# We Are #2! Minnesota No Longer the Most Institutionally Racist. (Still #1 best place to be White)

#### Nice Squirrel

##### Contributor
http://www.citypages.com/news/were-no-2-wisconsin-now-more-racist-than-minnesota/390333382

We're No. 2! Wisconsin now more racist than Minnesota

According to an end-of-year report by financial news site 24/7 Wall Street, Wisconsin’s black unemployment rate is a staggering 20.8 percent (highest in the nation), and its incarceration rate is third highest, mostly thanks to Milwaukee.

The median annual income for black households is $26,053. That’s less than half of white Sconnies’ median income of$56,083.

Minnesota, though comparably less bleak, ranks an unfortunate No. 2 on 24/7 Wall Street’s list. Here, 216 per 100,000 white people are imprisoned, while black Minnesotans are incarcerated at 2,321 out of 100,000.

As for median income, black households in Minnesota don’t earn much more than they do in Wisconsin at just \$27,026 a year. That's also less than half of what white Minnesotans make.

No wonder then, that black homeownership rate here is the eighth lowest in the nation: 24 percent.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
Just because blacks in Wisconsin are not doing as well as elsewhere in the US does not mean that Wisconsin is "institutionally racist". There are glaring gaps in that logic.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Warning Level 1
Just because blacks in Wisconsin are not doing as well as elsewhere in the US does not mean that Wisconsin is "institutionally racist". There are glaring gaps in that logic.

This is probably just virtue signaling.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
Just because blacks in Wisconsin are not doing as well as elsewhere in the US does not mean that Wisconsin is "institutionally racist".
It is evidence that is consistent with institutional racism.
There are glaring gaps in that logic.
Irony.

#### Derec

##### Contributor
It is evidence that is consistent with institutional racism.
It's also consistent with many other things.

Strange lights in the sky are consistent with alien spaceships. They are, however, also consistent with terrestrial airplanes or atmospheric phenomena.

You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you in the ass.

#### barbos

##### Contributor
What is the difference between #1 and #25?
One of the comments says that insane percentage of blacks in Minnesota are actually immigrants from Africa, that can completely screw your data.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Warning Level 1
Consistent with institutional racism.

#### Tom Sawyer

##### Super Moderator
Staff member
The only real solution is to increase taxes on Asians.

#### JonA

##### Senior Member
Just because blacks in Wisconsin are not doing as well as elsewhere in the US does not mean that Wisconsin is "institutionally racist". There are glaring gaps in that logic.

When people hear "black", they think of the descendents of slaves, etc.

But in places like Minnesota, "black" includes hordes of recently-arrived east African refugees - who tend to have less education and income (and more problems stemming from this) than more members of established groups regardless of skin color or the presence or absence of 'institutional racism'.

#### Jarhyn

##### Wizard
I'm from Minnesota myself. I live in North Minneapolis, a few miles from where that jackass got himself shot and killed trying to beat his girlfriend. I have to go past there to get to the post office.

There are many factors in play here. One is the reality that the vast majority of African Americans I meet are complete jerks. I do not *logically* ascribe this to the fact that they have dark completions, but to the fact that they are by virtue of their poverty and the culture of their upbringing, loud, obnoxious, posturing buffoons. Oftentimes the difference I see between an interaction that is friendly and an interaction that is an invitation to a physical altercation is *whether the person they are talking to interprets it one way or the other*. And because of that, my unfortunate ape brain draws an unearned causal connection between blackness and being one of "those people".

The problem with Minneapolis to me isn't that people here want to be or even really are 'more racist' but that in this area, the racial divide along poverty has more momentum than other places. While I understand it did not arise accidentally, it does CONTINUE accidentally, and I don't know of any practical way to fix it short of things that would be deemed unconscionable (like swapping out babies at the maternity ward so that wealthy families have African American children and visa versa).

Things would at least be better if we redistributed school funds, and did away with private schools or made educational taxes a state rather than municipal function, so that kids could get real educational opportunities regardless of where they were born, but it doesn't address the issue of peer pressure or social networking shortfalls

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
It's also consistent with many other things. ...
Sigh - data cannot prove anything. Data is either consistent with a hypothesis or it isn't. I realize it is difficult to diffuse kneejerk reactions, but please try to use a semblance of basic reasoning before responding.
You wouldn't recognize logic if it bit you in the ass.
If that is how you recognize logic, tell logic to bite you harder.

#### ronburgundy

##### Contributor
It is evidence that is consistent with institutional racism.

In the same way that a person recovering from cancer is "evidence consistent with" a loving God who answered their prayers.

A fact being consistent with a claim does not qualify it as "evidence". It must be a fact that is not also consistent with other plausible accounts.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
A fact being consistent with a claim does not qualify it as "evidence". It must be a fact that is not also consistent with other plausible accounts.
That is simply untrue. A particular fact can be consistent with other plausible accounts and still be evidence. Usually it is an agglomeration of facts that provide convincing evidence for a particular account.

#### ronburgundy

##### Contributor
A fact being consistent with a claim does not qualify it as "evidence". It must be a fact that is not also consistent with other plausible accounts.
That is simply untrue. A particular fact can be consistent with other plausible accounts and still be evidence. Usually it is an agglomeration of facts that provide convincing evidence for a particular account.

IOW, you consider every person who survives cancer or any other life threatening disease to be evidence of a loving God. That reduces "evidence" to something of virtually zero value in evaluating the validity of claims.

#### Trausti

##### Contributor
Warning Level 1
That is simply untrue. A particular fact can be consistent with other plausible accounts and still be evidence. Usually it is an agglomeration of facts that provide convincing evidence for a particular account.

IOW, you consider every person who survives cancer or any other life threatening disease to be evidence of a loving God. That reduces "evidence" to something of virtually zero value in evaluating the validity of claims.

That's not fair. Laughing dog is correct - in this instance, anyway. That income and other achievement differences exist is a fact. Like telling the doctor you have a fever. Though that fact, alone, does not give a conclusion or diagnosis. It may be consistent with many things, but not diagnostic of those things. So if a doctor says you need an orchiectomy because you have a fever, suggest that he get more information first.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
That is simply untrue. A particular fact can be consistent with other plausible accounts and still be evidence. Usually it is an agglomeration of facts that provide convincing evidence for a particular account.

IOW, you consider every person who survives cancer or any other life threatening disease to be evidence of a loving God. That reduces "evidence" to something of virtually zero value in evaluating the validity of claims.

Whatever imaginary axe you are seeking to grind, I would suggest that you find a different way to argue your point, if you have one. As regards the above post, you make as much sense and are as relevant as if you had suggested that elephants look better in pink tutus than they do in bowler hats.

#### laughing dog

##### Contributor
That is simply untrue. A particular fact can be consistent with other plausible accounts and still be evidence. Usually it is an agglomeration of facts that provide convincing evidence for a particular account.

IOW, you consider every person who survives cancer or any other life threatening disease to be evidence of a loving God. That reduces "evidence" to something of virtually zero value in evaluating the validity of claims.
As two other posters have pointed out, you are mistaken. The OP facts are consistent with the hypothesis that there is institutional racism against blacks in Wisconsin. Some people may find those facts sufficiently convincing evidence to conclude that there is institutional racism in Wisconsin. Other people may not find those facts sufficiently convincing evidence to come to that conclusion, but that does negate that reality that those are facts. It appears you are confusing the tool (facts) with the outcome (conclusion).

Last edited:

#### barbos

##### Contributor
Anyone with more than a half of brain understands that any disparity in arrests is more consistent with disparity (for whatever reasons) in propensity to crime.

#### ronburgundy

##### Contributor
IOW, you consider every person who survives cancer or any other life threatening disease to be evidence of a loving God. That reduces "evidence" to something of virtually zero value in evaluating the validity of claims.
As two other posters have pointed out, you are mistaken. The OP facts are consistent with the hypothesis that there is institutional racism against blacks in Wisconsin. Some people may find those facts sufficiently convincing evidence to conclude that there is institutional racism in Wisconsin. Other people may not find those facts sufficiently convincing evidence to come to that conclusion, but that does negate that reality that those are facts. It appears you are confusing the tool (facts) with the outcome (conclusion).

You are confusing something being a fact with it being "evidence of" a particular claim. When the fact is something that is predicted to be the case, whether or not a particular claim is true, then it is not evidence for that hypothesis, even if the hypothesis is consistent with that fact.
Again, your assertion that this fact is evidence is no different than the assertion that every cancer survivor is evidence of a loving God that answers prayers. The consistency alone fails to increase the relative probability of the hypothesis being true rather than false enough to warrant calling it evidence, without reducing the "evidence" to something so meaningless that it should play no part in any rational discussion.

#### ronburgundy

##### Contributor
IOW, you consider every person who survives cancer or any other life threatening disease to be evidence of a loving God. That reduces "evidence" to something of virtually zero value in evaluating the validity of claims.

Whatever imaginary axe you are seeking to grind, I would suggest that you find a different way to argue your point, if you have one. As regards the above post, you make as much sense and are as relevant as if you had suggested that elephants look better in pink tutus than they do in bowler hats.

Your inability to grasp logic or rational principles of evidence is the cause of your failure to see the sense and relevance of my post, which makes the valid point that a fact does not become "evidence" for a claim merely by being consistent with it, but only by also being inconsistent with possible realities where that claim is false.
That is why all valid science operates not by seeking evidence merely consistent with a given claim, but by eliminating alternatives than predict something other than the observed facts. Eliminating various alternative possible factors that could produce an observed fact is the purpose of the methods of sampling, control, manipulation, and statistical analysis in science. Without these you merely have a pile of facts with no value as "evidence".

#### ronburgundy

##### Contributor
IOW, you consider every person who survives cancer or any other life threatening disease to be evidence of a loving God. That reduces "evidence" to something of virtually zero value in evaluating the validity of claims.

That's not fair. Laughing dog is correct - in this instance, anyway. That income and other achievement differences exist is a fact. Like telling the doctor you have a fever. Though that fact, alone, does not give a conclusion or diagnosis. It may be consistent with many things, but not diagnostic of those things. So if a doctor says you need an orchiectomy because you have a fever, suggest that he get more information first.

I am not disputing whether it is a fact, but whether a fact is "evidence of" X merely by being consistent with X, even when it is just as consistent with infinite universes where "not X" is the case.
Cancer survival is also a fact, and it is consistent with a loving God. But reasonable people wouldn't claim that the fact of cancer survival is evidence of a loving God any more than they would say that the facts in the OP are evidence for especially high institutional racism in Milwaukee.
Nearly ever conceivable false idea has countless facts that are consistent with it. Thus, that mere consistency fails to favor an idea from being true over it being false. It must be shown to be more consistent with more of the facts than the alternative theories.

BTW, that doesn't even count the fact that the facts are not even consistent with any viable theory of racism, given that the facts include Asians faring better than the whites who have majority control charge of the institutions, and that differences between various racial groups is inconsistent across the different outcome measures being discussed. That is inconsistent with race itself playing a causal role, but rather more consistent with the causal role of some variable(s) that are correlated with race but variably related to the outcome measures.

#### Toni

##### Contributor
Whatever imaginary axe you are seeking to grind, I would suggest that you find a different way to argue your point, if you have one. As regards the above post, you make as much sense and are as relevant as if you had suggested that elephants look better in pink tutus than they do in bowler hats.

Your inability to grasp logic or rational principles of evidence is the cause of your failure to see the sense and relevance of my post, which makes the valid point that a fact does not become "evidence" for a claim merely by being consistent with it, but only by also being inconsistent with possible realities where that claim is false.
That is why all valid science operates not by seeking evidence merely consistent with a given claim, but by eliminating alternatives than predict something other than the observed facts. Eliminating various alternative possible factors that could produce an observed fact is the purpose of the methods of sampling, control, manipulation, and statistical analysis in science. Without these you merely have a pile of facts with no value as "evidence".

Ah, the sound and fury, using up bandwidth and signifying nothing.

Actually reading an exchange could possibly improve your ability to respond. I'm not holding my breath, though.