The Glade 4.0

This is the part I'm getting at though. There was obviously a tail period between when formal, legal discrimination ended and when informal, private discrimination became sufficiently rare for it to no longer have a significant impact on the average outcomes and experiences of black people. I'm curious how long you think that tail period was.

How do you want to quantify it? By its nature, it's a tapering tail that probably asymptotically approaches 0 but never arrives at it. So what threshold should we apply? We've probably passed most reasonable thresholds in 2016, but putting a number to when will depend on the threshold, which is pretty arbitrary.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

Seeing as how it, as Kaffis pointed out, is a continuous process, it is not possible to define an exact length. However, it takes roughly 20 years for generational change - a baby to grow to adulthood, a young adult to reach midlife and the point of either having an established career or being more or less a non-contributor, and 20 more years to approximately retirement age. There's also a 50-year cycle - the time from adolesence (early political understanding age) to retirement (generation begins to die off).

We're presently just over 50 years since the 2 "Rights Acts" of the mid-1960s - kids who were teenagers at that time are now at retirement age. That means that there is essentially no generation left barring the actively-dying-off elderly who actually lived with Jim Crow when they were old enough to fully grasp its implications. That is a lot of qualifiers, of course, but over the next 10 years those qualifiers will disappear. We have spent the last 50 years enforcing laws and improving, but that is presently ignored by both the political Left and race pimps like Al Sharpton. Those same black kids have, despite 50 years of gradual improvement, been told by the Left and the race pimps, that they are always on the verge of falling back into Jim Crow. The goalposts are always moved and these people have internalized that and are passing it on to the current generation.

As to the 20-year cycle, the first indication that we'd moved past the point where discrimination truly mattered came approximately 20 years after the civil rights era (1964 CRA, 1965 VRA, 1968 rioting) in 1987 - The Tawana Brawley incident. This was the first nationally-prominent incident of fabricated racial outrage and it came right as the generational stages fully changed from the mid-1960s.

A change in generations meant a shift in attitudes. An entire generation of voters had gone from the age of majority to mid-career without living in the segregation era. Attitudes were fundamentally different and real progress was being made and sure enough, people like Al Sharpton found it necessary to either outright invent a racial incident, or at least to capitalize on one invented by a teenager for whatever reason she might have done it (I doubt very much Brawley herself was sophisticated enough at 15 to invent a racial assault for national political purposes.)

So if you're looking for a concrete indicator that things had tangibly changed, that's a good demarcation point - the first incident of, rather than championing general legislative and enforcement achievements, of picking out individual incidents and generating outrage over them - regardless of factual accuracy.

Another, similar incident came in 2007 with the Duke rape case - which combined gender and racial outrages in a fabricated incident.

And, if you're looking for confirmation of the trend, we've had at least 2 white people fabricating black heritage in the last year and portraying themselves as black in order to claim to have been targets of racism.

When people are eager to get a piece of that sweet, sweet oppression, that's a clue you're not being oppressed. We've also got black kids running around claiming to be victims of horrible racism on campus. Kids on colleges in the United States are some of the most privileged human beings on earth.

We're seeing signs of a political way of thinking desperately clawing for relevance as it approaches its death throes. The Republicans are being forced to re-examine what their voters want by the reality of Trump. The Democrats and the Left are having theirs delayed by the trainwreck of the Republicans, but you're about to feel the same pain and its high time you started thinking about where you're going to go once racism and women's issues are fully exposed as past their expiration dates. Trump keeping the cameras off the protestors and feminists is the only thing delaying this.

((I don't want to hear any complaining about long answers, either, since no booze has yet arrived at my door!))

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not according to your own link:



Indeed, it's well understood that blacks do get harassed more than whites, on a proportion level, in every type of community. This fact should not be ignored, and there should be constant, never ending efforts to push back against this. It is right, just, and proper to do so.

There are a billion other reforms needed, from incarcerating fewer people, eliminating predatory fine practices like what was identified in Ferguson, changing the culture of distrust between blacks and the fuzz, and changing the culture of distrust between blacks and whites. All of these efforts must necessarily be led by the black community. BLM has a place, and it's certainly a just organization, in terms of intent. Like any organization fueled by anger, though, it's going to have its share of problems. Worse, I believe they have dispersed leadership, so there's no "pr guy" that can come right out and denounce a riot; so it's more of a challenge for them to get a coherent and proper message out.

Um, that's exactly what I just said. They're looking only at racial disparity, and assuming that means bias. The fact is the blacks commit far more crimes than whites; it therefore stands to reason that they would be stopped more.

So yes, my link - and what you wuoted - exactly support what I was saying.


No, it's not "well understood"; that's the issue at hand. Being stopped by the police is not automatically being "harassed". It does not matter that it happens more to blacks, because criminal behavior is not comparable across racial lines. The reasons why it is not are complex and have a long history, but it is not the job of the police to remedy historic economic disparaties that lead to present poverty and the crime associated with it.

It is NOT "right, just, and proper" to give Blacks racial discount on arrests just to make sure that it's proportional to those of whites. That is incredibly racist.

[/quote]

These efforts not only must not be led by the "black community", they can't be. The problem is that there is a "black community". The fact that such a large proportion of black people understand these issues only in terms of their own skin color, and make contradictory demands on society, government, police, and "white people" makes progress almost impossible, and it won't be possible as long as this remains the case. Worse, black people feel entitled - encouraged by their leaders talking about "white America" to view whites as if white people are some homogenous group with a common experience, when in fact white people have the LEAST common experience of any racial group in America.

BLM has no place at all. It is an excuse for violent thuggery and race-based bigotry excused by an entirely obsolete sense of victimhood. It is not a "just organization" at all - the issues it is fighting simply do not exist. They are entirely a product of blowing anecdotal incidents out of proportion; individual incidents, even if completely outrageous, cannot possibly indicate a pattern in this country. The fact that there's time to report on and get outraged over individual shootings indicates they are statistically so rare as to be meaningless. This is a country of 320 million people; a black person getting shot by police every week or even every day (or anyone else for that matter) is not meaningful.

Also, this is the second time in a row that the DOJ has found it necessary to investigate the overall processes of a police department after police were subjected to accusations of misconduct that turned out to be complete hogwash. That should be no surprise when you hire all your lawyers with a mind to getting civil rights crusaders on board.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Of note, you're about as likely to be hit by lightning as shot by the police.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's completely short sighted. They aren't just worried about being shot by police. It's systemic bias that's the problem. It goes way beyond just getting shot, and is a serious concern. Not just in Baltimore, but many areas.



That's not what I said. It's just that the black community push back against the systemic bias. They are pushing back, and to some degree, it's working. Reports like what's been issued by the DOJ are a start. It's getting attention at least.

Milo Yanassahole is not a good poster boy here. He's kind of a tool, and says **** to be controversial.

_________________

Holy shitsnacks!

Except that.. it isn't. There is no "systemic bias". There's disparity, but disparity by itself is not attributable to bias, especially in view of present statistics about the prevalence of violent crime.



There isn't any systemic bias to push back against. Crime statistics don't support it.

Demanding that stop and arrest statistics match those of other races when crime statistics don't amounts to a demand for a racial discount for black people. This necessarily follows from what you said. It's irrelevant that you didn't say it explicitly - you can't avoid it.

Reports by the DOJ focus on disparity in enforcement while avoiding the disparities in crime are themselves suspect.

We are talking about a city that has a majority black police department, under a black police chief, a black mayor, and a democrat dominated city council with numerous black memebers. This is the case in numerous cities across the country where such issues have arisen.

Racism is not the problem. No "start" has been made because the issue does not exist. BLM has absolutely zero basis whatsoever for complaint. It is violent thuggery and nothing else.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

He does, indeed, say **** to be controversial. However, "he's a tool" is not a counter argument to anything he says. There's a certain poster that used to get all kinds of **** for engaging in exactly this sort of dismissal. It's interesting to see how many people devolve to that level as the board ages.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

The idea that police aren't going to factor in such an easily visible statistical indicator as skin color when it comes to situations where their lives could be on the line is not really credible. We just had the study that showed that while blacks are actually not more likely to be shot by cops than whites, they get treated more harshly in basically every other situation. If a black person suspected of crime X is on average treated more harshly than a white person suspected of crime X, then racial profiling/bias is occurring. There's no way to really argue around this point. The fact that the cop treats the black guy more harshly because the black guy is more likely to assault him/run away/etc may be understandable from a moral perspective, but it's still literally the definition of racial profiling. Racial profiling doesn't mean "act like an idiot/overt racist and harass black people for no logical reason."

There are identifiable sub populations within the black community that are socioeconomically almost on par with whites and have crime rates lower than that of whites. They still get "harassed" by police at a higher rate than white people do.

There is. Very much so in some communities. This has been studied, documented. Simply saying something doesn't make it true.



No, not a bit. I don't think anyone is calling for what you say here. That's equality of outcome - people are asking to be treated with the same level of suspicion. (i.e. blacks and whites in the exact same situation being treated equally. they are not now, in many areas).



No - the concerns with the studies are not concerned with outcome. They are concerned with the management of the population at large.



This demonstrates a serious lack of understanding of the problem. Black police officers are very frequently biased against black men. It has nothing to do with the color of their own skin.



Saying so does not make it true. There's a serious problem. I don't know if I want to call it racism, per say, but it's certainly racial bias. BLM, as mismanaged as they are, has a cause - and a legitimate one. They are also accomplishing something. There's greater dialogue, there's DOJ studies and consent decrees, there's attention. Despite the cops that believe they can do no wrong.

No it hasn't. Disparity has been documented; bias is asserted solely on the basis of disparity and the occasional anecdotal incident. Saying bias exists doesn't make it true.



That's exactly what's being asked for. There's no evidence of bias beyond the disparity.



This is an utterly meaningless distinction. The sole evidence of a problem with population management is disparity and anecdotes.


This is a cute way of calling black police officers "Uncle Toms" and other far less savory terms without using the actual slurs. It is also question-begging. It ALSO ignores the black politicians I mentioned who are almost invariably Democrats, and are the ones setting policy, but nice try at subtly shifting it onto the cops while ignoring the politicians.


[/quote]

Saying there's a serious problem with bias doesn't make it true, either. Nor does correlation-causation-fallacy reasoning, or individual anecdotes.

No one believes the cops "can do no wrong" either. This is a blatant strawman that's been going on for 10 years every time someone around here is confronted with the terrible reasoning that surrounds anything regarding the police. No one has asserted that individual police officers with bias problems don't exist.

The only thing BLM is "accomplishing" is to decrease police protection in black communities in cities. Murder rates are rising considerably in some cities, such as Chicago. The existence of "consent decrees", DOJ studies and attention do not speak to an actual problem; they speak to BLM making a spectacle. The DOJ is itself suspect in this regard since it has been explicitly hiring "civil rights lawyers". Civil rights lawyers will always find civil rights problems; that's how they justify their existence.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

You seriously have your head buried in the sand, DE. I get it, but you really ought to read up. There have been numerous studies that show systemic bias.

Moreover, you're throwing out the widely disputed theory that BLM is contributing to increased murder rates through reduced policing. Have any evidence of this? Correlation does not equal causation. Best I could find is this:

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/14/us/murder-rates-cities-fbi.html?_r=0



I've talked to several cops about this, in Baltimore, and not one was chicken-shit enough to be afraid to do the job he was paid for. Anecdotally....

You're just question-begging. There are no studies showing "systemic bias" that do not rely on disparity to prove bias. I don't need to read up - I'm vastly better informed on this subject than you are. This is just internet points scoring "you won't believe me so I'll make vague allusions to evidence that I demand you go find yourself." as if you were actually in a position to condescend towards me.

You are engaging in the exact techniques - and even some of the same laughable arguments - that used to get Monty pilloried around here. I don't recall you ever defending him on those points - how quick you are now to adopt them to justify your own, self-confessed anti-police bigotry.



Seeing as how there's an entire book on it you didn't look very hard.



Of course you have. I'm sure they tell you what they say among themselves, too. Did they tell you that while you were in the midst of screaming at them that they weren't doing their jobs correctly, and were a bunch of "meatheads" (your own word, by the way)?

Never mind, I remember I'm talking to someone that actually whipped out the "oh, black cops are biased against black men" line. Of course they are, it's perfectly ok to stereotype black police officers when it suits your needs. I don't normally take complaints of "paternalism" very seriously, but you.. make it easier to understand where such complaints come from. It's like a flashback to 2007 here or something. You remind me of the idiots insisting that people voting for Ben Carson were totally racist, because voting for a black man is totally racist if he's Republican or something.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

It's interesting, you don't address the point at all. Comparing me to Monty, suggesting I have anti-police bigotry, etc., isn't going to prove your point. You haven't demonstrated in any way that using disparity is not appropriate - I have seen no indication that it should not be. Further, I don't agree (yet) that they all use this methodology; I haven't looked at it in terms of whether they do or do not (since there's not indication it's inappropriate). If I have time, I'll see if there are others.

But no, I'm not going to be suckered into your attempted deflection.



There is no widespread Ferguson Effect, despite what Heather Mac Donald says. I'm not sure how she is qualified to make that assessment, from a scientific perspective - she's a political commentator. The theory has been widely debunked, and indeed it doesn't even hold true that murder rates are on the rise overall. They dropped in NY, they dropped in Baltimore, they are through the roof in Chicago. There's other reasons for this.

Now, I'm not saying there's no Ferguson Effect at all - some officers in some areas may be scared. You might be, I don't know. Statistics don't support a widespread affect.



Riiight. None of this proves your point at all. Yes, lots of cops are meatheads. Has nothing to do with this conversation. Nor does what I remind you of, that's also totally unrelated. If you're out of arguments, just say so.

I didn't say anything about "using disparity"; I said that disparity is not automatic - or even very strong - evidence that the cause of that disparity is because of bias. That remains to be seen, and its on those arresting bias to demonstrate that the bias exists. Disparity is not automatically or exclusively caused by bias. That's Complex Cause fallacy reasoning.

This is essentially the same as the Gender Wage Gap problem - the gap shrinks to around a quarter of what a simple comparison of gender averages claims it is when controls for experience, education, hours worked, etc. are added. That doesn't, however, mean the remaining 5-7% is automatically the result of discrimination; it means we can start investigating what's causing the unexplained portion. Some, or all, of that may be discrimination, but the mere existence of disparity doesn't demonstrate it.

Similarly, we cannot even begin talking about police (or court) bias without first accounting for the differences in frequency of criminal behavior between black people and other racial/ethnic groups. That has not, so far, been done; only a disparity has been demonstrated, but like the "70 cents ont he dollar" myth, it's simply getting as if it were incontrovertible proof of a problem. More importantly, like the "equal pay" demand, from which the "equal work" portion has suspiciously disappeared, this demand to remedy disparity in police action is devoid of any accompanying demand to address the issue of criminality in the black community - which is being excused and ignored by BLM.



Since there isn't any deflection going on, that should not be hard for you to accomplish. You're in no position to complain seeing as you were blithely dismissing the failures of Democrat run city governments to address these problems in police departments heavily manned by black officers with the handwavery of "oh well they can be biased too" (a more inappropriate overgeneralization and blase dismissal of an inconvenient act is hard to imagine.) Quietly dropping an untenable position as if you'd never stated it in the first place is exactly the sort of behavior I'm talking about, so if you don't like it, don't engage in that sort of behavior.



"She's wrong because I say so!"


You're absolutely right; political scientists and commentators don't know anything about statistical methods or how to conduct research. You, on the other hand are an engineer - and completely unqualified to hold any opinion whatsoever on this subject - by the standard you just articulated. The fact that you have the right to vote and voice your opinion does not somehow mean it's a good idea for you to actually have one.

It has not been "widely debunked" - this is yet another blast-from-the-past tactic. At best, you could claim that Ferguson is too recent to say for sure.



So in other words it hasn't been "widely debunked"; you don't actually know. Now we're getting somewhere.

As for me, I've moved on to bigger and better things than direct enforcement (which is pretty nice since I'm no longer working 8 or 9 days at night, spending half my days off going to drill, then another 8 or 9 days, then starting the cycle over for the next month) so you don't have to worry about me any. Thanks for your concern though, but you can rest assured there's no need to waste the time it take to type out passive-aggressive shots at my personal situation in the future.



No, but it does prove that you're making broad, unsupportable generalizations about black police officers for no other reason than to avoid admitting the weaknesses in your own terrible position. I don't need to make any counterarguments to what you claim to have talked to some Baltimore cops about any more than I need to argue about what your favorite color is.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I don't think anyone is saying that it is. The reports of police bias are a bit more complicated than just "there's a disparity". You're just saying that since a disparity is not automatically caused by bias, there must be no bias. That's not true at all. It's worth noting that these are not always in dispute by the targeted departments either.



They can be biased too (duh). That's been studied. You'll have to point out where I've blithely dismissed the failures of city officials. I don't believe I've done anything of the sort. Officials certainly share the blame - particularly if they are aware of the heavy bias and have done nothing. That doesn't really impact my point though, hence the deflection.



Yeah, I don't have any idea what you're talking about here.



No, investigation into this says so. Police chiefs say so.



Aside from the asinine response above, the fact is I'm not trying to claim a widespread impact by a particular event, and certainly not trying to claim this as somehow "studied". She's been widely debunked on this.



No, it's been widely debunked. You need to forget how to read to get that from my statement. There is no widespread impact. SOME officers may be impacted, nobody can know this. I'm sure there's some scared cops out there afraid to do their jobs.



/passive aggressive on

Probably a good time to do so. I hear those mean BLM protestors have made it really scary to be a cop these days. Scrutiny and all that. /shudder

/passive aggressive off



Your opinion about my viewpoints related to cops doesn't prove anything at all. Yes, talking about my favorite color would be totally irrelevant. What are you talking about? Make some sense.

No, I'm not saying anything of the sort. I'm saying that, to whatever degree bias is an issue, it is one among many issues, and is not a primary one in terms of the overall situation. In this way it is no different than gender discrimination in the "gender pay gap". There may be individual instances of discrimination, but it is not a primary cause, and of the the 5-8% or so pay gap that remains,, the cause of that is unknown. Discrimination may cause all, part, or no statistically significant portion of that remaining gap.

The statistical disparities in law enforcement are exactly the same



Oh? By who, exactly? Who is determining what constitutes "bias"



Yes you have . I pointed out that large cities are usually run by democrats, often mostly or all black. This is the case in baltimore. The mayor was black. Many police officers and officials were black. Democrats dominate the political scene.

Your only response to that was to say "well, black cops can be biased against black people." You did not even address politicians. It's right there in this thread. You said it, and that fact is not open to argument, discussion or debate. Period. You either defend it, concede it, or shut your mouth but you do not get to claim you didn't say it with any seriousness. I'll remind you that deleted posts appear as such.



Of course you don't.

You are a **** clown. I'm done here. The rest of this is not worth responding to.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Neither of you are disproving the other.

Diamondeye is correct - correlation does not imply causation. A disparity does not indicate a bias.

Arathain is correct - just because correlation does not imply causation, that does not mean that there isn't any causal link.

Neither of you have really proven your point, and the burden of proof is fuzzy on this one.

The race of the police officers or government officials is really irrelevant to proving any bias.

One thing that has barely been touched on is the question of whether or not bias is warranted or justifiable. It's very possible that there is bias, and that such bias is completely warranted based on the disparity in criminal activity.

A second issue that has barely been touched on is, what I think, the issue in America that is inadvertently sparking the civil unrest: Your police are too likely and eager to use force. (Diamondeye is going to hate this one. Although he might surprise me - he did once tell me that if police were better trained in deescalating conflict, there'd be fewer shootings.) I am too lazy to look it up the data i've already seen right now, but unrelated to race, police are far more likely to fire a weapon or resort to physical violence in America compared to most other first-world countries, on any given crime. Obviously, sometimes it's unavoidable. But if a routine traffic stop results in a kid being laid face down on the ground with his hands cuffed behind his back, even if they discovered drugs or other felony offenses, the cops failed.

The added likelihood of use of force by police, in an environment where a visible minority is committing a disproportional amount of the crime, can appear to be more biased to an observer than is actually the case.

_________________
Well Ali Baba had them forty thieves, Scheherezade had a thousand tales
But master you in luck 'cause up your sleeves you got a brand of magic never fails...
...Mister Aladdin, sir, What will your pleasure be?
Let me take your order, Jot it down -You ain't never had a friend like me
█ ♣ █

Taly, I suppose next you're going to tell us we should call them the police service rather than police force...

_________________
The Dude abides.

Handcuffing suspects is completely normal in any arrest.

Whether or not the kid was face down on the ground may or may not indicate anything about the cops. It depends entirely on the behavior of the person being arrested. People love to start fights with the police, then claim they got <insert use of force here> over the minor incident that caused the initial stop, while ignoring their own intervening behavior.

As far as the de-escalation goes, better training would go a long way in many cases. It is not that police are eager to use force as that in areas with high crime rates it is necessary more often and they become habituated to it.

It does not help that people - and especially minorities - are becoming habituated to the idea that any use of force against them, for any reason, must be biased and unfair, and that it is acceptable to lie about the circumstances in order to shift blame onto the police. That's how much of the controversy in Ferguson started. Black people simply assumed that the cop must have done something wrong, and then lied about what they had seen, and then got caught at it by the FBI. Interestingly, the people that actually did see the incident did not lie. This indicates that it is not an intentional act, but simply a matter of people being caught up in their own assumptions. A population that is constantly being conditioned to perceive any interaction with police as hostile and illegitimate will continue to behave in ways that cause escalation, no matter how much you train the police.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Good, it seems we finally agree. Nobody has ever suggested it's the only issue - only that it exists and is a problem. This is the core of BLM's issue, and they are pushing back against it. Even they recognize there are many other issues.



http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2014/10/diversity_won_t_solve_police_misconduct_black_cops_don_t_reduce_violence.html



Politicians aren't out there shooting people. BLM isn't out there throwing rocks at politicians. My entire point is that BLM has a solid argument and while mismanaged, are at least focusing attention on a serious problem. I have neither dismissed nor focused on politicians. There's lots of factors I haven't addressed; that doesn't affect my point at all. If you want to talk about politicians for a moment, we can. The mayor of Baltimore is not seeking reelection over this. The black politicians attempted to prosecute black police officers for the death of Freddie Gray. Black police chief does not dispute the findings of the DOJ showing bias in the black police force. BLM has been very active in Baltimore at all levels, including pushing for reform with politicians. It's working, which was my original point. Now, we'll see if we can get the actual boots on the ground reforms needed.



Here let me do it for you:

"I don't have anything relevant to say, so I'll just try to deflect and throw in some personal attacks."

There you go. You can copy/paste this into any thread you're debating in and save yourself some time.

So, more violence in Charlotte. This doesn't help BLM's cause.

Rioting indeed does not make the cause of "it's racism any time a black man is shot by police, even when he's an armed criminal and the cop is black." Maybe if BLM were not entirely about defending violent thuggery and advocating anti police violence, they'd help their "cause" more.

Notably, the riots are not in Oklahoma, where an unarmed black man who by all accounts was not a criminal, was shot by a white female police officer in circumstances that - upon initial inspection - do not look good for the officer at all. When you riot over the armed thug with the lengthy criminal history at the same time an apparently blameless citizen was shot it pretty much reveals all you're doing is looking for excuses to riot. There's plenty of "racism" in Charlotte - all of it among those protesting.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."