The News Thread

[CiG]

I'm fairly certain there are studies which demonstrate that, but I'm at home and can't pull anything up right now.

I can say with complete confidence, however, that plea deals make up the majority of convictions in America (apparently 95% per Google), and that the primary motivation for plea deals is due to excessive caseloads by public defenders and local judges. The main reason this is the case is because if every person sentenced got to argue their case, have all evidence laid out, expert testimony called, and be heard by a jury, the entire justice system would immediately crash from overload. Keep in mind that many people having taken plea deals were eventually exonerated, either through DNA evidence or proof of over-zealous prosecutors or other factors. Obviously, some, probably a majority of those 95% actually committed a crime, but it doesn't change the fact that you're SOL if you didn't and can't afford great legal representation.

Sure, I see nothing here to disagree with, I just don't see how this explains the claim that the system is racist in its sentencing when what I'm seeing here is that actually the system favours those with more money, not less.

Which is why I said I think comparing the sentencing of blacks vs whites from similar backgrounds will give us a much more accurate view of the racial differences in sentencing. I'm using a subpar cellphone until my PC is back from the shop so I'm unable to look it all up myself.

I thought Obama's policy was a good move. We're moving backward--but then, what else did we expect?

My wife just got back from Cuba a week or so before this happened. It's not a happy place, people standing in long lines for bread and soap. Castro's communism hasn't been an answer, that much is certain. But pulling out of potential trade negotiations will do nothing to help Cuba's economy. Ever since the embargo by Kennedy, the country has been begging for scraps. Was Castro a dictator who hoarded shit for himself? Sure, but that's not much different from other national leaders, many of whom the U.S. has supported.

Americans like to blame communism for Cuba's economic crisis. The truth is, it's a combination of communistic economic policies and trade embargoes that have been catastrophic for Cuba on the global stage.

I agree with you completely on this one, but I am seeing some articles not only supporting Trump but even criticizing him for being soft on Cuba. Hilarious.

Also, I don't think we can lay all the blame on Castro, considering the regime continued to fuck Cuba post-Castro. The whole government needs to be gutted basically.

How is it not an accurate description? Equal representation under the law is a cornerstone of our judicial system. It shouldn't make a difference whether it's a poor black man or a wealthy white one--but it does.

Sure, but all I'm saying is - you're using this reality to claim it is a racial issue, I'm merely questioning how one comes to that conclusion when it clearly has more to do with money.

I think it is unfair that the dichotomy always follows the 'rich white male' being compared to 'poor black folk'. Poor white kids get booked because they couldnt afford lawyers as well, but the view of white people is always that of the upper-middle suburbanite. I think HBB summed it up when he said that the differences are economic. Possible disparities (if someone links an article that connects the two) between white and black (or other minority) sentencing given economic equality may even be due to gang activity, which makes people unaffiliated with gangs less of a public threat, and therefore their sentencing may be less severe.

Otherwise I agree with you that not everyone is guaranteed equal representation under the law. I just think it is a class issue, and that making it out as yet another race issue just creates further resentment.

Yes this is what I was essentially trying to get at. It's as if all criticisms of race totally ignore poor whites, probably because most of these criticisms come from a certain group of people who are obsessed with power politics. The we must have more female CEOs types.

 

[Dak]

There are more poor whites than poor minorities in absolute terms, but not in terms of percentages. However, this doesn't include the number *just above* the Federal poverty lines, which would probably encompass a large portion of all people in the country. With the exception of maybe 2-4 years, I've been below or just above that line pretty much my whole life (including my parents income levels while a child), and lived in areas heavily populated by minorities/other poor persons. There was never a point where "I don't have X, lemme go murder someone for it or go steal it" entered the equation. A lack of income alone does not mean anything in itself.

 

[CiG]

It would also be interesting to comparatively look at the statistics on Native Americans.

 

[Einherjar86]

There are more poor whites than poor minorities in absolute terms, but not in terms of percentages. However, this doesn't include the number *just above* the Federal poverty lines, which would probably encompass a large portion of all people in the country. With the exception of maybe 2-4 years, I've been below or just above that line pretty much my whole life (including my parents income levels while a child), and lived in areas heavily populated by minorities/other poor persons. There was never a point where "I don't have X, lemme go murder someone for it or go steal it" entered the equation. A lack of income alone does not mean anything in itself.

Based on the conversation above, it looks like we're talking about drug convictions, not murder convictions--the former are far more likely to target black men than white men. Black men take part in drug trafficking in order to supplement little to no legally obtained income. Now, you might say that it never crossed your mind to deal drugs either; but I would put to you that a large number of black men do try and find jobs, but those jobs end up taken by poor white men (such as yourself). Unemployed black men then resort to drugs as a source of income.

Regarding murder convictions, studies have suggested that it's more likely for a black man to be wrongfully convicted. I'm not sure what the cause for this might be, but I'm willing to bet that at least a portion of it is racially motivated. Unintentionally, of course--black men just happen to look more like murderers to white juries.

 

[Dak]

Unemployed black men then resort to drugs as a source of income.

I thought that's what all of the welfare and job placement programs taxdollars pay for are for. I know when I was training to get a CDL, the city was paying the CDL program to train a dozen or so unemployed workers. Guess who never showed up for their training, or didn't train when present?

Regarding murder convictions, studies have suggested that it's more likely for a black man to be wrongfully convicted. I'm not sure what the cause for this might be, but I'm willing to bet that at least a portion of it is racially motivated. Unintentionally, of course--black men just happen to look more like murderers to white juries.

I don't know what the false conviction rate is, but black men are convicted in roughly half of all murders in the US despite being only roughly 15% of the population. If you limited it to "young black males", I'm sure the skewness would increase even more. In other words, with zero information, statistics indicate convicting the young black male is the correct choice. That population is also less likely to have finished HS and/or attempted or completed any post-secondary education, as well more likely having a juvenile criminal record, which makes job prospects more limited. While some put their head down and dig themselves out of that hole, the "easy" route (high time preference) is to start slingin and pretend you're an OG. Big bonus it gets you more pussy than being a square.

 

[Einherjar86]

I thought that's what all of the welfare and job placement programs taxdollars pay for are for. I know when I was training to get a CDL, the city was paying the CDL program to train a dozen or so unemployed workers. Guess who never showed up for their training, or didn't train when present?

Welfare's nice but doesn't compare to income from an actual job. How many black truck drivers do you see? I doubt the number is so small because the majority of them don't show up for training. If your anecdotal experience is in play, then so's my experience working in a small town. I've heard more than once from people who worked for small local companies that they would "never hire a black person." I'm not making that up, as I'm sure you're not.

I don't know what the false conviction rate is, but black men are convicted in roughly half of all murders in the US despite being only roughly 15% of the population. If you limited it to "young black males", I'm sure the skewness would increase even more. In other words, with zero information, statistics indicate convicting the young black male is the correct choice. That population is also less likely to have finished HS and/or attempted or completed any post-secondary education, as well more likely having a juvenile criminal record, which makes job prospects more limited. While some put their head down and dig themselves out of that hole, the "easy" route (high time preference) is to start slingin and pretend you're an OG. Big bonus it gets you more pussy than being a square.

So you're saying that when all the proper evidence is lacking, going by stereotype is okay? Convicting the black youth is usually "the correct choice"--so if the evidence doesn't quite make the case, go ahead and vote to convict anyway?

I know that's not what you're saying, but you've conveniently summarized what happens in deliberation rooms. That's not how the system should work; it should demand evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that most juries don't understand this and vote to convict simply because the defendant looks like a criminal.

 

[Dak]

Welfare's nice but doesn't compare to income from an actual job. How many black truck drivers do you see? I doubt the number is so small because the majority of them don't show up for training. If your anecdotal experience is in play, then so's my experience working in a small town. I've heard more than once from people who worked for small local companies that they would "never hire a black person." I'm not making that up, as I'm sure you're not.

I have no problem believing you. One thing that prevents hiring is difficulty in firing. Why take the risk in hiring someone who, if not doing a good job, you can't fire without worrying about being sued for racism?

That's not how the system should work; it should demand evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The problem is that most juries don't understand this and vote to convict simply because the defendant looks like a criminal.

Well we agree on this.

 

[Einherjar86]

I have no problem believing you. One thing that prevents hiring is difficulty in firing. Why take the risk in hiring someone who, if not doing a good job, you can't fire without worrying about being sued for racism?

An employer can worry about wrongful termination suits for firing absolutely anyone. It's not a justifiable excuse to avoid hiring black people.

Otherwise I agree with you that not everyone is guaranteed equal representation under the law. I just think it is a class issue, and that making it out as yet another race issue just creates further resentment.

I think it's a class issue in large part, too; but I also think there's a tendency among judges and juries to be uncritical when presented with insufficient evidence, and to arrive at convictions based on racial assumptions.

 

[Dak]

An employer can worry about wrongful termination suits for firing absolutely anyone. It's not a justifiable excuse to avoid hiring black people.

"Wrongful termination" doesn't get the headlines that "MAN FIRED BECAUSE OF RACISM" would. Good luck winning that lawsuit as the employer.

 

[J.]

An employer can worry about wrongful termination suits for firing absolutely anyone. It's not a justifiable excuse to avoid hiring black people.

Your first point fails to acknowledge that employers never worry about firing a white person. Certainly not a white male. Trust me, I've hired and fired plenty of people.

While I agree in theory with your second point, being in a position of interviewing numerous candidates for a variety of positions, it most certainly comes to mind.

I've even had C-level management tell me that as a white male, it's easy to fire me for just about anything. While justifiably firing a black female can take months (years) of documentation, offering additional training, and offering a demotion.

I've even personally been in a room when a black female accused other managers of racial discrimination after they complained that she was sleeping and snoring while on the job. She still has a job. A white male would have been escorted out the door.

 

[Einherjar86]

While I agree in theory with your second point, being in a position of interviewing numerous candidates for a variety of positions, it most certainly comes to mind.

Fair enough. But we're still dealing with the matter of not hiring someone because of race.

It strikes me that some may view this practically--an employer doesn't hire a black person because he doesn't want to risk accusations of racism should he have to fire that person. But I'm not convinced that this alleviates the charge of racism.

An employer may fire a black employee and be undeservedly accused of racism for doing so. But refusing to hire a black person from the outset for fear that one might be accused of racism in the future is itself racist.

I don't want this to sound accusatory. Me saying this shouldn't make anyone feel vilified or attacked. Racist impulses don't need to be directly or consciously malicious. It's simply true that if we make assumptions based on someone's skin color, we're making a racist assumption.

 

[Dak]

refusing to hire a black person from the outset for fear that one might be accused of racism in the future is itself racist.

Easy to say when one doesn't have the responsibility of maintaining their own livelihood and the livelihood of any other current employees. The Al Sharptons are as much at fault for the situation as Bubba Jones' racism.

 

[J.]

Fair enough. But we're still dealing with the matter of not hiring someone because of race.

It strikes me that some may view this practically--an employer doesn't hire a black person because he doesn't want to risk accusations of racism should he have to fire that person. But I'm not convinced that this alleviates the charge of racism.

It does not alleviate it at all. But from an employer/manager point of view, it's "safer". And I'm not just talking black people here. This really goes for any minority, including gays. I speak from experience (from multiple corporations) when I say hiring a minority female is always risky. I'm not saying they are lazy or can't do the job. Once a minority is hired, there are a few who know they are safe.

An employer may fire a black employee and be undeservedly accused of racism for doing so. But refusing to hire a black person from the outset for fear that one might be accused of racism in the future is itself racist.

Once again, it's perspective. Is it worth the risk of the company and/or individual being accused of racism (and the possibility of it going to the media, who love these stories) by hiring a minority when they can hire an equally qualified white person? Racism? Absolutely.

I once had the "race card" and "sexism card" pulled on me: I found a black male sleeping on the job. Took a picture. Sent it two levels up in management, who promptly said "Fire that guy."

The next day, he was marched in, told he was fired and then promptly made up shit about how I was racist because I was white and he was black. He also said I was taking advantage of my position with the girls in the office and making lewd remarks and "banging that chick". So I then had to get on a conference call with the HR Director and give my side of the story about everything.

So because this black guy was butthurt about being caught, he accuses me of racism and sexism. Now, 3 years later and three promotions later, I get to call a lot of the shots about hiring, firing, documenting, etc. Does that incident still come to mind when I'm hiring a black guy? You bet. Point of the story: Yes, agreed, racist impulses exist, even though they are not malicious. It just goes back to that, one bad apple spoils the bunch kind of thinking.

All that being said, the vast majority of minorities (including women) I work with are upstanding people who work hard, and just want to provide for their families. And I respect that.

 

[CiG]

Also, I believe its been documented that black managers and employers are hesitant to hire black people.

 

[Einherjar86]

Also, I believe its been documented that black managers and employers are hesitant to hire black people.

Are you sure about this? I'm not sure it makes sense.

In other news, how are some people this stupid?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/white-doctor-video-mississauga-1.4168199

Over the course of four minutes of video, a woman asks clinic staff several times for a "white doctor" to treat her son who she says has chest pains. When staff tell her that no such doctor is available, the woman gets angry and at one point says "being white in this country I should just shoot myself."

If I was a white doctor, I'd diagnose the child as needing a new fucking mom.

 

[CiG]

Are you sure about this? I'm not sure it makes sense.

I remember reading that they also in some part buy into stereotypes about young blacks being lazy, unreliable and so on. I'm trying to find the source now.

In other news, how are some people this stupid?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/white-doctor-video-mississauga-1.4168199

If I was a white doctor, I'd diagnose the child as needing a new fucking mom.

Funnily enough, the only bad experience I've ever had with a doctor was with a white one.

 

[rms]

isn't australia like 90% white?

 

[CiG]

Yeah I think it's about 92% or something, but that is sourced via definitions like number of Australians of European ancestry, so for all I know it could include non-white mixed race people.

 

[Dak]

Scott Alexander had a good post on racism the other day that hits on a lot of points discussed in the last few pages.

http://slatestarcodex.com/2017/06/21/against-murderism/

 

[Einherjar86]

Well, I absolutely fall prey to this, but it's usually because it feels easier to keep saying "racism" rather than introducing additional terms. On an individual level, I'd use "bigot" instead of "racist."

That said, I have some problems with it, primarily with his really weird logic when dealing with the different definitions of racism. Take this section in particular:

Suppose the KKK holds a march through some black neighborhood to terrorize the residents. But in fact the counterprotesters outnumber the marchers ten to one, and people are actually reassured that the community supports them. The march is well-covered on various news organizations, and outrages people around the nation, who donate a lot of money to anti-racist organizations and push for stronger laws against the KKK. Plausibly, the net consequences of the march were (unintentionally) very good for black people and damaging to white supremacy. Therefore, by the Sophisticated Definition, the KKK marching the neighborhood to terrorize black residents was not racist. In fact, for the KKK not to march in this situation would be racist!

This assumes the consequences are homogeneous--i.e. that there is no harm caused to any minority community because of all the hypothetical material benefits.

That's absurd because the material benefits outnumbering the symbolic detriments doesn't mean that the symbolic detriments disappear. Even sticking to the logic of consequences, it makes no sense to say that the KKK not marching would be the (more) racist behavior.

If the KKK hadn't marched, the support that was realized because of the march would still be there, supposedly. It just simply wouldn't have to be demonstrated in the first place. The minority community could be comfortable in the fact that they don't have to deal with blatant hostility from hate groups, and derive from this comfort the conclusion that they (the minority) are a widely accepted community. That the support had to be shown underscores their support by the country at large, sure; but it also illuminates the persistence of a loathsome sect that reminds the minority group of their troubled history in this country. The fact that widespread support was shown doesn't erase the negative consequence of a Klan march.

Other than this, sure, he points out a lot of contradictions within progressive rhetoric.