• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

My city, Minneapolis, On Fire: a story about white nationalism and it's consequences

Metaphor said:
The logical incoherence of Toni's claim--implied by her paragraph numbered 2, is not an empirical question. It's logically incoherent. She implied men had access to wealth that women did not, and the reason she gave was ancestral wealth accumulation alone.

...

I didn't make a positive claim that men and women inherited differently. Toni made that claim.

I also made a claim that brothers and sisters have the same ancestors as each other, and that sexed discrimination in inheritance would make no sexed difference to who has access to that wealth in the current generation. That claim is true.
Click to expand...

No offense, but who cares if that claim is true if by your own admission it's factually irrelevant? We're not trying to grade homework assignments on proofs. Spending multiple pages complaining about a missing assumption when you concede the underlying point seems like... well sniping. And it's also not addressing the fact that wealth provides benefits beyond being bequeathed.

My greatest regret isn't having spent the time reading it, but that I can't go back and warn anyone further up the thread.
 
ruby sparks said:
Loren Pechtel said:
ruby sparks said:
I also read that whites are twice as likely to receive an inheritance as blacks?
Click to expand...

It wouldn't surprise me. The important point is most people will not receive an inheritance that will change their life substantially.
Click to expand...

Hm. Maybe. Have you actually looked into that?

“inheritance, bequests, and in-vivo transfers account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other behavioral, demographic or socioeconomic indicator.”

Receiving an inheritance helps white families more than black families
https://www.epi.org/publication/rec...elps-white-families-more-than-black-families/

Obviously, the EPI is left-leaning, so I would take that into account. That said, sources for similar conclusions are readily found.
Click to expand...

EPI leans so far that they're not trustworthy.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
ruby sparks said:
Hm. Maybe. Have you actually looked into that?

“inheritance, bequests, and in-vivo transfers account for more of the racial wealth gap than any other behavioral, demographic or socioeconomic indicator.”

Receiving an inheritance helps white families more than black families
https://www.epi.org/publication/rec...elps-white-families-more-than-black-families/

Obviously, the EPI is left-leaning, so I would take that into account. That said, sources for similar conclusions are readily found.
Click to expand...

EPI leans so far that they're not trustworthy.
Click to expand...

"Poison well fallacy". It shouldn't be hard to argue against the study if it's biased, but the conclusion isn't suspect facially. It aligns very strongly with my own experience in that without access to generational wealth me and many other families would have been straight fucked.

Generational wealth is something black families lack in general, especially seeing as the sproutlings of black generational wealth have been trampled with great prejudice whenever they arose in the 20th century, and it hasn't been long enough since those repeated tragedies to sprout up again.

The conclusions seem solid on their face, and the errors expected from bias don't seem to be extreme enough to invalidate the conclusions.
 
With respect to the tragedies of white supremecist attacks, when white people protest the merely alleged crimes of black people, they slaughter every black person they can find. When black people protest the crimes of white people, a few businesses get looted, and then white cops shoot the black people (and anyone else protesting with them) anyway.

Edit: and let's be clear here. It isn't every white person slaughtering black people. It's a specific subset: it is white supremecists. There are plenty of people of all races standing and protesting these events. We are also getting shot by cops with rubber bullets and CS canisters. But when the smoke all clears, I won't be afraid of being shot by a cop at a "routine" traffic stop, and I won't be afraid of being beat within an inch of my life if I walk past a cop smelling vaguely of marijuana for "resisting". I don't have those worries. I don't think black people should have to have those worries either. But they do. So I stand with them in protest
 
Last edited:
Loren Pechtel said:
EPI leans so far that they're not trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, it's something to take into account, but not something that automatically discounts the data.

And elsewhere you cited a Police Magazine with no apparent qualms about leanings.

You are also a bit inconsistent when it comes to citing Lott, because you are always banging on about method and supposed lack of controls, and yet unlike a number of other studies offered to you here on the forum, Lott seems to have virtually no controls at all. Any number of things could have caused the rise in reported crime (and the correlation, which Lott found, although others haven't, with increases in minority policing) over the period studied.

What I will say is this. I agree with you that lowering entrance standards to achieve diversity is not a good thing. The harm, if any, it does is imo possibly exaggerated by some however. But it is a valid consideration. It may also help bring about improvements. I'd guess the outcomes are mixed. In principle however, lowering entrance standards would be iffy, imo. Except as a measure of last resort, in a severe or urgent situation, where the potential benefits might outweigh the potential drawbacks. Even then it would be a delicate issue and only to be resorted to temporarily. Not lowering entrance standards would be much better. If that means fewer diversity hires then so be it, imo.

One way to address this would be to in fact raise standards generally, for all applicants (and trainees). However, I guess that in the real world of financing and supply and demand, this might not be easy to implement. But I think it should be possible to have a good go at, and American society as a whole, and the police, might benefit. And also, there are other ways to try to increase diversity without resorting to lowering standards or implementing quotas and the like.
 
Last edited:
ruby sparks said:
Loren Pechtel said:
EPI leans so far that they're not trustworthy.
Click to expand...

Well, yes, it's something to take into account, but not something that automatically discounts the data.

And elsewhere you cited a Police Magazine with no apparent qualms about leanings.

You are also a bit inconsistent when it comes to citing Lott, because you are always banging on about method and supposed lack of controls, and yet unlike a number of other studies offered to you here on the forum, Lott seems to have virtually no controls at all. Any number of things could have caused the rise in reported crime (and the correlation, which Lott found, although others haven't, with increases in minority policing) over the period studied.
Click to expand...

I find Lott's data trustworthy, I do not find his conclusions trustworthy. He cherry picks and sees things in the data that aren't valid.

What I will say is this. I agree with you that lowering entrance standards to achieve diversity is not a good thing. The harm, if any, it does is imo possibly exaggerated by some however. But it is a valid consideration. It may also help bring about improvements. I'd guess the outcomes are mixed. In principle however, lowering entrance standards would be iffy, imo. Except as a measure of last resort, in a severe or urgent situation, where the potential benefits might outweigh the potential drawbacks. Even then it would be a delicate issue and only to be resorted to temporarily. Not lowering entrance standards would be much better. If that means fewer diversity hires then so be it, imo.
Click to expand...

In the real world AA virtually always is a matter of lowering standards. Improvements that could be done without that were the low-hanging fruit that got picked off early.

One way to address this would be to in fact raise standards generally, for all applicants (and trainees). However, I guess that in the real world of financing and supply and demand, this might not be easy to implement. But I think it should be possible to have a good go at, and American society as a whole, and the police, might benefit. And also, there are other ways to try to increase diversity without resorting to lowering standards or implementing quotas and the like.
Click to expand...

The other ways were tried early on and didn't produce the requested results.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
I find Lott's data trustworthy, I do not find his conclusions trustworthy. He cherry picks and sees things in the data that aren't valid.

What I will say is this. I agree with you that lowering entrance standards to achieve diversity is not a good thing. The harm, if any, it does is imo possibly exaggerated by some however. But it is a valid consideration. It may also help bring about improvements. I'd guess the outcomes are mixed. In principle however, lowering entrance standards would be iffy, imo. Except as a measure of last resort, in a severe or urgent situation, where the potential benefits might outweigh the potential drawbacks. Even then it would be a delicate issue and only to be resorted to temporarily. Not lowering entrance standards would be much better. If that means fewer diversity hires then so be it, imo.
Click to expand...

In the real world AA virtually always is a matter of lowering standards. Improvements that could be done without that were the low-hanging fruit that got picked off early.

One way to address this would be to in fact raise standards generally, for all applicants (and trainees). However, I guess that in the real world of financing and supply and demand, this might not be easy to implement. But I think it should be possible to have a good go at, and American society as a whole, and the police, might benefit. And also, there are other ways to try to increase diversity without resorting to lowering standards or implementing quotas and the like.
Click to expand...

The other ways were tried early on and didn't produce the requested results.
Click to expand...

Ok. I can go along with that, I think. I won’t question it at least.

So, imagine yourself as an influential senior advisor to a US government or whatever relevant authority. What alternative policies or approaches would you advocate, in this sphere, or other spheres where there are minorities or minorities applying (eg college entrance for example although it’s a bit away from the OP) that you feel might be more productive? Nothing pie in the sky in other words. Things that you think would both help to make a positive difference and actually be practically achievable. And not just leaving aside or avoiding or cutting out policies that you think would not work (or in your view haven’t). Something instead of them.

I guess that unless you propose a laissez-faire approach (which would surprise me) you will advocate for race-neutral policies, right?

If so, and I am definitely not opposed to the idea at all, I would ask you why you think those would work better, or in fact much more to the point whether there is good evidence or precedent that they do work better. Because if they actually have, it’s sort of a no-brainer and race-based AA should be ditched, in all spheres, even in its weak forms.

I know you’re not in favour of ostensibly ‘race-neutral’ policies such as the Texas 10% rule for college applications, because you feel that it’s race-based AA in disguise, which I’m not entirely convinced it is, but anyway, wouldn’t almost any progressive socioeconomic policy also have proportionally more benefits for minorities (per capita)? And if so, wouldn’t that be ok?

Based on our previous disagreements, I am going to guess in advance that whatever your suggestions, it’s likely that I personally might feel more is needed, but I’m going to give you a shot, an opportunity to make a pitch, because even if we don’t agree on everything we might agree on some things.

Sorry I guess I broadened out and away from policing there. You can just do policing if you like. In which case you might cite Camden? If so, what is it about that example that you endorse in particular?
 
Last edited:
ruby sparks said:
So, imagine yourself as an influential senior advisor to a US government or whatever relevant authority. What alternative policies or approaches would you advocate, in this sphere, or other spheres where there are minorities or minorities applying (eg college entrance for example although it’s a bit away from the OP) that you feel might be more productive? Nothing pie in the sky in other words. Things that you think would both help to make a positive difference and actually be practically achievable. And not just leaving aside or avoiding or cutting out policies that you think would not work (or in your view haven’t). Something instead of them.

I guess that unless you propose a laissez-faire approach (which would surprise me) you will advocate for race-neutral policies, right?
Click to expand...

What I favor is to the extent feasible the people making the decision should not know the race, gender and religion of the people they are deciding on. Actively neutral, not merely laissez-faire.

If so, and I am definitely not opposed to the idea at all, I would ask you why you think those would work better, or in fact much more to the point whether there is good evidence or precedent that they do work better. Because if they actually have, it’s sort of a no-brainer and race-based AA should be ditched, in all spheres, even in its weak forms.
Click to expand...

Define "work better".

I know you’re not in favour of ostensibly ‘race-neutral’ policies such as the Texas 10% rule for college applications, because you feel that it’s race-based AA in disguise, which I’m not entirely convinced it is, but anyway, wouldn’t almost any progressive socioeconomic policy also have proportionally more benefits for minorities (per capita)? And if so, wouldn’t that be ok?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with disparate results--progressive socioeconomic policies will benefit minorities more and that's how it should be--the help should go where it's needed. Race should not be a proxy for who needs help, though.

Based on our previous disagreements, I am going to guess in advance that whatever your suggestions, it’s likely that I personally might feel more is needed, but I’m going to give you a shot, an opportunity to make a pitch, because even if we don’t agree on everything we might agree on some things.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of quantity, it's a matter of approach. I favor helping those who actually need it, not those who simply share characteristics with those who need it.

Sorry I guess I broadened out and away from policing there. You can just do policing if you like. In which case you might cite Camden? If so, what is it about that example that you endorse in particular?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at Camden in detail, but it seems like they got it right.

However, I do have a few suggestions for improving the police situation:

1) Basically end the drug war. I would divide the drugs into three categories:

A) Those which do not cause serious harm to their users. (Example, marijuana) Fully legal, but I would like to see severe restrictions on advertising--basically limit ads to product/price--promoting your deal, not the product. (Yes, I can see 1st Amendment problems here, I don't know the solution.)

B) Drugs which pose a high harm to their users. (Example, meth) Legal by prescription, addiction is explicitly a valid reason for a prescription.

C) Drugs which are frequently used as date-rape drugs. Legal by prescription to addicts, doctors are required to try to move such patients to similar drugs that aren't so useful for date rape.

2) Legalize prostitution. You need a license which requires frequent STD checks to maintain. The license may be issued in a pseudonym. Licenses contain a QR code, when scanned it brings up the government's copy of the license, which includes whether it's currently valid.

These steps have taken a big bite out of crime income and thus not only reduced crime but reduced it's organization.

3) Body cameras. Under normal conditions you're not a cop without your camera running, unless your camera fails because of the direct or indirect actions of the suspect(s). (Indirect includes things like the camera being damaged because the cop ran into something in a chase.) In general, a cop can only testify about matters his camera wouldn't have recorded. This makes it much harder for a cop to make up things.

4) No-knock warrants. With the drug war out of the way there won't be a lot of demand for these. To the extent they are needed they should be handled by robots. If the police are searching for [x] and the robot records you apparently destroying [x] the police get a presumption that it was [x]. At this point about the only reason for a raid is a hostage situation.
 
Loren Pechtel said:
What I favor is to the extent feasible the people making the decision should not know the race, gender and religion of the people they are deciding on. Actively neutral, not merely laissez-faire.



Define "work better".

I know you’re not in favour of ostensibly ‘race-neutral’ policies such as the Texas 10% rule for college applications, because you feel that it’s race-based AA in disguise, which I’m not entirely convinced it is, but anyway, wouldn’t almost any progressive socioeconomic policy also have proportionally more benefits for minorities (per capita)? And if so, wouldn’t that be ok?
Click to expand...

I have no problem with disparate results--progressive socioeconomic policies will benefit minorities more and that's how it should be--the help should go where it's needed. Race should not be a proxy for who needs help, though.

Based on our previous disagreements, I am going to guess in advance that whatever your suggestions, it’s likely that I personally might feel more is needed, but I’m going to give you a shot, an opportunity to make a pitch, because even if we don’t agree on everything we might agree on some things.
Click to expand...

It's not a matter of quantity, it's a matter of approach. I favor helping those who actually need it, not those who simply share characteristics with those who need it.

Sorry I guess I broadened out and away from policing there. You can just do policing if you like. In which case you might cite Camden? If so, what is it about that example that you endorse in particular?
Click to expand...

I haven't looked at Camden in detail, but it seems like they got it right.

However, I do have a few suggestions for improving the police situation:

1) Basically end the drug war. I would divide the drugs into three categories:

A) Those which do not cause serious harm to their users. (Example, marijuana) Fully legal, but I would like to see severe restrictions on advertising--basically limit ads to product/price--promoting your deal, not the product. (Yes, I can see 1st Amendment problems here, I don't know the solution.)

B) Drugs which pose a high harm to their users. (Example, meth) Legal by prescription, addiction is explicitly a valid reason for a prescription.

C) Drugs which are frequently used as date-rape drugs. Legal by prescription to addicts, doctors are required to try to move such patients to similar drugs that aren't so useful for date rape.

2) Legalize prostitution. You need a license which requires frequent STD checks to maintain. The license may be issued in a pseudonym. Licenses contain a QR code, when scanned it brings up the government's copy of the license, which includes whether it's currently valid.

These steps have taken a big bite out of crime income and thus not only reduced crime but reduced it's organization.

3) Body cameras. Under normal conditions you're not a cop without your camera running, unless your camera fails because of the direct or indirect actions of the suspect(s). (Indirect includes things like the camera being damaged because the cop ran into something in a chase.) In general, a cop can only testify about matters his camera wouldn't have recorded. This makes it much harder for a cop to make up things.

4) No-knock warrants. With the drug war out of the way there won't be a lot of demand for these. To the extent they are needed they should be handled by robots. If the police are searching for [x] and the robot records you apparently destroying [x] the police get a presumption that it was [x]. At this point about the only reason for a raid is a hostage situation.
Click to expand...

There’s not a lot there I would disagree with.

I probably would go a bit further than you towards doing at least something specifically on race grounds, because there ARE racial problems, quite serious ones (albeit tied into socioeconomics and other things, but still as a separate strand) and by and large specific problems deserve tailored solutions. But we don’t need to fall out about that (again). We just have different views and different thresholds.

As to defining ‘work better’ I’m open to being flexible on that. In general I mean better for America and all (or at least more) Americans overall, on balance.

I don’t have time now to go into more detail. Thanks for the thorough reply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom