Driving while black--oops, the cops have video

[Rhea]

So if a policeman sees a white man and a black man walking down the street, (barring all other information) it is far more likely that the black man is a murderer. In fact they are ~5x more likely than the white man. If you were a cop looking for a murder suspect who would you stop? How about if you were patrolling in a predominately black neighborhood?

.

So, I'm not sure, but did you just say that cops should racially profile on their beat and assume black men are likely to be criminals? Because it kinda sounded like that's what you just said...

 

[AthenaAwakened]

Do you ever wonder how crime statistics are generated? Where does the data come from, and is it accurate? The dark figure of crime refers to a term utilized by criminologists and others. The phrase is usually used to refer to the number of crimes that are not reported, but also refers to crimes that are unknown to all outside parties or law enforcement not accepting that the law has been broken. Crimes go unreported for various reasons, whether it's from fear of reporting the crimes or from a fear of the police. The failure to report these crimes raises questions about the accuracy of crime statistics.

Based upon the dark figure of crime theory, the crime statistics do not include the dark figure of unreported crimes. Therefore, we do not truly know the specific details of the nature and extent of crimes which have been committed, so the statistics are, in actuality, inaccurate.

http://study.com/academy/lesson/the-dark-figure-of-crime-definition-statistics.html

The quality of the data provided to the FBI, however, is uneven. Reporting to the FBI remains for many jurisdictions a voluntary activity; although many States now mandate that agencies report crime and arrest data to them (which they then forward to the FBI), even in those States local agencies do not always comply. Moreover, despite the efforts of the FBI to maintain their quality, there are many gaps in the data that make their use questionable. While this has had limited impact in the past, the fact that the UCR data have, for the first time, been used to allocate Federal funds brings issues about data quality to center stage.

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/bgpcd.pdf

 

[Godless Raven]

Loren, does racism exist?

Sure it does.

However, it's not enough of a factor to keep people down. The marketplace can't support that at least in most places--if discrimination was enough to suppress black wages then some smart businessman would hire a bunch of cheap black workers. You can only have large-scale discrimination when there is a cost to the company to hire the target of the discrimination. (As there was before the 60s--hiring blacks for non-menial jobs would reflect badly on the company.)

- - - Updated - - -

So black children who grow up in poverty with parents who have used welfare to feed them, and who did not get the opportunity to go to college are not good people. I see what you're saying, and it's not racist at all.

Here is some news for you, racism exists. I have experienced racism many times in various forms, and I am a highly educated brown man with a very well paying job who was raised in an educated family who never needed welfare. I can only imagine what life is like for poor black and brown people who hold modest jobs and can only afford basic transportation.

To a very large degree we reflect our genetics & upbringing. You can't just pretend the problems don't exist, putting gangbangers in Harvard won't improve the situation one bit.

The only real fix is to address the problems very early on.

Putting gangbangers in Harvard!?

Show

 

[Godless Raven]

Americans who are black DO NOT tend to commit more crimes, they simply get away with it less than Americans who are white.

You wouldn't be making the obvious error of confusing percentages with absolute numbers would you?

White people commit most of the crime in the US. White people are attested (and shot/abused) by police more than other groups. (as a percentage I don't know)

However, as a percentage of the population, Black (men specifically) commit a disproportionate number of violent crimes.

For instance we black men make up about 6% of the population but are responsible for about 50% of the murders. This holds for almost all violent crime

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43

So if a policeman sees a white man and a black man walking down the street, (barring all other information) it is far more likely that the black man is a murderer. In fact they are ~5x more likely than the white man. If you were a cop looking for a murder suspect who would you stop? How about if you were patrolling in a predominately black neighborhood?

***

Whether you like this information or not, it has to be acknowledged there is a disproportionate level of violent crime in the black community.

It's also how both the Zodiac Killer and the Son of Sam were able to walk right past police that were looking for black suspects.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

When you're doing something suspicious and are challenged by a cop you should explain yourself

Except when people aren't given the opportunity to explain themselves.

 

[Bomb#20]

Those programs aren't structured by researchers. The most effective ones are structured by EDUCATORS and by pediatricians and developmental psychologists who understand the landscape and the nature of the problem they're trying to solve.

and the government officials nominally running and monitoring it

You mean school administrators? You have a strange idea about how those programs work if you think their control of those programs is only "nominal."

I meant the state and federal officials that those school administrators are nominally accountable to for how they spend those programs' funds. Yes, in some places the school administrators are in actual control; in other places the teachers are in control.

More importantly, you discount the effect of non-government programs like private tutoring, education support programs, Big Brother/Big Sister, Hepzibah and other similar programs. These have been proven effective so often that nobody even disputes their importance anymore.

In the first place, why do you keep trying to make this about me? The problem is that you're accusing LP of inconsistency for not advocating ramping programs up. But that's a perfectly consistent position for him to take given that he doesn't believe they're effective. What I think of either the non-government or the government programs is immaterial to your charge against him.

And in the second place, you're not talking about solving the problems of the underclass with today's BBBSA et al. You're talking about doing it by "funding them to their fullest potential". But a BBBSA funded to its fullest potential would no longer be the BBBSA in anything but name. What, if they had $3 billion a year instead of $30 million they'd do the same things as now only for a hundred times more kids? Where's that $3 billion supposed to come from? A hundred times more grassroots contributors? Bill & Melinda abandoning their other charities? Realistically, $3 billion could only come from the government switching from providing 3% of the BBBSA's income to 99.3%. And that would come with strings attached -- politicians are not going to give the BBBSA $3 billion dollars and then not tell them how to spend it. It is entirely reasonable for a person to accept the effectiveness of today's $30 million BBBSA while remaining highly skeptical of the success prospects of a "funded to its fullest potential" "BBBSA".

My objection is that the reasoning by which you concluded LP was being inconsistent relied on the premise that such a program could be made to be successful on a large scale

Which all the research shows that it can be. The only thing preventing it from being implemented on a large scale is the fact that not all school districts can afford to implement them. Some of those programs are going to be more and less effective than their neighbors for a variety of reasons. And yet the only program that is completely ineffective is the one that is never implemented at all.

Again: you either dispute that the programs WORK, or you dispute that the programs are worth the cost. I've already shown that intervention programs DO work. So if the price tag is the issue, you need to show some numbers.

Dude, get a bloody grip! This is NOT about ME. I don't have to either dispute that they work or dispute that they're worth the cost in order to observe that you think they work, that LP thinks they don't work, and that you're implying he doesn't support them because they're for black people. What, do you live in some fairy land where LP is all for social programs he thinks don't work, as long as they're for white people? Your reasoning about LP is illogical; proving to ME that these programs would solve our problems for a reasonable cost won't magically make your reasoning about LP logical.

"Let's be clear on this: the awesome thing about being a libertarian is that you're free to believe (privately) whatever you like as long as you BEHAVE in a way that is consistent with other people's rights and expectations. Libertarian economic theory has therefore become a safe haven for bigots who are tired of having to apologize for their bigotry and want to be free to believe what they want without being persecuted for their beliefs."

That's an ad hominem.

No, it's an indictment of libertarian theory as a safe haven for racists who can no longer fall back on naked white supremacism as an acceptable political umbrella for their beliefs.

In very much the same way I would describe Yemen as a safe haven for Islamists or Back of the Yards as a safe haven for drug dealers. That's not an ad Hominem against Yemenese or Yardies... unless you think that all Yemenese are terrorists or all Yardies are drug dealers.

Uh huh. So you in no way meant to imply that wanting this safe haven for one's bigotry was the usual motive for adopting libertarian beliefs. Riiiight. And vvvvv this vvvvv was an attempt to get information...

So the libertarian party platform is representative of libertarian thought and belief?

So libertarians have thoughts and beliefs?

 

[Bomb#20]

I wonder how much bomb#20 charges for this crackerjack internet legal defense?

It's pro bono. Stomping on McCarthyism is a good cause.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

In the first place, why do you keep trying to make this about me?

Because you're the one who raised this particular objection.

And in the second place, you're not talking about solving the problems of the underclass with today's BBBSA et al. You're talking about doing it by "funding them to their fullest potential". But a BBBSA funded to its fullest potential would no longer be the BBBSA in anything but name. What, if they had $3 billion a year instead of $30 million they'd do the same things as now only for a hundred times more kids?

Strictly speaking, just tripling their funding would make the program accessible to a much larger group of children in and of itself. That would be a start. Couple that with Federal subsidies for private tutors and education resources, test prep, college prep, etc. The same tutoring programs, in other words, that wealthy suburban parents pay for out of pocket.

Where's that $3 billion supposed to come from?

Maybe we build one less nuclear submarine? It's not as if they're in short supply.

For the record, there are around 35 million students currently enrolled in American elementary schools. I don't actually know how many of them are disadvantaged "inner city youths" of the type LP is describing. It's say it's less than 90%, more than 1%. Split up that $3 billion for private tutoring for those struggling students, focussing on kids in K through 4th grade (where it'll do the most good) and you're looking at anywhere between $200 and $4000 per student.

Is that enough to do the job, or do we need to cancel TWO nuclear submarines?

I don't have to either dispute that they work or dispute that they're worth the cost in order to observe that you think they work, that LP thinks they don't work, and that you're implying he doesn't support them because they're for black people.

And yet we come full circle, every single time, to some intrinsic flaw in "the inner city types" that guarantees that ANY resources spent on improving their situation will be a waste. There are practical hurdles that would need to be overcome, and that goes without saying. Funding, politics, oversight, structural issues... the stuff YOU'RE talking about, basically.

LP objects to the CONCEPT of intervention programs because he does not believe the students that would benefit from those programs are actually worth helping. That isn't a personal bias on his part, it's an ideological one: people who have "disinterested parents" or "inner city culture" simple aren't capable of being helped and the better solution is to find some way to distance that population -- some sort of, I don't know, segregation policy perhaps? -- from students whose parentage and cultural background are more conducive to a productive educational environment.

Now, one is perfectly obliged to claim that being a segregationist does not make you a racist. One can claim that holding the belief that entire groups of people in a specific population are "culturally" defective and therefore should be kept separate from "the better culture" does not make you a racist. People have been claiming that since the 1960s, with varying degrees of credulity from the media.

But I, for one, am not fucking buying it.

Uh huh. So you in no way meant to imply that wanting this safe haven for one's bigotry was the usual motive for adopting libertarian beliefs.

The bolded underlined word is was supplied by you, not by me. Reevaluate this and try again.

I wonder how much bomb#20 charges for this crackerjack internet legal defense?

It's pro bono. Stomping on McCarthyism is a good cause.

ROFL

It's a fucking message board, Bomb. Nobody's blacklisting LP for holding segregationist beliefs.

 

[Rhea]

I wonder how much bomb#20 charges for this crackerjack internet legal defense?

It's pro bono. Stomping on McCarthyism is a good cause.

ROFL

It's a fucking message board, Bomb. Nobody's blacklisting LP for holding segregationist beliefs.

LO f'in L
Bomb, Loren has OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POSTS. He is not suffering any form of McCarthyism. Dude, you jumped the shark with that one.

Blaaaaat - thank you for playing.

 

[laughing dog]

I wonder how much bomb#20 charges for this crackerjack internet legal defense?

It's pro bono. Stomping on McCarthyism is a good cause.

Your Roy Cohn impression is pretty ridiculous.

 

[Godless Raven]

You folks have oppressed Loren long enough!

You've done enough. Have you no sense of decency, sirs/ma'ams? At long last, have you left no sense of decency?

 

[Bomb#20]

But a BBBSA funded to its fullest potential would no longer be the BBBSA in anything but name. What, if they had $3 billion a year instead of $30 million they'd do the same things as now only for a hundred times more kids?

Strictly speaking, just tripling their funding would make the program accessible to a much larger group of children in and of itself. That would be a start.

And you know a way to persuade Congress to become their $60-million-a-year angel donor without giving them orders about how to spend the money, do you?

Where's that $3 billion supposed to come from?

Maybe we build one less nuclear submarine? It's not as if they're in short supply. ... you're looking at anywhere between $200 and $4000 per student. Is that enough to do the job, or do we need to cancel TWO nuclear submarines?

I.e., the government. That's what I said. I wasn't arguing that we couldn't come up with the money. The point is that evidence that a small-scale program directed by personally involved volunteers is effective does not automatically constitute evidence that a large-scale program directed by federal bureaucrats will also be effective. The large programs will inevitably be different in character, not just in size. So no matter how many links to studies of small-scale programs you supply, it is perfectly reasonable for LP to remain skeptical of hypothetical scaled-up programs.

I don't have to either dispute that they work or dispute that they're worth the cost in order to observe that you think they work, that LP thinks they don't work, and that you're implying he doesn't support them because they're for black people.

And yet we come full circle, every single time, to some intrinsic flaw in "the inner city types" that guarantees that ANY resources spent on improving their situation will be a waste.

What evidence do you have that LP thinks spending additional government funds on "inner city types" would not be a waste if only they were white?

LP objects to the CONCEPT of intervention programs because he does not believe the students that would benefit from those programs are actually worth helping. That isn't a personal bias on his part, it's an ideological one: people who have "disinterested parents" or "inner city culture" simple aren't capable of being helped...

That is a bizarre pair of statements. You appear to be claiming LP thinks both that they aren't capable of being helped and also that they would benefit from those programs but aren't worth helping.

and the better solution is to find some way to distance that population -- some sort of, I don't know, segregation policy perhaps? -- from students whose parentage and cultural background are more conducive to a productive educational environment.

Now, one is perfectly obliged to claim that being a segregationist does not make you a racist. One can claim that holding the belief that entire groups of people in a specific population are "culturally" defective and therefore should be kept separate from "the better culture" does not make you a racist. People have been claiming that since the 1960s, with varying degrees of credulity from the media.

Do you think quoting some other person who you feel is similar to LP qualifies as evidence of LP's views? Can you quote LP advocating segregating anyone based on his or her group membership?

Uh huh. So you in no way meant to imply that wanting this safe haven for one's bigotry was the usual motive for adopting libertarian beliefs.

The bolded underlined word is was supplied by you, not by me. Reevaluate this and try again.

I.e., you meant to imply that wanting this safe haven for one's bigotry is a usual motive for adopting libertarian beliefs? Still looks like an ad hominem to me.

It's pro bono. Stomping on McCarthyism is a good cause.

ROFL

It's a ... message board, Bomb. Nobody's blacklisting LP for holding segregationist beliefs.

So what? Back when people were blacklisted because others decided they were communists, that didn't stop them from posting their views on bulletin boards, or for that matter from standing on soapboxes and speaking to all who'd listen. Did that make accusing them of communism non-McCarthyist? LP doesn't get paid to speak on this message board. People who do get paid to speak get blacklisted on a regular basis when others decide their beliefs are racist. So the fact that LP can still freely post here is irrelevant.

What's relevant is this. Back in the days when suspected communists were losing media jobs, do you think the ordinary people who reacted to unorthodox views in non-media people by accusing them of being communists were participants in the culture of McCarthyism? Or do you think they weren't participants?

But hey, apparently I'm wrong, according to two people with proven track records of not giving a rat's ass whether they characterized opponents' positions correctly.

LO f'in L
Bomb, Loren has OVER ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND POSTS. He is not suffering any form of McCarthyism. Dude, you jumped the shark with that one.

Blaaaaat - thank you for playing.

Your Roy Cohn impression is pretty ridiculous.

That would be the same Roy Cohn who lost a three and a half million dollar libel suit. I wonder if Cohn gave a rat's ass whether John Faulk was really a communist.

 

[Crazy Eddie]

I.e., the government. That's what I said. I wasn't arguing that we couldn't come up with the money. The point is that evidence that a small-scale program directed by personally involved volunteers is effective does not automatically constitute evidence that a large-scale program directed by federal bureaucrats will also be effective.

I don't see Federal bureaucrats being necessary for those programs, particularly if the money is being disbursed in the form of grants to eligible organizations that have proven they are capable of using those resources effectively.

However, I do get your point about politicians being meddlesome and annoying. That's a hurdle to be overcome, and it is a BIG one.

What evidence do you have that LP thinks spending additional government funds on "inner city types" would not be a waste if only they were white?

Aside from the usual code words in other threads (e.g. "Inner city types" or "gang bangers into harvard" etc) it's actually the assumption that NOT being white (culturally?) is part of what makes them "inner city types" in the first place. This is actually a relatively common meme for conservolibertarians.

Uh huh. So you in no way meant to imply that wanting this safe haven for one's bigotry was the usual motive for adopting libertarian beliefs.

The bolded underlined word is was supplied by you, not by me. Reevaluate this and try again.

I.e., you meant to imply that wanting this safe haven for one's bigotry is a usual motive for adopting libertarian beliefs?

Slightly better. It's a common motive. Beats me if it's a "usual" one.

So what?

So get down off your horse and take a break. It's just a windmill.