By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
pokoko on 08 July 2016
Edit Thread
MTZehvor said:
pokoko said:

Misleading?  It's not misleading, it's a fact.  In absolutely no way did I suggest that the percentages were higher or equal; in fact, I said "when you're on the bottom, you don't give a damn about percentages."  You're going to have to explain to me how anything I said was misleading.

Seriously, people are people, they're not ratios, they're not percentages.  Someone in that 9.9% is every bit as important as someone in that 27.8% and vice versa.

That need to label and sort people by secondary demographics is part of the problem.  You're telling one group that they're a special case, they should get used to assistance, they should depend on it, that they need it more because of the color of their skin.  It's ultimately condescending and debilitating.  On the other hand, you're telling another group that they don't matter as much because more people with their skin color are successful.  They're the chaff, they're the acceptable margin of loss.  

Yet another layer of division that just adds to the feelings of resentment.

The goal should be to treat everyone the same, not to keep pushing in a wedge until the gulf is unspannable and you've got two sides looking at each other with suspicion and jealousy.  It should be as simple as people who need help, not people who deserve help more because of percentages.

I'll recant the misleading bit, because I misinterpreted what you were trying to say.

As for statistics, I think you misunderstand the purpose of them in my argument. No one is claiming that one person in the 9.9% is less or more important than someone in the 27.8%. Nor is it anywhere near condescending or debilitating, or to make people less than people. Quite honestly, I can't think of anyone who's used statistics to say that a group doesn't matter as much, with the possible exception of Bernie Sanders arguing that white people don't know what it's like to be poor. The point is not to argue that poor black people are more or less "important" than white people, it's about identifying what common problems are. If we're trying to figure out as a society what is causing these two groups to not get along very well (in this case, police and blacks), then statistics are a way of identifying where the issues might lie. When we find anomalies between a group and the rest of the population, that's an indicator that it might be a cause.

To my knowledge, and feel free to correct me if you have a counter example, almost no one I can think of argues that "a poor black person deserves your help more than a poor white person because he's black." I certainly haven't argued that on this thread, and I can't think of a single major organization or political pundit that would support that either.

That's slightly disingenuous because it's said all the time, simply by excluding the second part of your sentence.  Groups like the NAACP or figures like Al Sharpton certainly aren't looking out for everyone and they represent significant influence and attention.

Of course, there are statistical differences that should be understood.  Education needs to be more practical rather than just masterbation over top grade grubbers.  Black men, in general, rarely seem to be learning any skills at all from the previous generation, perhaps because of the high divorce rate.  Even high school dropouts who are familar with fields like masonry, construction, or carpentry can do well for themselves.  There should be more engagement and positive reinforcement for all students, not just those who can pull down A's on a report card.  As I said, I went to a poor school and I've seen many people who didn't really have a place there and they knew it.  They either wasted time until they got their piece of paper or they gave up and dropped out.  That does nothing for anyone.