‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›
 
   
 

Racism Spectrum

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  251
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 February 2019 20:48
 
Abel Dean - 10 February 2019 04:33 PM
Garret - 10 February 2019 04:25 PM

You have the wrong idea.  You’re failing to understand what I’m saying because of a core assumption that you have about this whole conversation.

OK, feel free to go into further detail.

When I say “bad scientist”, I don’t mean he’s “bad” because he’s mean to people.  I mean that he’s bad at science.

Charles Murray is to science what Tim Tebow is to being a quarterback.
There was a lot of hype, but it turns out he sucks at it.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
10 February 2019 20:51
 
Garret - 10 February 2019 08:48 PM
Abel Dean - 10 February 2019 04:33 PM
Garret - 10 February 2019 04:25 PM

You have the wrong idea.  You’re failing to understand what I’m saying because of a core assumption that you have about this whole conversation.

OK, feel free to go into further detail.

When I say “bad scientist”, I don’t mean he’s “bad” because he’s mean to people.  I mean that he’s bad at science.

Charles Murray is to science what Tim Tebow is to being a quarterback.
There was a lot of hype, but it turns out he sucks at it.

Honestly, that is what I thought you meant. I have no such misunderstanding, nor was there any attempt on my part to misrepresent you.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  251
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 February 2019 21:51
 

” how the data is used is part of a good reason that shows that Murray is discredited.”

Part of the problem is he is using bad data.  It is inherently bad data.

Unless you’re going to start suggesting that IQ tests before the discovery of DNA included DNA evidence.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
10 February 2019 21:58
 
Garret - 10 February 2019 09:51 PM

” how the data is used is part of a good reason that shows that Murray is discredited.”

Part of the problem is he is using bad data.  It is inherently bad data.

Unless you’re going to start suggesting that IQ tests before the discovery of DNA included DNA evidence.

I know that you believe it is wrong data, but you also said that Murray is discredited in part because “he uses it to justify being racist.” It is plainly the moralistic fallacy, and I don’t think you can get around it. We all make such errors.

 
Garret
 
Avatar
 
 
Garret
Total Posts:  251
Joined  16-01-2019
 
 
 
10 February 2019 22:00
 
Abel Dean - 10 February 2019 09:58 PM
Garret - 10 February 2019 09:51 PM

” how the data is used is part of a good reason that shows that Murray is discredited.”

Part of the problem is he is using bad data.  It is inherently bad data.

Unless you’re going to start suggesting that IQ tests before the discovery of DNA included DNA evidence.

I know that you believe it is wrong data, but you also said that Murray is discredited in part because “he uses it to justify being racist.” It is plainly the moralistic fallacy, and I don’t think you can get around it. We all make such errors.

No, I said he was using bad data to justify being a racist.  There’s a distinct difference.  It a distinct different that I in fact made, and for you to suggest that I didn’t make that distinction is insulting to your reading skills.

I didn’t say he’s wrong because he’s racist.  I said he’s wrong because his data is wrong.

He just also happens to be a racist.  It is possible for a person to be both racist and wrong.

[ Edited: 10 February 2019 22:08 by Garret]
 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
10 February 2019 22:09
 
Garret - 10 February 2019 10:00 PM
Abel Dean - 10 February 2019 09:58 PM
Garret - 10 February 2019 09:51 PM

” how the data is used is part of a good reason that shows that Murray is discredited.”

Part of the problem is he is using bad data.  It is inherently bad data.

Unless you’re going to start suggesting that IQ tests before the discovery of DNA included DNA evidence.

I know that you believe it is wrong data, but you also said that Murray is discredited in part because “he uses it to justify being racist.” It is plainly the moralistic fallacy, and I don’t think you can get around it. We all make such errors.

No, I said he was using bad data to justify being a racist.  There’s a distinct difference.  It a distinct different that I in fact made, and for you to suggest that I didn’t make that distinction is insulting to your reading skills.

All of my grade school teachers gave me high marks on my reading assignments, but I expect you are honest about your intended meaning. You know best what you meant, so I won’t push it any longer.

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  469
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
18 February 2019 17:23
 

Every single human is biased in ways which are currently unknown to him.

There are only degrees of awareness about bias.  Biases also serve a useful purpose (energy, time management) because we don’t have the energy or time to view every situation with its own individual lens.

To say that one “must be unbiased” is itself a bias.  “I’m biased towards being unbiased.”  So it is a logical fact that “being unbiased” is not a reasonable or even attainable end goal.

There is no escaping the state of bias as a human.  We simply pick and choose which biases we believe benefit us and drop the ones that don’t.

People strategically apply “bias” and “unbias” based on their own personal preferences.  It has been and will always be that way.  It’s wired into our brains.

So the question is, WHY would someone choose one bias over another?

This is where people are too immature or ill-intended for this discussion to get anywhere…..

If the only reason WHY someone would choose one bias over another is that they’re just EVIL and HATEFUL, then there is no reason to empathize with them.  If there’s no reason to empathize with them, there’s no reason to persuade them (and plus, we’ve already decided they are unreachable).  If there’s no reason to persuade them then talking about “bias” is just a bullying tactic - “If you don’t operate with my set of biases, you deserve to be deplatformed, shamed, physically attacked, etc.”

So the intentions of the person who talks about bias is the only thing that matters.  The content of the discussion never leads anywhere because the discussion is not intended to persuade or understand - only to mobilize emotionally unstable people to fight for one’s political/social cause.

If ever have the legitimate desire to figure out WHY someone would choose one bias over another, then we could get to the next question which is:

“How can we as individuals structure our lives and political system around avoiding the inbuilt pitfalls of human bias?”

This question will NEVER get asked by or of anyone in power, let alone answered, because in it lies the key to uniting humanity against the powers that be. 

As long as we are pointing fingers at the biases of others, without a genuine attempt to understand, we have no interest in “solving bias” - only disposing of those who don’t share our set of biases.  The “discussion” is all a facade…..at a certain point the facade will drop, and people will no longer be masking their intentions the way most are now.

[ Edited: 18 February 2019 17:26 by Quadrewple]
 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
18 February 2019 20:46
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
18 February 2019 20:47
 
Quadrewple - 18 February 2019 05:23 PM

Every single human is biased in ways which are currently unknown to him.

There are only degrees of awareness about bias.  Biases also serve a useful purpose (energy, time management) because we don’t have the energy or time to view every situation with its own individual lens.

To say that one “must be unbiased” is itself a bias.  “I’m biased towards being unbiased.”  So it is a logical fact that “being unbiased” is not a reasonable or even attainable end goal.

There is no escaping the state of bias as a human.  We simply pick and choose which biases we believe benefit us and drop the ones that don’t.

People strategically apply “bias” and “unbias” based on their own personal preferences.  It has been and will always be that way.  It’s wired into our brains.

So the question is, WHY would someone choose one bias over another?

This is where people are too immature or ill-intended for this discussion to get anywhere…..

If the only reason WHY someone would choose one bias over another is that they’re just EVIL and HATEFUL, then there is no reason to empathize with them.  If there’s no reason to empathize with them, there’s no reason to persuade them (and plus, we’ve already decided they are unreachable).  If there’s no reason to persuade them then talking about “bias” is just a bullying tactic - “If you don’t operate with my set of biases, you deserve to be deplatformed, shamed, physically attacked, etc.”

So the intentions of the person who talks about bias is the only thing that matters.  The content of the discussion never leads anywhere because the discussion is not intended to persuade or understand - only to mobilize emotionally unstable people to fight for one’s political/social cause.

If ever have the legitimate desire to figure out WHY someone would choose one bias over another, then we could get to the next question which is:

“How can we as individuals structure our lives and political system around avoiding the inbuilt pitfalls of human bias?”

This question will NEVER get asked by or of anyone in power, let alone answered, because in it lies the key to uniting humanity against the powers that be. 

As long as we are pointing fingers at the biases of others, without a genuine attempt to understand, we have no interest in “solving bias” - only disposing of those who don’t share our set of biases.  The “discussion” is all a facade…..at a certain point the facade will drop, and people will no longer be masking their intentions the way most are now.

For the concept of “bias” to have meaning, we need to agree on a baseline in which systemically straying from that baseline is bias. And I think a consensus exists around such a baseline: objective reality. If our beliefs tend to cluster around objective reality, then we are unbiased. Otherwise, we are biased in some direction to some magnitude.

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
18 February 2019 21:35
 
burt - 18 February 2019 08:46 PM

Seems it’s even more specific than just blacks, it’s black men. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html?fbclid=IwAR3_ndUuZmO01S7UH930lAXu6nw1WHAClEbzcKhogX0rswi7BEH1JAxE2qU&smid=pl-share

I think it is great that the study addressed the genetic hypothesis as a competing hypothesis, in place of just ignoring it. The gist of the study would fit into a point that Herrnstein and Murray made in their book, The Bell Curve. I attached the relevant figure. The Bell Curve was attacked from many different angles, but the key point, that adult SES is much more about childhood IQ than parental SES, was seemingly never denied. This latest study would be such a line of attack concerning the racial differences, and such criticisms are needed if anyone wants to get it right.

The disparities that remain also can’t be explained by differences in cognitive ability, an argument made by people who cite racial gaps in test scores that appear for both black boys and girls. If such inherent differences existed by race, “you’ve got to explain to me why these putative ability differences aren’t handicapping women,” said David Grusky, a Stanford sociologist who has reviewed the research.

That argument may win. The attached figure does not effectively explain the black-white gap concerning such odds. Generally I think it is a mistake to reduce racial SES differences down to intelligence differences, as intelligence researchers are inclined to do. The differences between American blacks and whites are much more than just differences in intelligence. Another key difference exists: criminal behavior. Even after controlling for either IQ or SES, a large gap in criminal behavior exists between blacks and whites, and the crime gap exists all along the SES spectrum from bottom to top. But, it is a black male problem, not so much a black female problem (crime among all races is much more of a male problem than a female problem). Most black men are not criminal, but it takes only a larger minority of black males than white males for the crime gap to negatively affect all black men, criminal or not. All black men are victims of the external racial biases emerging from the crime gap. An employer justly knows merely from observing the race of a male job applicant that the applicant is 2.5 times more likely to commit a crime on the job than a white applicant with the same qualifications, and it would be a miracle if this did not mean a systemic socioeconomic disadvantage for black males.

Image Attachments
 
Herrnstein_and_Murray_-_The_Bell_Curve_1994_[page_134_-_IQ_vs_SES_chances_of_being_in_poverty].PNG
 
 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  469
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
18 February 2019 21:40
 
Abel Dean - 18 February 2019 08:47 PM

For the concept of “bias” to have meaning, we need to agree on a baseline in which systemically straying from that baseline is bias. And I think a consensus exists around such a baseline: objective reality. If our beliefs tend to cluster around objective reality, then we are unbiased. Otherwise, we are biased in some direction to some magnitude.

If I ruin my mental health by spending all my free time watching the news, I’m going to say “Donald Trump is ruining this country!”  instead of “I’m ruining my mental health by focusing on Trump instead of my life decisions and what I can control.”

It may be the objective truth that I ruined my mental health by feeding myself an endless stream of propaganda and political conditioning, but so what?

The idea that we can trust the average person to find the objective truth about themselves - let alone the world at large seem like a stretch to me.  We have far more evidence that people choose what visuals and audio they expose themselves to based on their biases.  They control their mind’s programming (which is the battlefront of the Information Age) based on their biases.

But if someone is choosing what information (objective or not) to expose themselves to, then the objective reality of their programming is fundamentally different from the objective reality of one’s programming who is on the opposite side (right vs left for example).

I could spout off 50 objective facts about America and about half the country would have an opposite proposed reaction to those objective facts to that of the other half.

There is no “should” to derive from objective facts.  The nation state as a concept relies on a shared “should” - i.e. “we should be united under the control of one particular organization.”  It is impractical time-wise for humans to to prove or disprove everything for certain.  Even if we agreed that we needed small scale political experiments before changing things on a national level, how is that actually done within our current system?

“Objectivity” is something that can only be achieved when one has zero emotional investment in anything other than the pursuit of the truth.  How common is that?

All I’m really saying is that objectivity is not a realistic goal.  The Information Age has forced us to reckon with our cognitive biases or sink deeper into a hole of fragmented bias.  As I speak, there are thousands of Americans pretending they are fighting bias with…....you guessed it!  Bias

This idea that humans are or can even approaching being input-output machines of objectivity seems to underlie so many discussions, but where does it show up in objective reality?  Where are the incentives for humans to accept “objective reality”?

[ Edited: 18 February 2019 22:03 by Quadrewple]
 
 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
19 February 2019 08:10
 
Abel Dean - 18 February 2019 09:35 PM

Even after controlling for either IQ or SES, a large gap in criminal behavior exists between blacks and whites, and the crime gap exists all along the SES spectrum from bottom to top. But, it is a black male problem, not so much a black female problem (crime among all races is much more of a male problem than a female problem). Most black men are not criminal, but it takes only a larger minority of black males than white males for the crime gap to negatively affect all black men, criminal or not. All black men are victims of the external racial biases emerging from the crime gap. An employer justly knows merely from observing the race of a male job applicant that the applicant is 2.5 times more likely to commit a crime on the job than a white applicant with the same qualifications, and it would be a miracle if this did not mean a systemic socioeconomic disadvantage for black males.

And you would suggest that criminal behavior is a matter of genetics? Let’s look at some parallels:

We’ve seen a good bit of talk about differences between women and men in leadership positions, and lots of comments regarding the effect of different gender stereotypes so that if a woman behaves in an assertive and commanding way she’s considered shrill and pushy whereas if a man behaves in the same way he is considered assertive and ambitious. The social opinion is still that women ought to be more submissive and nurturing, So ambitious self-confident women have a social image problem and face extra resistance as they work their way up through the hierarchies.

Consider Obama’s leadership style, and early comments that he had to take the “no drama, laid back” approach because the nation wasn’t ready for an aggressive, assertive black man in a position of power, instead of being seen as assertive and ambitious he’s be seen as a shrill angry black male. Recall the line from Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, about the slur thrown at young black children who worked hard in school, that they were “trying to be white.”

Consider that almost all young black males are, as a matter of survival, taught to avoid confrontations with authority (or the cop might shot you) and behave in non-confrontational ways when interacting with whites.

There is cross-cultural research on child rearing practices and one universal feature is something called “predispositional priming.” This is the priming of a child, from infancy, to be sensitive to a particular emotion which can then be used to strengthen other practices. For example, in China children are primed to feel shame, the idea being that a feeling of shame will motivate a child to work harder to improve them self. In other cultures, other emotions are primed. Among middle and upper class Americans the emotion is usually “self-esteem,” while among working class (white) Americans it is something like “toughness.” I haven’t seen research on this regarding blacks in America, but would guess that the emotion primed is likely to be “fear.” In other cultures where fear is the primed emotion it can lead to wariness and suspicion of others (which, in some environments has survival value), or to very strong in-group ties.

Now ask how all of this might play out for ambitious young black males, whatever their social and economic status, primed to operate on fear, to not be overly assertive or aggressive around whites, facing multiple barriers to success in society (a source of anger), and seeing privileged whites seeming to get the perks easily….

 
Abel Dean
 
Avatar
 
 
Abel Dean
Total Posts:  427
Joined  03-11-2017
 
 
 
20 February 2019 04:23
 
burt - 19 February 2019 08:10 AM
Abel Dean - 18 February 2019 09:35 PM

Even after controlling for either IQ or SES, a large gap in criminal behavior exists between blacks and whites, and the crime gap exists all along the SES spectrum from bottom to top. But, it is a black male problem, not so much a black female problem (crime among all races is much more of a male problem than a female problem). Most black men are not criminal, but it takes only a larger minority of black males than white males for the crime gap to negatively affect all black men, criminal or not. All black men are victims of the external racial biases emerging from the crime gap. An employer justly knows merely from observing the race of a male job applicant that the applicant is 2.5 times more likely to commit a crime on the job than a white applicant with the same qualifications, and it would be a miracle if this did not mean a systemic socioeconomic disadvantage for black males.

And you would suggest that criminal behavior is a matter of genetics? Let’s look at some parallels:

We’ve seen a good bit of talk about differences between women and men in leadership positions, and lots of comments regarding the effect of different gender stereotypes so that if a woman behaves in an assertive and commanding way she’s considered shrill and pushy whereas if a man behaves in the same way he is considered assertive and ambitious. The social opinion is still that women ought to be more submissive and nurturing, So ambitious self-confident women have a social image problem and face extra resistance as they work their way up through the hierarchies.

Consider Obama’s leadership style, and early comments that he had to take the “no drama, laid back” approach because the nation wasn’t ready for an aggressive, assertive black man in a position of power, instead of being seen as assertive and ambitious he’s be seen as a shrill angry black male. Recall the line from Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, about the slur thrown at young black children who worked hard in school, that they were “trying to be white.”

Consider that almost all young black males are, as a matter of survival, taught to avoid confrontations with authority (or the cop might shot you) and behave in non-confrontational ways when interacting with whites.

There is cross-cultural research on child rearing practices and one universal feature is something called “predispositional priming.” This is the priming of a child, from infancy, to be sensitive to a particular emotion which can then be used to strengthen other practices. For example, in China children are primed to feel shame, the idea being that a feeling of shame will motivate a child to work harder to improve them self. In other cultures, other emotions are primed. Among middle and upper class Americans the emotion is usually “self-esteem,” while among working class (white) Americans it is something like “toughness.” I haven’t seen research on this regarding blacks in America, but would guess that the emotion primed is likely to be “fear.” In other cultures where fear is the primed emotion it can lead to wariness and suspicion of others (which, in some environments has survival value), or to very strong in-group ties.

Now ask how all of this might play out for ambitious young black males, whatever their social and economic status, primed to operate on fear, to not be overly assertive or aggressive around whites, facing multiple barriers to success in society (a source of anger), and seeing privileged whites seeming to get the perks easily….

I suspect that the black-white crime gap is largely genetic, but that may be a needless distraction, because my points so far do not depend on the black-white crime gap being genetic. It need be only a differential phenotype, regardless of the cause of it, predispositional priming or not.

 
burt
 
Avatar
 
 
burt
Total Posts:  15614
Joined  17-12-2006
 
 
 
20 February 2019 08:00
 
Abel Dean - 20 February 2019 04:23 AM
burt - 19 February 2019 08:10 AM
Abel Dean - 18 February 2019 09:35 PM

Even after controlling for either IQ or SES, a large gap in criminal behavior exists between blacks and whites, and the crime gap exists all along the SES spectrum from bottom to top. But, it is a black male problem, not so much a black female problem (crime among all races is much more of a male problem than a female problem). Most black men are not criminal, but it takes only a larger minority of black males than white males for the crime gap to negatively affect all black men, criminal or not. All black men are victims of the external racial biases emerging from the crime gap. An employer justly knows merely from observing the race of a male job applicant that the applicant is 2.5 times more likely to commit a crime on the job than a white applicant with the same qualifications, and it would be a miracle if this did not mean a systemic socioeconomic disadvantage for black males.

And you would suggest that criminal behavior is a matter of genetics? Let’s look at some parallels:

We’ve seen a good bit of talk about differences between women and men in leadership positions, and lots of comments regarding the effect of different gender stereotypes so that if a woman behaves in an assertive and commanding way she’s considered shrill and pushy whereas if a man behaves in the same way he is considered assertive and ambitious. The social opinion is still that women ought to be more submissive and nurturing, So ambitious self-confident women have a social image problem and face extra resistance as they work their way up through the hierarchies.

Consider Obama’s leadership style, and early comments that he had to take the “no drama, laid back” approach because the nation wasn’t ready for an aggressive, assertive black man in a position of power, instead of being seen as assertive and ambitious he’s be seen as a shrill angry black male. Recall the line from Obama’s 2004 speech at the Democratic convention, about the slur thrown at young black children who worked hard in school, that they were “trying to be white.”

Consider that almost all young black males are, as a matter of survival, taught to avoid confrontations with authority (or the cop might shot you) and behave in non-confrontational ways when interacting with whites.

There is cross-cultural research on child rearing practices and one universal feature is something called “predispositional priming.” This is the priming of a child, from infancy, to be sensitive to a particular emotion which can then be used to strengthen other practices. For example, in China children are primed to feel shame, the idea being that a feeling of shame will motivate a child to work harder to improve them self. In other cultures, other emotions are primed. Among middle and upper class Americans the emotion is usually “self-esteem,” while among working class (white) Americans it is something like “toughness.” I haven’t seen research on this regarding blacks in America, but would guess that the emotion primed is likely to be “fear.” In other cultures where fear is the primed emotion it can lead to wariness and suspicion of others (which, in some environments has survival value), or to very strong in-group ties.

Now ask how all of this might play out for ambitious young black males, whatever their social and economic status, primed to operate on fear, to not be overly assertive or aggressive around whites, facing multiple barriers to success in society (a source of anger), and seeing privileged whites seeming to get the perks easily….

I suspect that the black-white crime gap is largely genetic, but that may be a needless distraction, because my points so far do not depend on the black-white crime gap being genetic. It need be only a differential phenotype, regardless of the cause of it, predispositional priming or not.

And I suspect that it has nothing to do with genetics but rather shows something about social conditions, I doubt that there is anything like a gene (or gene network) that codes for criminal behavior. Although if I accepted your logic I would suspect that the obvious fact that all of the mass murders over the recent past have been committed by white males is based on some genetic flaw in white maleness, perhaps related to some sort of genetic attraction to shooting people with automatic weapons.

 
Quadrewple
 
Avatar
 
 
Quadrewple
Total Posts:  469
Joined  28-04-2017
 
 
 
20 February 2019 10:12
 
burt - 19 February 2019 08:10 AM

We’ve seen a good bit of talk about differences between women and men in leadership positions, and lots of comments regarding the effect of different gender stereotypes so that if a woman behaves in an assertive and commanding way she’s considered shrill and pushy whereas if a man behaves in the same way he is considered assertive and ambitious.

You know, people keep saying this but that’s not what I’ve seen at all.

What I’ve seen is that ANYONE who shows a hint of weakness when going against the grain gets steamrolled - woman or man.  Women generally have higher pitched voices, different hormones, and are physically weaker, so they generally don’t come across as strong as men do.

Effective assertiveness tends to look different in women than men for all the above reasons.  What you’re referring to with the “shrill and pushy” is a woman who is attempting to mimic male assertiveness without the prerequisite hormones, physical strength, or mentality of a man.

It comes across as “try-hard” and thus doesn’t work…..it’s an overcompensation.  Overcompensation is always ineffective.

My point is that the point you’re making is an oversimplified cliche.  Men who try to overcompensate and mimic female-style assertiveness are also equally ineffective, as are weak men who try to mimic the behavior of strong men.

burt - 19 February 2019 08:10 AM

The social opinion is still that women ought to be more submissive and nurturing, So ambitious self-confident women have a social image problem and face extra resistance as they work their way up through the hierarchies.

Yes, because submissive and nurturing traits are largely what make women good mothers.  Now that society has largely decided we need not keep our society going with children, people are rationally reacting to that by saying that it’s not important for women to be submissive and nurturing (and on the flipside, it’s not important or even negative for men to be assertive).

The problem is that these New-Age prescriptions go against our evolutionary nature…..

burt - 19 February 2019 08:10 AM

Consider that almost all young black males are, as a matter of survival, taught to avoid confrontations with authority (or the cop might shot you) and behave in non-confrontational ways when interacting with whites.

I sincerely doubt this is the case.  If it were the case, imagine how much confrontations with police young black males would have if they WEREN’T taught this.

burt - 19 February 2019 08:10 AM

Now ask how all of this might play out for ambitious young black males, whatever their social and economic status, primed to operate on fear, to not be overly assertive or aggressive around whites, facing multiple barriers to success in society (a source of anger), and seeing privileged whites seeming to get the perks easily….

That is a valid point, however what makes you think that black people like assertive or “aggressive” white people?  Is this really specific to black/white relations, or is this just a inter-racial issue in general?  I would suspect it is the latter.

[ Edited: 20 February 2019 10:16 by Quadrewple]
 
 
‹ First  < 6 7 8 9 10 >  Last ›