacks more frequently, huge portions of white people simply relocated to live among other white people. To a certain extent, we still see those things today. The "privilege" comes in the difference in experience walking around this country as a person of color vs. a person of whiteness. The different built-in assumptions that are applied to each class based on our culture and experience. It can be as powerful as the association between blackness and criminality. Or something smaller like the association of black folks with being loud or unruly. And the absolute worst part about it is that those associations essentially form a feedback loop of resentment. White folks see black folks as more prone to criminality. So when they see a crime committed by a black person (lets not get into how media affects this) it essentially reinforces a baseline belief. Which leads to trepidation on the part of white folks dealing with black folks. Which just emphasizes the feelings of otherness by black folks which leads to more resentment. It's toxic. It's the frequently treatment of blacks by whites as blacks needing to "pass muster" to gain baseline social respect. White folks usually don't have to do that. The presumption starts off neutral, if not positive. By acting out, white folks ostracize themselves from friend groups, etc. It's like an inverse relationship. I mean, this is a pretty big topic and I'm sure I'm a bit rambly here. And i'm by no means an expert. I'm just a white dude from WNY. But I feel like i've had a pretty broad array of experiences, consumed a decent amount of materials on the subject and I like to think I can be objective. Well, these are relatively straightforward answers. You're simply describing EFFECTS of institutional racism as CAUSES of black underachievement. These sorts of ideas essentially box you into a corner. Because your objection to single-parent households in black communities has to have a "why." WHY are there more single-parent households in black communities? Your theory of causation necessarily entails that it is blackness itself that is driving these forces. That if blacks would stop getting divorced, stop dropping out of college, they'd finally get ahead. Leaving aside the unfortunate reality that by the time blacks were "free" to pursue their own self-interest in a broad manner, the country had already been largely colonized and developed, and further leaving aside the reality of generations of wealth accumulation that white folks were privy to that black folks had zero access to, the objective reality is that the demographic splits between whites and blacks in the conditions you've called out reinforce the notion of the achievement gap. Single parent white households are significantly more "productive" than single parent black households. Whites without high school diplomas make as much blacks WITH high school diplomas. If these are the only things driving the achievement gap we'd see more comparable numbers. But we don't. Because we're dealing with the effects of a society that engineered disparate racial treatment during the largest periods of wealth gains in its history. It's like playing Monopoloy, letting one player go around the board half a dozen times and then letting player 2 start playing the game already in progress. And FTR - "mediocre negroes" was an unfortunate choice of words, obviously. But its essentially a response to this idea that conservative outlets seem to push: that if a black man or woman comes out and disagrees with racism, that racism isnt real. The idea of black sponsorship being evidence of a non-issue. An idea that you floated earlier.

1) Correlation does not equal causation. However, correlation and causation are not mutually exclusive. Many correlative relationships are also causal. Like....tons and tons. 2) The NC analysis is pretty clearly laid out in the opinion of the Court. I believe the phrase was "almost surgical precision?" And of course there's the argument that "electoral fraud" isn't an issue of any true import and needs to be "eliminated" in the way that ghosts need to be eliminated. But thats neither here nor there. I will grant that I think a large portion of what motivates those laws is politics and the desire to keep Republicans (really "conservatives" more than Republicans) on a tilted electoral ground. Like I said, I dont think its a bunch of white dudes sitting around saying "how can we stop blacks from voting." Instead, I think its a bunch of R's saying "how can we stop democrats from voting." The problem comes in the secondary analysis. The history and rationale behind these marginalization efforts. The labeling of black folk as "takers" or "race baiters" or any other codeword nonsense. And of course, theres the idea that when one wants to take an action and there is a clearly foreseeable, disparate effect on communities of color that is ignored as the action is undertaken, it isnt too tough to call that racist. Because ultimately you're making the determination that "welp, a bunch of black folks wont be able to vote but tough stuff for them" 2) The data you're referencing comes with a problem built in....the ratio of crimes committed to perpetrators identified/punished is not 1:1. So we're working with data that we hope is indicative of the world at large but we can't really know for sure by the data. Obviously we have to take it at face value as it's the best we can do at the moment but we also have to be mindful of how biases could affect the data set. On the small scale, that's a given LEO letting a woman skate on an assault incident while arresting a man involved in a similar incident. Those things absolutely happen. Do they happen enough to toss the data in the trash? No, obviously not. But its not something that should be ignored. And not for nothing but to prove that no bias is absent in the data we're working with, you'd need figures that support the notion that the ratio of incarcerated men to incarcerated women matches the ratio of crimes committed by men to the crimes committed by women. Is it 10 to 1? 8 to 1? 20 to 1? But they're really the same thing, right? Those things of which you speak (let's call them biases) ARE institutional norms and rules of order. That's more of what I was speaking to. And I think the key is that they are "unrecognized" or "unacknowledged." It's the difference between explicitly racist structures (Apartheid, Jim Crow, slavery) and structures (housing policy, policing policy, etc) with implicitly racist features. perhaps I didnt describe it well. I meant something like "the institution in question has racist applications nested inside" rather than "The institution in question is explicitly racist" Does that make sense?

Perhaps. I'd have to speak with them about their underlying rationale. Perhaps they (and you?) don't understand what "white privilege" means. That's usually the most common thing I see when people rage about WP. I'll say this though: the notion that the status of a given speaker altering the truth value of the statement being offered is kind of ridiculous. If your minority friends say things that arent correct, their status as minorities doesnt make them correct. You're entitled to believe what you'd like. Just a shame that your mistaken beliefs have actual real world consequences.

1) Yes, the disproportionate impact of certain laws IS evidence of racism. Not ALL disproportionate impact, but just as one does not necessarily entail the other, you cannot claim it precludes the other. Disparate impact analysis has a pretty firm foundation in the study of law so its clearly not irrelevant. 2) Your gender-based analogy isnt really on point. But EVEN IF I grant that the underlying rationale is worth considering, why would it be so difficult to conclude that the criminal justice system may treat the sexes in a "sexist" manner when it comes to enforcement? I don't think that's out of the question given traditional social norms and gender roles. True! Although probably not in the way you think it is...

With all due respect, this comment suggests you don't have a very good understanding of the issue. And further suggests that you don't care much to consider, let alone understand, the issue. That's fine. Totally your choice. An unfortunate one nonetheless.

Not really. Institutional refers to institutions. Institutions are not actions. Institutions are structures/systems. So when we look at things like community structure or housing policy or criminal justice practices, we can find the frame work for racism absent explicit "screw over dark people" motivations.

BLM, clearly not. The New Black Panthers....perhaps. I wouldnt deny that there are racists (or at least prejudiced folks) among racial/ethnic minorities. However, the source of their racism is different in character.

If we're going to discuss complex issues, we should treat them with the respect they deserve. Although, you've provided a nice example of why these issues never seem to go anyway: the tacit implication that if something is not actively, aggressively and explicitly racist (eg. Jim Crow) then it isnt racist.

...... Welp. This post isnt all that promising for the discussion (edited for clarity)

This is a pretty good example. Might as well start the discussion there. If we're going to have this/these discussion(s) we're going to have to try to use nuance and analysis. I don't think "list the racists!" is going to get us very far.

1) I don't think that "economic thing" and "racial thing" are mutually exclusive. There's no reason something can't be driven by both factors. Particularly given the significant social overlap between the two. 2) There have been a number of studies that have controlled for those things (income, frequency of offense, etc) that have still found disproportionate sentencing when other factors are controlled. They could obviously be wrong but I found them rather compelling. Although its been a minute since Ive read them so its possible the literature has changed. 3) Specifically with respect to drug policy, its pretty tough to argue its an economics thing given the stated intentions of the Nixon administration in setting off the "War on Drugs." Even conservative firebrands like Newt see the serious criminal justice issues of treating crack cocaine offenses differently than powdered cocaine offenses. I should clarify right now what I mean when I talk about institutional racism so people don't get the wrong idea: I do not ascribe to the idea that the vast majority of US cultural institutions are actively and aggressively racist. I think its much more insidious than that. A huge portion of it stems from the legacy of slavery, the greatest of moral ills in our country's history. An institution so destructive that we've essentially never been able to regain balance. And I don't know that we ever will. Because American society did a serviceable job marginalizing explicit, hate-fueled racism but that just resulted in decades of "work-arounds." Explicit white superiority morphed into other forms. And we're at a point where the mere mention of the long-lasting effects of these policies brings out resentment from all sides. I think many of those iniquities are still present, albeit in less powerful forms. And in more self-delusional forms. I think there are many racists who would loathe the idea of admitting that they're racist. They rest on the distinction set forth in that there amazon book up there^ Or they talk in hushed tones about "no, he's not like them. He's one of the good ones." They've incorporated this idea of blackness being equal to criminality or low class or poverty-stricken into their world view. Not EXPLICITLY, but through upbringing and social norms among white folks. And I'll admit, I suffer from some of those things too. I've "joked" about things that are objectively repugnant. I've had thoughts that are essentially impulses that I've had issues with upon reflecting for like three seconds after the thought passes. Some folks would call that "white guilt." Whereas I prefer to think of it as self-reflection and simply trying to get to the motivations of what is a huge social problem in this country. If that's "white guilt" then so be it.

Honestly, it's most of them. Although some of them are suffering from "residual" institutional racism: aka what used to be codified set the stage for where we are today. Things like criminal justice (drug policy, policing models, brutality, sentencing, slave labor protected by incarceration, etc), housing policy, voting policy, redistricting, etc. All have and/or had (to a degree such that the effects remain relevant) serious racial inequities. Frankly, something as basic as the "institution" of civil discourse in this country has serious racism issues. If you'd like to discuss any of these issues, I'd suggest making a separate thread and we can (hopefully) have a productive discussion.