By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - $5,000 anti-racist dinner parties

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

What I draw from this is actually very simple:

We can't draw anything from these statistics. Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased.

These numbers give almost no insight into circumstance hence I find them to be largely useless. It won't stop some from referring to them however for political gain. Some may slap them under their 'white supremacy in action' social sciences project for that delicious 'A' grade.

"Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased."

Yes, and as I stated, all roads lead to Rome, so to speak. The fact that different points can be drawn from a single number doesn't make the number meaningless, when all points lead to the same conclusion.

I'd like to pose to you the same question you posed to me: What do you make of these police shooting statistics? You seem to be implying here that you wish to play some sort of middle ground, but you haven't really demonstrated that there is a solid footing for that ground.

I don't draw much of these shooting statistics.

All shooting incidents are unique and worthy of individual assessment: in the real world, the skin color of the victim is NOT the only variable at play but in graphs highlighting racial discrepancies, one could easily be fooled into thinking skin color is the only decisive variable or a major variable on whether or not an officer opens fire on a suspect.

the-pi-guy said:
KLAMarine said:

Never considered them the same but Reginald Oliver Denny certainly endured an overwhelming amount of harm for seemingly nothing. People can be upset all they want about 250+ years of oppression (no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense), ROD had nothing to do with that.

Now answer the question: if a lynching is white supremacy, was the Reginald Oliver Denny beating black supremacy?

>no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense

>if a lynching is white supremacy

No one said either of these things.  Why don't you go back and read what was actually said?

White people attacking black people by itself doesnt constitute white supremacy. White people being backed by a white government while attacking black people constitutes as white supremacy.  

Conversely black supremacy would require black people being backed by a black government. 

And back to this:

>no one can say they were a slave for 250+ years, btw. It's nonsense

What's nonsense is that no one claimed this.

We are talking about historical inequality on a racial basis.  

When the slave owners died who inherited their wealth?  The slave owner's children did not own any slaves, and yet they were the ones to inherit the plantation.  Their children were even further removed from owning any slaves, yet the only reason they have the money from the plantation is because their grandparents owned slaves. Is this starting to make any sense?  

If I was a business owner who secretly conspired to only hire white workers, would you call this white supremacy? I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this is against the law and I'm doing it without government backing: government would have perfect grounds to prosecute me for breaking the law actually.

I'm just trying to figure out your odd definition of 'white supremacy' which requires government backing of some sort... It seems very weird...



Around the Network
KLAMarine said:

I don't draw much of these shooting statistics.

All shooting incidents are unique and worthy of individual assessment: in the real world, the skin color of the victim is NOT the only variable at play but in graphs highlighting racial discrepancies, one could easily be fooled into thinking skin color is the only decisive variable or a major variable on whether or not an officer opens fire on a suspect.

Damn, that is a lazy take...

You have presented no explanations or hypotheses to explain the trends, and only concluded that others are "fooled" by the data driven conclusion that race plays a major part in some way, again without any argument, explanation or even real criticism of your own. I didn't expect much, but I expected more than that.



JWeinCom said:
Trumpstyle said:

You Americans got it wrong, should be defund the scientists not defund the police. From I read about about CRT, it believes that all form of racialism is because of white supremcy, so you can explain to me how South koreans being racist towards germans haft to do with white supremcy.

Luckily is just Americans that believes in CRT.

In that case, maybe you should read more about about CRT before commenting, because you don't seem to understand it very well.

Critical Race Theory suggests that the dominant culture is largely responsible for societal biases. In America, the dominant culture is white. In South Korea, it is not. Has any serious person (as in a respected source and not a random blogger) suggested that white people are responsible for South Korean attitudes towards Germans? If not, then that's a strawman argument. 

If you can find any kind of scholarly work that suggests only white people and societies run predominately by white people are capable of racism, please show me that. I have taken a few classes and done some readings with Professors that I'm fairly certain would identify themselves as critical race theorists, and they have typically pointed to examples of racism in other, often non-white, countries as points of comparisons to understand the racial dynamics in America. 

I have definitely read that there are people who believes all form of racialism can be traced back to white supremacy and it's a global crisis. These people used the exact same argument that Sundin are using, ofc a professor who has views like this will most likely not admit this. And these views are just out of whack for me, like it's possible for Black folks to read about supply & demand and become critical of immigration. Not from hearing "Mexican are stealing our jobs" like Sundin suggested.

It's good you're here as you can correct me if I get anything wrong as I mainly just read what other people are saying, mainly from twitter. First I don't believe you're right when you say dominant culture is the cause of societal biases, CRT says that it's the system that is racist. This itself is an attack on Liberal democracy and what is suppose to replace it I have no idea as there just don't seems to be any point to CRT. Another thing is that CRT believers can't explain CRA64/VRA65 which makes the whole thing fall apart anyway.

But the biggest issue with CRT right now is that you guys are teaching your young pupils a bunch of fairy tales which has its connection to Marxism, atleast according to this Washingtonpost article. This makes CRT a threat to the Liberal order and Republicans in your country must get rid of it, CRT should only be a option at public universities, nothing else.

Marxism = Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Soviet Union



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

Trumpstyle said:
JWeinCom said:

In that case, maybe you should read more about about CRT before commenting, because you don't seem to understand it very well.

Critical Race Theory suggests that the dominant culture is largely responsible for societal biases. In America, the dominant culture is white. In South Korea, it is not. Has any serious person (as in a respected source and not a random blogger) suggested that white people are responsible for South Korean attitudes towards Germans? If not, then that's a strawman argument. 

If you can find any kind of scholarly work that suggests only white people and societies run predominately by white people are capable of racism, please show me that. I have taken a few classes and done some readings with Professors that I'm fairly certain would identify themselves as critical race theorists, and they have typically pointed to examples of racism in other, often non-white, countries as points of comparisons to understand the racial dynamics in America. 

I have definitely read that there are people who believes all form of racialism can be traced back to white supremacy and it's a global crisis. These people used the exact same argument that Sundin are using, ofc a professor who has views like this will most likely not admit this. And these views are just out of whack for me, like it's possible for Black folks to read about supply & demand and become critical of immigration. Not from hearing "Mexican are stealing our jobs" like Sundin suggested.

It's good you're here as you can correct me if I get anything wrong as I mainly just read what other people are saying, mainly from twitter. First I don't believe you're right when you say dominant culture is the cause of societal biases, CRT says that it's the system that is racist. This itself is an attack on Liberal democracy and what is suppose to replace it I have no idea as there just don't seems to be any point to CRT. Another thing is that CRT believers can't explain CRA64/VRA65 which makes the whole thing fall apart anyway.

But the biggest issue with CRT right now is that you guys are teaching your young pupils a bunch of fairy tales which has its connection to Marxism, atleast according to this Washingtonpost article. This makes CRT a threat to the Liberal order and Republicans in your country must get rid of it, CRT should only be a option at public universities, nothing else.

Marxism = Karl Marx, Joseph Stalin, Soviet Union

No, it's not a good thing I'm here to correct anything you have wrong, because considering how you misrepresent what I said immediately afterwards, that would be a colossal waste of time.

More importantly though I'm a random person on an internet gaming site. I'm not in any way an expert on critical race theory. If you actually give a shit about understanding it, which you should if you think it's so dangerous that it should be limited to public universities, then maybe you should actually study it instead of relying on random posts on Twitter and VGChartz.

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 05 June 2021

sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

I agree, very ludicrous.

What isn't ludicrous is calling out HOW 'white supremacy' is called out. The very racialization of 'systems' and 'privilege', for example, is very problematic, leads to 'othering', something you condemned in this very thread, yet some do not hesitate to 'other' whites and create the setting for injustices like another disabled teen getting kidnapped and tortured.

Let's proceed more carefully.

If I have crossed a line anywhere in my comments in this thread or otherwise, I encourage you to call it out. However, I take umbrage with the implication that calling out white supremacy is in itself an example of racism. This seems to be an incredibly lazy way of excusing and enabling these systems, by putting blame on those who seek to dismantle them.  

That strategy has been prevalent among conservatives for a long time.

That the societal problem isn't the actual problem, but the people calling it out/trying to solve it are the real problem.
Some common examples I'm sure you see every day:

- You want universal healthcare like every other developed nation? No, we can't do that, because it'll be worse.
- Wear masks and social distance? No, it's just the flu, and a hoax. It infringes on my rights and the economy will be ruined.
- Reduce carbon emissions to prevent global warming? No, that'll just ruin the economy, and it's a hoax.
- Properly tax billionaires? No, they'll just move to another country, so lets give them a 300 trillion tax break instead.
- Ban assault rifles? That will just make things more dangerous for law abiding citizens. We need more guns.
- Unions for workers? No, that'll make workers sufffer more.
- Trump supporters storming the capitol building? No, those were mainly lefties.

And then of course, calling out racism is the actual racism.

Last edited by Hiku - on 05 June 2021

Around the Network
sundin13 said:
KLAMarine said:

I don't draw much of these shooting statistics.

All shooting incidents are unique and worthy of individual assessment: in the real world, the skin color of the victim is NOT the only variable at play but in graphs highlighting racial discrepancies, one could easily be fooled into thinking skin color is the only decisive variable or a major variable on whether or not an officer opens fire on a suspect.

Damn, that is a lazy take...

You have presented no explanations or hypotheses to explain the trends, and only concluded that others are "fooled" by the data driven conclusion that race plays a major part in some way, again without any argument, explanation or even real criticism of your own. I didn't expect much, but I expected more than that.

One should never take a hatchet to a problem that requires a scalpel.

My so-called lazy take is one that urges caution. One can try to find trends by excluding the many variables at play in every police interaction but those many variables are ALWAYS a factor. The lurking variable is always a threat.

Mass assessment must always yield to the personal one-on-one assessment: some police shootings are Walter Scotts. Others are Ma'khia Bryants.

Both cases involve black victims BUT their individual circumstances vary drastically. Of course, as far as some studies would be concerned, both would go down as instances of blacks being killed by police.

We should never take the lazy route by placing two variables on the same graph and calling it a day. We should always give all shootings their due one-on-one.



KLAMarine said:

If I was a business owner who secretly conspired to only hire white workers, would you call this white supremacy? I'm not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure this is against the law and I'm doing it without government backing: government would have perfect grounds to prosecute me for breaking the law actually.

I'm just trying to figure out your odd definition of 'white supremacy' which requires government backing of some sort... It seems very weird...

It might be against the law, but would the government do anything about it? A lot of companies have a tendency to hire white workers over others. Short of having a line in the hiring hand book that says "hire only white people", it's incredibly difficult to prove.

KLAMarine said:

One should never take a hatchet to a problem that requires a scalpel.

My so-called lazy take is one that urges caution. One can try to find trends by excluding the many variables at play in every police interaction but those many variables are ALWAYS a factor. The lurking variable is always a threat.

Mass assessment must always yield to the personal one-on-one assessment: some police shootings are Walter Scotts. Others are Ma'khia Bryants.

Both cases involve black victims BUT their individual circumstances vary drastically. Of course, as far as some studies would be concerned, both would go down as instances of blacks being killed by police.

We should never take the lazy route by placing two variables on the same graph and calling it a day. We should always give all shootings their due one-on-one.

A lot of left wingers will try looking at a single incident and try to figure out whether it's racist or not, and it's something that I take issue with. In general, it's not something that you can do. 300 million people comes with lots of random events, with all kinds of different variables. And it does happen that police officers have shot at unarmed white people.

What you have to do is look at the trends. Looking at 300 million people gives you an average that should be similar, unless there's some biases.

Why is it then that black people seem to be so much more likely to be in these situations where they're more likely to be shot? Is there some societal bias that puts them in that situation or are the cops more biased against them?



sundin13 said:

[3] I don't believe that all such ideas come from white people, but as the USA is a country which has historically been dominated by white people and white culture, it is most common for such ideas to have white origins. You seem to disagree with me on this point, but you didn't really provide an alternate explanation which fits the data, so, what is the alternative you are proposing here?

[4] Is it accurate to state that crime reports have increased year on year? According to the preliminary UCR for the first six months of 2020, rape reports decreased, robbery reports decreased, larceny decreased, burglaries decreased and overall violent crime decreased. However, homicides increased significantly. The divergence of these statistics could be explained by the idea that many smaller crimes are not being reported, but it is somewhat difficult to not report homicides. This could indicate that individuals are not being caught when they commit smaller scale crimes, which causes an uptick in larger scale crimes. 

I agree however that this is unlikely to explain everything, I only posit that it may be a significant contributing cause. As you stated, the rapid changes in police forces may very well be causing additional problems. As I stated to someone earlier in this thread (I don't believe it was you), I believe that police departments could handle adequately planned decreases in budget. Changes as a result of Covid and mass exodus of officers aren't really "adequately planned" so they could impair police function, causing issues. However, again, I believe blame is somewhat misplaced if you attempt to place it on BLM here. The police have grown accustomed to some degree of immunity that I don't believe they should have. Losing this immunity is something that should happen, however it very well may cause short term problems with police staffing for the people who don't wish to be held accountable. I mentioned earlier that I think that police pay should increase. One of the ways to attract better officers is by increasing pay and similarly increasing the standards of officers (however, an appetite must first be shown by police forces to increase their standards, otherwise you are just burning money). 

[3] You make a concession and then claim I disagree with it. *shrugs* I don't. 

In any event, I don't need an alternative, sweeping, systemic theory of the world to disagree with critical race theory regardless. I don't view the color of people's skin as the most important thing about them, let alone believe that ideas should be accepted or rejected based on the skin color of those who conceive them. It's not on me as a naysayer to disprove CRT any more than it is on me as an atheist to disprove God's existence. It is on you, as the affirmative proponent thereof, to demonstrate its correctness. That's how that works.

[4] I think we're at least largely in agreement on this point, at this point, save 1) the idea that only one force here is responsible for the current levels of violent crime we're seeing in many parts of the U.S., and 2) that I still don't see the merit of generally decreasing funding for police forces. I think we've had out the first argument. Concerning the second remaining area of disagreement, proponents of this line (de-fund the police) contend that doing so frees up financial resources necessary to invest in proper social work that could serve as a healthier, and safer, substitute for much of the work that police departments currently do. I just don't see the point in viewing it as an either-or proposition. I see no reason why we can't just tax the wealthier segments of the population more and use those resources to fully fund both. Aside from this, we agree: there should be more accountability for police officers, and indeed for entire departments as needed, which is why I strongly support the legislation I've mentioned earlier on this thread.

Last edited by Jaicee - on 05 June 2021

Jaicee said:
sundin13 said:

[3] I don't believe that all such ideas come from white people, but as the USA is a country which has historically been dominated by white people and white culture, it is most common for such ideas to have white origins. You seem to disagree with me on this point, but you didn't really provide an alternate explanation which fits the data, so, what is the alternative you are proposing here?

[4] Is it accurate to state that crime reports have increased year on year? According to the preliminary UCR for the first six months of 2020, rape reports decreased, robbery reports decreased, larceny decreased, burglaries decreased and overall violent crime decreased. However, homicides increased significantly. The divergence of these statistics could be explained by the idea that many smaller crimes are not being reported, but it is somewhat difficult to not report homicides. This could indicate that individuals are not being caught when they commit smaller scale crimes, which causes an uptick in larger scale crimes. 

I agree however that this is unlikely to explain everything, I only posit that it may be a significant contributing cause. As you stated, the rapid changes in police forces may very well be causing additional problems. As I stated to someone earlier in this thread (I don't believe it was you), I believe that police departments could handle adequately planned decreases in budget. Changes as a result of Covid and mass exodus of officers aren't really "adequately planned" so they could impair police function, causing issues. However, again, I believe blame is somewhat misplaced if you attempt to place it on BLM here. The police have grown accustomed to some degree of immunity that I don't believe they should have. Losing this immunity is something that should happen, however it very well may cause short term problems with police staffing for the people who don't wish to be held accountable. I mentioned earlier that I think that police pay should increase. One of the ways to attract better officers is by increasing pay and similarly increasing the standards of officers (however, an appetite must first be shown by police forces to increase their standards, otherwise you are just burning money). 

[3] You make a concession and then claim I disagree with it. *shrugs* I don't. 

In any event, I don't need an alternative, sweeping, systemic theory of the world to disagree with critical race theory regardless. I don't view the color of people's skin as the most important thing about them, let alone believe that ideas should be accepted or rejected based on the skin color of those who conceive them. It's not on me as a naysayer to disprove CRT any more than it is on me as an atheist to disprove God's existence. It is on you, as the affirmative proponent thereof, to demonstrate its correctness. That's how that works.

[4] I think we're at least largely in agreement on this point, at this point, save 1) the idea that only one force here is responsible for the current levels of violent crime we're seeing in many parts of the U.S., and 2) that I still don't see the merit of generally decreasing funding for police forces. I think we've had out the first argument. Concerning the second remaining area of disagreement, proponents of this line (de-fund the police) contend that doing so frees up financial resources necessary to invest in proper social work that could serve as a healthier, and safer, substitute for much of the work that police departments currently do. I just don't see the point in viewing it as an either-or proposition. I see no reason why we can't just tax the wealthier segments of the population more and use those resources to fully fund both. Aside from this, we agree: there should be more accountability for police officers, and indeed for entire departments as needed, which is why I strongly support the legislation I've mentioned earlier on this thread.

[3] I believe I have been fairly consistent on this point, so I'm not sure what concession you believe I made. Either way, I'm glad that we agree.

As for your assessment of CRT, I am not an expert on the subject, but the writings I have read have not been incompatible with your criticisms. I similarly don't agree with these ideas (at least in the manner you have stated them) and as you said, it is on the individual making the claim to prove the claim. It may very well be true, however I have yet to see evidence of these claims being fundamental to CRT.

[4]: I agree that we largely agree. I don't disagree with your first point (and I said explicitly in my last post that I agree that there is not one single cause) and your second point is...complicated. It is a nuanced position and I would be the first to say that the simple slogan does little to convey that nuance. I'll just run through a couple thoughts real quick:

-"Defunding the police" to me, largely means shrinking the responsibilities of the police. The police should not be tasked with solving every societal ill, and we as a society need to decide what needs an armed response and what doesn't. For example, I don't believe traffic enforcement needs an armed response. "Defunding the police" is largely about expanding the ecosystem of law enforcement (and thus expanding it's funding), with separate bodies taking certain responsibilities away from the police, allowing the police to decrease in size.

-"Defunding the police" also reflects the long-term goal of reducing the necessity of reactive crime prevention. By investing more in proactive crime prevention (improving education, housing etc), the goal is that crime and other societal ills will decrease which will allow an organic decrease in police funding. 

-"Defunding the police" speaks to our societal priorities and is largely about deprioritizing policing as a means of fighting crime. It seems that the response to crime is always "throw some cops at it", which has led to massive police budgets paired with underspending relative to many other priorities that should be considered important. Policing should never really be seen as a long term solution so at some point, we as society need to agree to invest in our communities instead of policing them (I believe the difficulty of this comes in part from racist ideas about "the dangerous minority"). This speaks to your last point. I agree that in theory it shouldn't be an "either-or" proposition, but in reality, I don't believe it is feasible to increase spending to the ideal levels without making cuts. 



KLAMarine said:

We can't draw anything from these statistics. Some will conclude blacks are more criminal, others will conclude police are biased.

Or hows about both or neither? Why does everything require a binary answer?

KLAMarine said:

I don't draw much of these shooting statistics.

All shooting incidents are unique and worthy of individual assessment: in the real world, the skin color of the victim is NOT the only variable at play but in graphs highlighting racial discrepancies, one could easily be fooled into thinking skin color is the only decisive variable or a major variable on whether or not an officer opens fire on a suspect.

Skin colour/race don't actually have anything to do with being a criminal.

Socio-economic situation tends to have the largest influences on who turns out to be a criminal.
I.E. You grow up in the slums, with family who are bogans... Chances are you are going down a certain path statistically.

By that same extension, those who are of colour tend to be in poor socio-economic areas due to in part... Discrimination or lack of opportunities, educational, work or otherwise... Arguably those of colour in poor socio-economic areas tend to have stronger family ties which keeps family units together.

Another issue is those migrating (Illegal or legal) from Mexico (Or anywhere for that matter) fall into the trap of lacking nationally qualified skills to take up anything more than low-paid unskilled work.
Same issue exists here, one of my old trainers migrated from Britain and she had 10+ years of experience as a teacher, sadly it meant squat in Australia and she had to go back to University to gain the degrees she was already competent in, in the meantime she was doing minimum wage work.

Here for example Aboriginals also tend to suffer at the hands of systemic discrimination.
For example years ago I went for a job interview and one of the other guys who I have known for a long time was Aboriginal and had qualifications in health that easily surpassed my own and he put on a strong (Arguably stronger) showing in the group interview, yet wasn't selected for some unknown reason, could be more to it, but really said allot about the employer at the time.

As for police... I can only talk about police officers I have worked with... So strictly limited to anecdotal. - And generally, they don't give a shit what your skin colour is, they are trained to protect themselves first and foremost, then protect their fellow crew, then protect the general public.

For example at any structure fire, police are always on scene and if an officer is near me, they will always keep a hand on the gun, doesn't matter if my job involves saving lives or not, doesn't matter if I know them or not.









--::{PC Gaming Master Race}::--