The Hamilton Project seeks to advance America's promise of opportunity, prosperity, and growth.
www.hamiltonproject.org
Thanks for providing this. Unfortunately, there is not much more at the link that the graphs (and not even any error bars on the graph, ugh).
I have some concerns about their methodology. Data on arrests and convictions can be obtained easily enough, but drug use? And selling? Are they relying on self reporting? That makes it is less reliable than objective metrics. Many people would not be willing to admit drug use, and much less dealing, to poll takers. Would blacks be less likely to admit it than whites? I would say it is likely - distrust of authorities and all that. That alone would skew the stats. But that is the least of it. The graph just talks about "use" and "sales" as percentage of population. It does not distinguish the type of drug. It does not distinguish the frequency. Somebody who smokes a joint a couple of times a year is obviously far less likely to get busted that somebody who smokes weed every day. Rate of drug use is more complex than just having used it at some point. It would be in units like man-joints/year, man-lines/year or similar.
I don't think it even accounts for weed being legal in some places even in 2015.
Hamilton Project said:
Black and white Americans sell and use drugs at similar rates, but black Americans are 2.7 times as likely to be arrested for drug-related offenses.
2.7x is far cry from 10x claim from before. And again, socioeconomic and behavioral factors can explain the difference. If you are using or selling in public, you have a much greater chance of getting busted. Police are also more interested in meth, heroin and fentanyl, rather than weed. So there are a lot of variables here the Hamilton Project does not even begin to address.
You think a lot has changed since 2015? Stay tuned.
Well, weed has been legalized in many places since then. That should affect the stats I would say.
Being aware of societal facts and issues are mutually inclusive.
Being concerned about issues and being actually informed about them often have a non-overlapping Vann Diagram. Vapidity of activism is a hallmark of woke. That is not restricted to one race, of course. Plenty of white wokesters out there. Neither is it restricted to one side of the political spectrum. MTG is vapid af - we do not call it woke when it's from the right, but the two phenomena are kissing cousins.
You can't be woke without basing your position on facts.
Here I have to vociferously disagree. Perhaps the issue is that you approach it by looking at some sort of a Platonic ideal of woke, while I look at actually existing woke, specifically as it emerged after the 2014 Ferguson riots (aka "uprising" as the woke call it).
You can't be aware of issues (of racial and social justice) without being aware of societal facts. You like many racist white people before you, appropriate terms for nefarious purposes only to have it bite you in the ass later.
Edit: I'm not calling you racist. I'm saying what you're doing is very similar to what racist people have done.
Thanks for the edit. I already wanted to hit that report button.
That white racists call out black extremism is not surprising. But a lot more people than them will and should out black extremism.
Racial extremism, nationalism, supremacism or "power" are not magically benign when they come from one race.
I am not appropriating nothing though, much less for nefarious purposes. Appropriating woke would be to try to use it to describe myself.
Instead I am describing those who have been using the term for themselves. Of course, I do not have a positive view of them, so my view of the label "woke" they use for themselves is similarly negative.
www.startribune.com
