Monday, February 23, 2015

"American Denial".

Image result for black man arrested imagesI would like to start this post by saying thank you to my African brothers and sisters, who hosted a wonderful program with yours truly yesterday at a church (no it didn't explode) in the Overbrook section of Philadelphia.

Getting knowledge is good.  Bonding with the Diaspora is better.

Now for my post:

"In 1944, Swedish sociologist Gunnar Myrdal, in his famous study An American Dilemma, unpacked the hypocrisy of Jim Crow segregation in a society based on liberty and equality.

The new PBS documentary American Denial picks up this decades-old question and asks it again: how in the world can a country that claims to cherish freedom and fairness treat black people so terribly?

Using Myrdal's work as an entry point, director Llewellyn ("Llew") Smith and producers Christine Herbes-Sommers and Kelly Thomson offer a new answer that's based on a modern, research-grounded understanding of how oppression works. The film makes the case that everything from the racialized police-involved violence that has captured the country's attention in recent months, to educational inequalities, economic disparities, and the incarceration crisis all have a common root: unconscious racism, also known as implicit bias. They pin the blame on a belief — so deeply entrenched that many of us aren't aware that we hold it — that white is better than black.

I had a conversation recently with Herbes-Sommers and Smith, who worked on the film for more than 5 years, about how the topic of unconscious racism has become even more timely since they began the project, and why it's so urgent that all Americans ask themselves two key questions: "Why do I think this?" and "What are the consequences"?

'Jenée Desmond-Harris: What was your inspiration for making this film?

CHS: When it comes to talking about race and bias generally, white people don't want to feel guilty anymore, and black people don't want to feel angry anymore. For us, [the goal] was, what is a way for us to begin to probe the question in a way that everyone could embrace, as both personal and political? We all have biases, but how can we look at those in a way that allows us to change the destructive outcomes of those biases?

LS: In terms of the nature of the film, we were also interested in using history as a way to begin to open up this conversation and a lens through which we could ask some very penetrating questions about how we create racial dynamics.

JDH: How does American Denial explain how implicit racial bias has influenced this country throughout history, and how it works today?

CHS: The narrative spine of the film is Gunnar Myrdal's 1,800-page, multivolume study on the Jim Crow South. He asks a very profound, very difficult question: how can a society that is so devoted to equality, justice, and equal opportunity both allow and enable a system of laws and practices that oppress a significant percentage of the population?

He alludes to idea that there is unconscious bias, but that's not what he identifies. Probably the best way we see unconscious bias in the film is through a test called the Implicit Association Test, which was developed by Mahzarin R. Banaji of Harvard.

And probably the most poignant sections of the film are the black doll/white doll tests of Kenneth and Mamie Clarke [conducted during the 1940s] and a modern iteration of the test in which the results are the same. Young children five, four, six years old, are given two dolls — a black doll and white doll, and the interrogator ask which doll is the nice doll, the smart doll, the dumb doll, the ugly doll, the pretty doll, and the results are horrible: a third of black children are identifying the white dolls as smart, good, healthy, clean, and successful. But when it comes to the question "What doll are you?" the children don't want to identify themselves as bad, stupid, ugly, et cetera, but they're not white. We see this internalized conundrum and the results of historical biases and practices.

LS: What's interesting about that test is it gets to the question of implicit biases — that even people of color can have biases against themselves and that gets internalized because we're all subjected to the same kinds of biases that devalue black skin and black life compared to white skin and white life.

The kind of bias the FBI Director James Corney is talking about when he's talking about police making assumptions about who's more likely to kill and who's not, that's not so different from the kind of bias that's being articulated in the doll study — in one place its being internalized and in one place its being executed in public action.

CHS: These biases are not neutral. They lead to arrests, stereotyping, mass incarceration ... whole communities are being eviscerated by these biases in practice.

JDH: You mentioned arrests and incarceration. What areas outside criminal justice are useful to explore when thinking about implicit bias?

CHS: In the film, we see an extension of implicit bias test into the realm of medicine. A group of doctors are asked how they would prescribe certain blood pressure medications, and there's a huge correlation — blood pressure medication is given much less to black men than to white men with the same symptoms, when everything else is equal.

Another place you see it is in employment and hiring. Legions of studies indicate that identical resumes are treated differently once race is identified. Virtually every realm of human endeavor in US is colored one way or the other by a racial dynamic.

LS: Other research shows that black boys are viewed as older and less innocent than white boys [by teachers and police officers]. It's not that these people are consciously trying to do these things, but they're articulating what is in their unconscious and the unconscious associations they make ... but of course these teachers wouldn't describe themselves as racist, and we wouldn't say they are bad people. We're all drinking the same water, and we're getting the same messages. How these are being articulated in our life is a question we're not asking enough.

JDH: Do you think the film's focus on implicit bias and your emphasis that it's something that affects everyone takes the question of blame out of the equation and makes it easier, or more palatable, for viewers to become open to thinking about modern-day racial inequality?

LS: It's a conversation we haven't tried to have in that way. We keep trying to have these winner-take-all conversations, and we keep winding up in the same place. What we are trying to do [with the film] is invite the viewers into the film to think about this for an hour in a way that is not about apportioning blame. It's about how are we all victimized by the destructive ideas we've internalized ... and how that affects the institutions we depend on.

CHS: Rather than a conversation about blame, it's about collective individual responsibility — to invite viewers to look at themselves without fear, knowing that other people might be doing the same thing. It's a collective exercise in self-examination.

LS: Banaji acknowledges in the film that even when she takes her own test, she can't associate good with black as quickly as she associates good with white.

JDH: There are a lot of people who really resent any discussions of race and racism, and who become very defensive and insist that people who discuss race are creating an issue where there isn't one. Could confessions like Banaji's and those of the other experts in the film, and the emphasis that racial bias is something that affects all of us, be disarming to these types of viewers?

CHS: Overall, we tried to tell the story in a really gentle, inviting, complicated way. Black and white scholars are implicating themselves and each other in this imminently human project of cultivating biases and reevaluating them for their destructive consequences.

[This type of inquiry] always leads to the question, "Why do I think this?" Not just why is there a bias, but "Why don't I want to talk about this anymore?" You end up peeling back layers of resistance and denial — that's an extremely courageous process for human beings to engage in, and we hope that film invites viewers to do that.

LS: I keep thinking about the people who are afraid to have these kinds of conversations, and there's this feeling that if we don't talk about it, it might go away. But we have to talk about it because there are lives at stake. There are people dying in encounters with police. There are African-Americans locked away, in a society that incarcerates people at a higher rates than in any other society in the history of the world. There are real problems that we have to address going forward, and it would be wonderful if these tragedies would lead to a moment where we start to really address some of these issues in ways that we haven't.



CHS: And we think the moment may be closer upon us  ... when was the last time you saw the words "implicit bias" come out of the mouth of an FBI director?

But our capacity for denial as individuals and a culture is rapacious — a lot of it is self-protective, but in the end a lot of the stuff that is self-protective is destructive to others and to society as a whole.

LS: One thing you could say to these people who say they're really sick of this is this is something to explore, even though you may not want to do it. Gently cajole people to actually take the [Implicit Association] test, and see how they feel when they get the results. You don't necessarily have to believe them, but it's something to think about.

JDH: What is the fundamental question the film is trying to get viewers to answer? Is it "Why do I think this?"

LS: It's that, and "Why do I do this?" And "What consequences does it have that these things are being thought by me, and that these thoughts are shared with people who are friends, strangers, and people in institutions we depend on for democracy and justice?"

CHS: Right. It starts with the "why" question and then next question is, "What are the consequences when it's not just me who feels it and acts on it? Because biases are nothing if they have no consequences. If they don't have consequences, then they're just personal opinions and preferences.

JDH: A lot of people think that biases are just harmless and personal.

CHS:  But they're not.  They're not at all.'" [Source]

The field Negro enlightenment  and education series continues.

Thank you for reading.   













    

82 comments:

lilacpr2000 said...

Mmm hmmm! :)

Is there any place online where I can take this test?

Anonymous said...

"But our capacity for denial as individuals and a culture is rapacious — a lot of it is self-protective, but in the end a lot of the stuff that is self-protective is destructive to others and to society as a whole."

The above comment explains 'why' racism continues and 'why' people like Josh, Kinky, Bill, PC, and PilotX and a few other Anons are so twisted inside.

Anyway, thanks for this very informative post, Field. I am very surprised you had it in you to post something like this.

BTW, do you plan to finish this? Don't you think it's a little too heavy and complicated for your regular FN readers? I mean, NONE, and I mean NONE are open to this. They are into name calling, esp PC. This post is waaay over his head.

Anonymous said...

OpenID lilacpr2000 said...
Mmm hmmm! :)

Is there any place online where I can take this test?

9:11 PM
-------
Oh Pleeeze!

Josh said...

Damn, Field. You got peeps flying in from Africa just to go to church with you? Big-timing it.

"The above comment explains 'why' racism continues and 'why' people like Josh, Kinky, Bill, PC, and PilotX and a few other Anons are so twisted inside."

Well, thank Pete that the comment explains it all, because everyone knows you sure as shit can't.

lilacpr2000 said...

Your results are reported below:

Your data suggest a moderate automatic preference for Black people compared to White people.

If you are interested in taking more of these types of tests, you are encouraged to visit Project Implicit's website, implicit.harvard.edu.


Hahaha! But I knew this already!

lilacpr2000 said...

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/american-denial/implicit-association-test.html


Cool test everybody, go take it!

Limpbaugh said...

Maybe conservatives really do believe that speaking out against racism is racism. Maybe there are racists who watched the video and really believed that Rodney King wasn't beaten. As a 9/11 truther, I come across a lot of cognitive dissonance. Some people can watch a video of the World Trade Center Building 7 collapse and immediately see that the government lied about it. Others can watch it, see video of Larry Siverstein admitting they decided to "pull it", and hear experts explain why the government's explanation is scientifically impossible, and still believe burning carpet melted the steel columns.

Anonymous said...

Josh said, "Well, thank Pete that the comment explains it all, because everyone knows you sure as shit can't.

9:30 PM"

--------------
You effing racist! Rednecks like you should never be allowed on a wholesome non-racist blog like FN.

Anonymous said...

From the previous thread.

Josh said to Purple Cow:

"Jesus H Christ on a biscuit, man. Take two fucking minutes out of your day and look this shit up! I'm not making this shit up; I didn't invent the fucking definitions; I'm not using quote-mined bits of them to prove my point. That's what the fucking thing means!"

Josh, I would appreciate it if you would not use the Lord's name in vain. I am a devote Christian and love my God. Please show some respect. This is the reason Denmark is having trouble because of inconsiderate people regarding people's religion.

Having said that, you really took it to PC. I mean, I felt the sting all the way up here in Alaska. You really laid him out. I doubt he won't come back from that ass whipping you gave him for some time....OUCH!!

Josh said...

"...you really took it to PC."

Well, there no objective standards by which to measure who took it to whom, unless one is citing data which is necessarily quantifiable and falsifiable.

And, of course, he obviously disagrees with that take on it and most likely Crip-walks triumphantly in the expectation that he took it to me.

What PC and I are talking about, at the heart of the thing, is actually what's in someone's heart -- and these things you just can't know.

I value PC's input on matters and don't mind speaking with him, so I certainly home he comes back. But, I must stand fast to what the term "fundamentally transform" actually means, and ask anyone reading this at any time to answer the question of whether they would seek to fundamentally transform a thing they love.

>You effing racist! Rednecks like you should never be allowed on a wholesome non-racist blog like FN."

Yeah, on this wholesome, non-racist blog, I was screamed at in my first week back, "FUCK YOU HONKY AND YOUR CRACKA ASS FAMILY TOO!" while this blog's owner rooted it on.

Wholesome. As bitter, scalded milk. lol

Yīshēng said...

Josh the Joke,

I know you aren't accustomed to Black men supporting Black women. In fact, you're not used to seeing Black folks supporting each other in ANY endeavor.

You see it isn't lost on my ONE BIT that if I were a White woman being disparaged by another man, you'd raise hell defending her honor. Hell, White men like you have almost destroyed "great" White civilizations protecting White cooch.

YOUR mistake was in thinking you could talk to me like your parents/grandparents talked to mine. Newsflash White boy, this ain't 19 f*king 52, if you step to me disrespectful again, I won't hesitate to call your White racist trash ass out again AND will add your family too for sport.

Anonymous said...

Reality is racist.

If you doubt this, just look at Yisheng.

You can take a piece of shit out of the ghetto, but you can't take the ghetto out of a piece of shit.

Anonymous said...

White people give blacks everything, even their excuses.

Josh said...

Yisheng, if you were a white woman and shouted at a black man, "FUCK YOU NIGGER AND YOUR JIGABOO ASS FAMILY TOO," the first words out of my mouth would be, "Oh, bitch. You done fucked up now.

With these things, I live by the Sinbad rule of fighting Dracula. I will trip your ass and tell Drac to bite you, so that I don't get bitten.

Whatever illusions you have in your head about how people are supposed to act based on your projection, understand that it is merely your projection.

"YOUR mistake was in thinking you could talk to me like your parents/grandparents talked to mine."

My ancestors were Irish slaves, you uninformed, assuming dingbat.

Besides, don't rewrite history, with your dumb ass. Before I uttered a single negative word in your direction, you flew off the handle and screamed at me, "FUCK YOU HONKY AND YOUR CRACKA ASS FAMILY TOO" after your miniscule intellect inferred that I was a white redneck racist saying something you didn't like.

This is your issue of projection, and it is demonstrable. You see a white person, you see the son or daughter of a slave master. You don't even see a person. You have color arousal to the hilt.

Oh, sorry, Field -- I forgot that you folks don't see "white" as a color. Whites don't have color, don't have culture, and don't have a fucking say in how they're viewed by everyone else. I always hear this shit spouted that whites expect blacks to "know their place." Again, this is total projection. It's whites who are expected to know their place in this day and age, and that place is sitting there silently, nursing their guilt, while everyone else tells the world what it is to be white -- e.g. to be privileged and racist and the descendants of slave owners and land thieves, all because of their skin color.

People like Yisheng can't hide their bitter racist nature. It boils over at random.

"I won't hesitate to call your White racist trash ass out again AND will add your family too for sport."

And Field and folks won't hesitate to read you going off on a racist rant and say, "GET 'EM GIRL! That's how it's done!"

It is what it is.

Josh said...

And let me clarify, for people who give me my stance on every fucking issue yet never, ever bother reading what I actually say:

I think it's quite apparent--and even Field could attest to this, but since I'm white, we know he won't--that I don't give fuck one about the damsel in distress trope. Women are equal in my book, and I'm not rushing to the defense of any chick who pops off at the mouth.

Just as I don't GAF about Ray Rice knocking his fiancee out after she attacked him, I wouldn't care enough to defend a "white woman" if she decided to pop off.

Equality = fight your own battles.

But let a ship start sinking and men not allowing women off first, then all that "equality" shit turns into, "Why aren't you helping us?"

Anonymous said...

Anybody here from New Joke City?

The Purple Cow said...

Cameron tweet naaaaaah yeah?

#gayleforce

#cwc15

The Purple Cow said...

Well that was fun, Field. I got up super-early to watch Windies v. Zimbabwe and it was well worth the effort.

Yer two Yawdies Chris Gayle and Marlon Samuels tore the Zimmie bowling attack apart hitting a world record 372 run partnership! Gayle also equalled the world record number of sixes in one innings (16) in his knock of 215.

This just two days after WICB President Dave Cameron tweeted that Gayle should be "pensioned off". People are speculating that this could signal the end for the accident-prone Cameron.

Game is still going on but Zimmies look shell shocked.

#rallyhard

The Purple Cow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
The Purple Cow said...

”It is very, very unlikely that an individual would seek to fundamentally transform a thing they love. Do you need a refresher course on what that term implies?”

I don’t, you do.

This is palpable nonsense. Here’s the thing Joshy, simply repeating a wrong thing over and over again does not make it suddenly right. Ask Joseph Goebbels.

Margaret Thatcher fundamentally transformed the UK, did she not lov…

Oh wait, that’s a bad example.

Ronnie Reagan fundamentally transformed America, making the rich fabulously wealthy at the expense of the poor and the middle classes, forcing the middle-class to hand over $1 Trillion to the already rich, totally destroying the American dream in the process. Y’know, that dream that said if you studied hard and worked hard you could make it in America. This fundamental transformation smashed social mobility in America, and lowered the USA’s Gini coefficient to 92st in the world, behind Russia and Iran (!) Did Ronald Reagan love America? Yes he did. Was he the most destructive politician in American history? Yes he was, but he still loved America.

**

”They obviously didn't love motherfucking Poland the way Poland was, did they? Holy shit. They loved what Poland COULD BE without communism!”

They loved Poland because it was their land, the system of government does not determine Patriotism.

**

”How many fucking instances have you been able to seriously reach incredibly far for over the past three days and successfully pull back? 1 1/2. Out of every other fucking thing. That's such an infinitesimal number that it hardly qualifies as 0.00000001%.”

I can give you as many example as you want dude. I just gave you another. Unlike you though, I don’t see the value in making the same argument over and over again, ad nauseum.

**

”Not impossible, just definitely the outlier. And as that pertains to Obama, I still haven't the slightest bit of evidence that he loves or has ever loved America; you just want to assume that as the default position. Maybe it's a "black thang."

As a mater of interest, do you still claim not to be a racist?

**
”The only examples you were able to dredge up, given every fucking thing in the world, were two examples of people who sought to change their governments.”

You’re repeating yourself again.
**

”I mean, it ties right the fuck in. You describe yourself as a socialist even, if I'm not mistaken, so it's not exactly as if you're all gung-ho about America's capitalistic economic system. And the examples were specifically about bad governments that were dispelled. So, it seems that was the path you were taking.

My bad if that's not what you meant.”


Yep, you bad.

Josh said...

"This is palpable nonsense. Here’s the thing Joshy, simply repeating a wrong thing over and over again does not make it suddenly right."

The irony here is that the only thing you have in your favor which would suggest I'm wrong and you're right is that you continue to repeat over and over again that I'm wrong and you're right.


Your self-awareness is below that of a progressive feminist demanding that people ban words.

This truly is like arguing with a Christian creationist. It's speaking to one who will not listen; it's bluntly throwing one's head against a concrete wall of dogma. And what's worse: The dogma here isn't religion or politics, it's self-important intractability.

"I don’t, you do."

Except for the fact that is is demonstrably untrue. And if you don't know what "demonstrably" means, it is an adjective which conveys a thing that is able to be demonstrated; e.g. the definitions of the words "fundamental" and "transform."

You asked earlier why you waste your time with this shit. Evidently, it isn't a waste of your time. How hard can it fucking be to simply check that someone has replied and to just start telling them that they're wrong, with nothing in the way of explanatory power?

If only you could get paid for such nonsense.

The Purple Cow said...

”You seem far too stupid to continue arguing with me on this point. Honestly. It must be a total lack of shame. You haven't even the slightest fucking understanding of what the term "fundamentally transform" implies, do you?”

You’re repeating yourself again.

I understand completely what fundamentally transform means. Ask Ronnie Reagan, oh wait…he’s dead.

**

”You pooh-pooh my examples about the dog and shit, saying it's stupid and illogical, but that's what the fuck it means to "fundamentally transform" something!”

You’re repeating yourself again.

**
”Jesus H Christ on a biscuit, man. Take two fucking minutes out of your day and look this shit up! I'm not making this shit up; I didn't invent the fucking definitions; I'm not using quote-mined bits of them to prove my point. That's what the fucking thing means! Objectively. “

You’re repeating yourself again.

**
”You wanna speak about straw-men? You are creating a straw-man out of the meaning of the term, as if to imply that it only entails so-so changes to various aspects of a system which one may disagree with.”

I’ve said absolutely no such thing.

**
”That's demonstrably wrong.”

I agree.

**
”Incorrect. Untrue. False. Bullshit. Nonsense. FAIL. How many more ways can it be said?”

You’re repeating yourself again.

”To fundamentally transform something is to completely convert or change that thing at its most foundational level.”

I disagree.

To fundamentally transform anything, in this case a country, is to change the culture and the structure of a country. Obama, because he is a moderate conservative, wanted to take America away from the ‘greed is good’ Reagan narrative. He wanted to end the “fuck you I’m allright, Jack” 1980’s narrative, he wanted to end systemic racism in all aspects of American life. He wanted to end the “Should people without healthcare insurance be allowed to die?” ”FUCK YEAH” mentality.

An American society not based on greed and avarice, with a functioning health care system that delivered better than third world outcomes, and without systemic racism. That, my friend, would have been a fundamental transformation of America.

He failed, because being a conservative he did not know that capitalism is incapable of producing a decent society.

**

”Are you capable of honestly admitting what this fucking means?”

I am.

I don’t know about you.

Josh said...

And while I'm still awake at 5:17 a.m., let me add another difference between the two of us.

If I say you're wrong about something, I attempt to demonstrate why and how you're wrong. For instance, your objectively incorrect connotation of the term "fundamentally transform."

Rich people getting richer doesn't necessarily fundamentally transform an entire nation. It transforms the rich people, unless you're one of those maniacs who believe "wealth" is a zero-sum fixed pie that, when eaten by the rich, steals from the poor. But even I wouldn't think you that stupid.

So, what you see as me repeating myself time and again, I see as a necessity to explain to you why you're so full of fucking shit.

It's more a matter of record than repetitiveness.

And your awesome intellectual prowess offers such explanations as "you're wrong" and "that's nonsense" and "that's illogical," without explaining why, beyond maligning my intelligence.

Oh, to have had you on a stage in school in a debate where someone could have put the screws to your ass with the buzzer. "Your rebuttal, Purple Cow?" "Yeah, man, Joshy's talking palpable nonsense."

At least you didn't scream at me to read the Bible for answers. 2 points.

Josh said...

”To fundamentally transform something is to completely convert or change that thing at its most foundational level.”

I disagree."


Well, it doesn't really matter if you disagree or not. Just like a creationist, as I've pointed out time and again--which you know you love--you think that disagreeing with evolution makes evolution wrong. Sorry, buddy, but the words have fucking definitions. That you disagree does not change that fact.

"An American society not based on greed and avarice, with a functioning health care system that delivered better than third world outcomes..."

Third-world outcomes? What sort of fucking rag-mag propaganda tabloid have you been reading? America's healthcare is expensive; no bout a-doubt that. But third-world outcomes? We're fucking awesome at healing folks. Not so great at ensuring folks don't go bankrupt in the process, which I agree needs fundamental change, but doctors weren't fucking failing, you lunatic.

Anonymous said...

Yīshēng said...

Josh the Joke,

I know you aren't accustomed to Black men supporting Black women. In fact, you're not used to seeing Black folks supporting each other in ANY endeavor.

You see it isn't lost on my ONE BIT that if I were a White woman being disparaged by another man, you'd raise hell defending her honor. Hell, White men like you have almost destroyed "great" White civilizations protecting White cooch.

YOUR mistake was in thinking you could talk to me like your parents/grandparents talked to mine. Newsflash White boy, this ain't 19 f*king 52, if you step to me disrespectful again, I won't hesitate to call your White racist trash ass out again AND will add your family too for sport.


Now this is a verified she-boon.
What garbage.

Anonymous said...


Yīshēng said...

Josh the Joke,

I know you aren't accustomed to Black men supporting Black women. In fact, you're not used to seeing Black folks supporting each other in ANY endeavor.

No one is . 70% of black muddas are single moms. 9 of 10 black babies are supported by the white nation and foo-stamps. You ghetto hoochie mama.

Josh said...

I feel bad for Yisheng -- and for racists in general, truthfully.

I don't know what it's like to look at someone and judge them only by their skin color. It can't be good on one's mental wellbeing. If I was like that, I wouldn't have made it out of Suitland, MD alive. With a black population of 98%, white boys were already an endangered species who had to necessarily develop a hand game or just hide inside. Holy shit. You better not be a racist IRL in that sort of situation.

Yisheng must either (a) keep her racism hidden very well and confined to the Internet or (b) live around mostly racial minorities where she doesn't have to stress the negative impact of her racism.

The Purple Cow said...

The irony here is that the only thing you have in your favor which would suggest I'm wrong and you're right is that you continue to repeat over and over again that I'm wrong and you're right.”

1. As indeed do you.
2. I’m not sure that you understand the meaning of the word ‘irony’.

**

”This truly is like arguing with a Christian creationist. It's speaking to one who will not listen; it's bluntly throwing one's head against a concrete wall of dogma. And what's worse: The dogma here isn't religion or politics, it's self-important intractability. “

Your interpretation of the phrase “fundamental transformation” is very different from mine. I think your interpretation is nonsense. You don’t believe that an America free of systemic racism would be fundamentally transformed.

Is that a white"thang".

**
”Except for the fact that is is demonstrably untrue.”

No it isn’t. You have chosen to adopt a ridiculously literal definition of the phrase in a (failed) attempt to portray Obama as someone who does not love America. Any rational person I know (and I know a few) would see an America without systemic racism, a financial system not based on greed and exploitation, and a healthcare system free at the point of delivery to all, to be ‘fundamentally transformed’.

Now you can have another hissy fit if it will make you feel better, throw your toys out of your pram again if you like. But you can’t get away from the fact that you are using the phrase in a way that you know, I repeat, YOU KNOW Obama didn’t mean. Because (according to you) to totally transform something can only mean turning a bucket into a dog, or whatever the fucking ridiculous fucking apology for an analogy you used was.

”And if you don't know what "demonstrably" means, it is an adjective which conveys a thing that is able to be demonstrated; e.g. the definitions of the words "fundamental" and "transform."”

Yessum massa, I bin goin’ to skool now like a good l’il nigra for many a long year now. I knows me some big white wordz.

**

”You asked earlier why you waste your time with this shit. Evidently, it isn't a waste of your time. How hard can it fucking be to simply check that someone has replied and to just start telling them that they're wrong, with nothing in the way of explanatory power?”

I’ve done nothing else but attempt to explain the faults on your logic soce this debate started. However hard I try, there is simply no reasoning with a mind as closed as yours.

**

”If only you could get paid for such nonsense.”

Oh you can, I worked in advertising for eleven years.

The Purple Cow said...

Quote: Josh.

”Third-world outcomes? What sort of fucking rag-mag propaganda tabloid have you been reading? America's healthcare is expensive; no bout a-doubt that. But third-world outcomes? We're fucking awesome at healing folks. Not so great at ensuring folks don't go bankrupt in the process, which I agree needs fundamental change, but doctors weren't fucking failing, you lunatic.”

Some light reading for you Josh...

http://www.salon.com/2013/10/22/life_expectancy_in_america_rivals_third_world_partner/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danmunro/2014/06/16/u-s-healthcare-ranked-dead-last-compared-to-10-other-countries/

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-06-22/us-healthcare-snapshot-most-expensive-yet-worst-developed-world

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2013/01/daily-chart-7

http://www.commonwealthfund.org/publications/fund-reports/2014/jun/mirror-mirror

http://www.businessinsider.com/america-slouching-towards-third-world-status-2012-5?IR=T

”When opposing President Obama's health care reform proposals, Speaker of the House John Boehner repeatedly proclaimed (with passionate intensity) that America has the "best health care system in the world." Boehner is correct only if you exclude the entire developed world from the comparison. The U.S. ranks 50th for longevity and 49th for infant mortality, where we're barely ahead of Belarus, Croatia and Lithuania.”

source: http://www.businessinsider.com/america-slouching-towards-third-world-status-2012-5?IR=T

So who is the lunatic now, Josh?

Josh said...

"Your interpretation of the phrase “fundamental transformation” is very different from mine. I think your interpretation is nonsense. You don’t believe that an America free of systemic racism would be fundamentally transformed."

I'm not "interpreting" anything. This would be like me quoting to you verbatim the theory of inflation and then you telling me I'm interpreting it to you. No. I'm giving you the definition of the term. You're the one wishing to interpret it in a much lighter way. That's a you problem, not a me problem.

And, for the record, I think America systemically racially discriminating is bullshit anyway. Full stop.

I hear this argument from people, but it's always sophistry. It's always an appeal to emotion. It's always, "Look at all the poor black people!" "See all the blacks in jail!" "See all the cops shooting blacks!"

But two things are necessary to show privilege and/or discrimination:

1) Laws which directly promote/discriminate one over the other
2) Institutions which directly promote/discriminate one over the other

In the case of laws, we have no racist laws on the books. The only one that someone might even get away with arguing about, while using sophistry, is the series of drug laws (admittedly more than "a" law, of course). But what they never take into account is the multi-offender status of the black people locked away. Their sentences are disproportionate, true. But so too are their rap sheets.

And if one wants to argue institutions discriminate, well, the USA does not allow this. It is illegal. Anyone discriminated against based on race can remedy this grievance in civil or criminal court. A nation of systemic racism would not allow such a remedy to exist. This is like the idiots who say the patriarchy and war on women exists via the wage gap, but ignore the fact that businesses don't hire these women whom they can supposedly get for slave wages and fill their coffers at an enormous rate.

Facts belie the emotional pleas.

So, next?

"However hard I try, there is simply no reasoning with a mind as closed as yours."

Yeah, things like "palpable nonsense" and "that's wrong" and "that's illogical" really tell the tale.

Josh said...

"So who is the lunatic now, Josh?"

Still you.

The Salon puff piece--which, to its credit, not per usual, did cite actual stats--addresses as the biggest issue the cost of healthcare, with the correlation between the wealthy and life expectancy. As I've already fucking agreed, America's system needs to be changed because it's too damn expensive.

You're like my ex-girlfriend. Tell her she's right, and still she beats me over the head with it a week later.

The Forbes article is more of the same. It takes the healthcare system as aggregate data, not just outcomes. In this, America's outcomes are only behind Euro nations. Nothing about "third-world" outcomes in this one. On to the next...

ZeroHedge's is strictly about the cost in America. Did you forget the part where I agreed with that? Get off your estrogen.

The Economist measured only 17 countries, and obviously America's costs are the highest, and their other factors are second-lowest. But this particular study causes me to scratch me chin. This one seems like they went purely for confirmation bias. "Okay, so let's find rich countries that outperform America based on these predefined metrics." The language is also very cunty, lacking any objectivity. Juxtapose this against the others; shit, you might even agree. Strong emphasis on "might."

Commonwealth only did 11! None of them being third-world. That makes the Economist's efforts seem exhaustive.

The Business Insider piece is so obviously lopsided that I could smell it before through with the unfocused, clashing preamble to act as filler. And, oddly enough, while this person is railing on against America's system, likening it to one that's heading toward third-world status, they contradict that dire prediction by stating that America, on the whole, achieves equivalent results with Canada, whose system is considered good. lol

We have decent facilities. Not as high as I'd like, being American, but certainly not third-world status.
http://www.whichcountry.co/which-country-has-best-hospitals/

Are doctors are also pretty good.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/11/magazine/america-is-stealing-foreign-doctors.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

What fucks us is the incredibly inflated expense of care. Prenatal care, for instance, is something many can't afford. And so they're given cut-rate care that's controlled by the government. Then when these poor mothers have to deliver babies, they're again in government care hands as they go to public systems that are not equipped like private systems. Plus we have a lot of dumb-as-rocks young single mothers who aren't educated enough to take care of themselves and their babies. This is particularly true in the you-know-what community.

Preventative care is also too expensive for many, so poor people are relying on clinics that are ill equipped to provide top-notch care.

Shit's too expensive here. What the fuck else could I possibly fucking do but agree with you, Purple Cow? Holy shit.

But third-world? Hardly.



Anonymous said...

Josh said...
I feel bad for Yisheng -- and for racists in general, truthfully.


Yisheng must either (a) keep her racism hidden very well and confined to the Internet
5:38 AM


Well I think (and this discription I take from one of your previous posts)she's just an 'angry, attention seeking troll" !

Not a true racist at all.

Because you cannot have it both ways Josh. Either the commenters posts has to be taken at face value for what they are, or dismissed as "just angry attention seekers hiding behind a keyboard" as you say.

Josh said...

"Because you cannot have it both ways Josh. Either the commenters posts has to be taken at face value for what they are, or dismissed as "just angry attention seekers hiding behind a keyboard" as you say."

Well, on one hand, I don't necessarily disagree with that sentiment at all. On the other hand, this is not logically accurate. A person can be an angry, attention-seeking troll hiding behind a keyboard and still actually mean what they say, which is what Lilac and I were discussing in another post here.

I personally find it more likely as well that she's just a blowhard attention seeker and isn't racist in her day-to-day. But you can logically be both.

For instance, relatively related: Some people ask me why I curse all the time. I explain that saying "fucking shit" or something to that effect is actually just for emphasis. It's not something I do IRL (Or "in real life" for the Purple Cows of the world). However, typing in ALL CAPS and putting everything in brackets so that it stands out is very time consuming. So, instead of saying, YOU ARE DEMONSTRABLY WRONG AND I CAN PROVE IT, which takes more effort and really is an eye sore, I'd rather type, "You're fucking wrong, shitlord, and I'll prove it."

It comes across very troll-like, but I do mean the intent the curse words convey. I do mean it to be abrasive.

No doubt Yisheng was probably thinking, "What can I say to this white guy to really, really piss him off? Oh, I know..." But that does not necessarily cancel any true feeling she may have been expressing.

Though, if I'm being honest, what Yisheng said didn't bother me. It's that others were rooting her on. I see people here constantly calling white people racists and treating racist comments from whites with ample hostility, and rightfully so. But when Yisheng went full tard and insulted me in an objectively racist manner, she has a cheering section.

This makes me think some folks don't want racism to go away. They just want to be the ones being racist.

lilacpr2000 said...

The point or intent of any debate is to convince your audience that your point is the correct one.

As far as Josh and my debate I think, (and especially now with his above rebuttal of the very correctly observed Anon 8:40 AM comment, which espouses my view of Josh completely,) that I have amply convinced this audience that you Josh take one stance one second and another stance a minute later.

That's not debate, that's trying to weasel out of your previous stance. "You can't have it both ways".

I win my point and this debate has ended. ;D

BTW,you don't know how to debate, talking (writing) a LOT doesn't mean smack.

Quick clue, it's not quantity son, it's quality that matters in debate.

The Purple Cow said...

Part One

”I'm not "interpreting" anything.”

Yes you are.

**
”This would be like me quoting to you verbatim the theory of inflation and then you telling me I'm interpreting it to you. No. I'm giving you the definition of the term. You're the one wishing to interpret it in a much lighter way. That's a you problem, not a me problem.”

Wrong again. You gave me a definition of the term and then interpreted that particular definition into something along the lines of “totally transforming a tree turns it into a bucket”. Which is nonsense. Frankly, I don’t know what else to call it.

The important point is, that your interpretation of that phrase is one that you know is not what Obaba was saying. That’s the dishonesty at the heart of your argument.

**
”And, for the record, I think America systemically racially discriminating is bullshit anyway. Full stop.”

Well you would, you are a racist as previously discussed.

**

”I hear this argument from people, but it's always sophistry. It's always an appeal to emotion. It's always, "Look at all the poor black people!" "See all the blacks in jail!" "See all the cops shooting blacks!"

So objecting to unarmed 12 year old kids being shot in the street is “an appeal to emotion” is it?

Do you mean as in “For fuck’s sake man, an innocent child has been gunned down in the street but somebody who is supposed to uphold the law. Why does that not trouble you? Do you have even a tiny shred of humanity left in your dark empty soul?”

That sort of thing you mean?

Guilty as charged.

**

”But two things are necessary to show privilege and/or discrimination:

1) Laws which directly promote/discriminate one over the other
2) Institutions which directly promote/discriminate one over the other”


1. America’s drug laws.
2. The vast majority of America’s police forces and its judiciary.

”In the case of laws, we have no racist laws on the books. The only one that someone might even get away with arguing about, while using sophistry, is the series of drug laws (admittedly more than "a" law, of course). But what they never take into account is the multi-offender status of the black people locked away. Their sentences are disproportionate, true. But so too are their rap sheets.”

Yeah, dem darkies are all criminals aren’t they, Josh?

But the fact remains that if the narcotics industry is the only industry that is recruiting in your neighborhood, than that’s where you are going to go to work. So it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy isn’t it? Ensure that black people have no choice in how they make a living, then stick ‘em in jail for making a living the only way they can, get them to make your Army protection gear in prison for near slave wages, and thus disenfranchising them for ever so they can’t ever vote against this insanity. Also while your at it, have cops sitting around in E.R. departments doing nothing but running background checks on any black man who needs treatment, and throwing them back in jail for parole violation if they’ve been drinking, smoking or been in a fight. Welcome to America anno 2015. It’s a perfect circle of prejudice, disinformation and institutionalized discrimination.

The Purple Cow said...

Part Two

”And if one wants to argue institutions discriminate, well, the USA does not allow this. It is illegal.”

Oh so that’s OK then!

**
”Anyone discriminated against based on race can remedy this grievance in civil or criminal court.”

Yep that’s right, the single Mom in the ghetto can call up hey lawyer anytime she likes and get him to litigate against the school board. No problem.

What planet are you on?

**

A nation of systemic racism would not allow such a remedy to exist.”

Oh FFS, where do I start dealing with this nonsense? See my previous answers.


**
”Facts belie the emotional pleas.”

Really? So how come you only ever use hysterical diatribes to make your points?

**
”Yeah, things like "palpable nonsense" and "that's wrong" and "that's illogical" really tell the tale.”

Yep Joshy, when attempting to debate with you, they most certainly do.

Anonymous said...

We all may be pretty far apart on our opinions, but I think one thing everyone can agree on is that Yisheng is a despicable, parasitical racist mess whose grasping materialism, intellectual insecurites and emotional resentments have twisted her into a pathetic characture of a modern spoiled recipient of underserved opportunity and support.

Am I right?

Yīshēng said...

I see Josh the joke with the "side of Hilly, still hasn't figured out that intellectually speaking, he's a neophyte on a blog filled with experts.

PC has ground you up into so many pieces, there's nothing left identifying you as having a brain, much less human.

Yīshēng said...

BTW,you don't know how to debate, talking (writing) a LOT doesn't mean smack.

Quick clue, it's not quantity son, it's quality that matters in debate.

>>>>>>>>>>>

Get em' PR!!!! ;)

Yīshēng said...

But the fact remains that if the narcotics industry is the only industry that is recruiting in your neighborhood, than that’s where you are going to go to work. So it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy isn’t it? Ensure that black people have no choice in how they make a living, then stick ‘em in jail for making a living the only way they can, get them to make your Army protection gear in prison for near slave wages, and thus disenfranchising them for ever so they can’t ever vote against this insanity. Also while your at it, have cops sitting around in E.R. departments doing nothing but running background checks on any black man who needs treatment, and throwing them back in jail for parole violation if they’ve been drinking, smoking or been in a fight. Welcome to America anno 2015. It’s a perfect circle of prejudice, disinformation and institutionalized discrimination.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

THIS.

lilacpr2000 said...

Yīshēng said...

But the fact remains that if the narcotics industry is the only industry that is recruiting in your neighborhood, than that’s where you are going to go to work. So it’s a self-fulfilling prophecy isn’t it? Ensure that black people have no choice in how they make a living, then stick ‘em in jail for making a living the only way they can, get them to make your Army protection gear in prison for near slave wages, and thus disenfranchising them for ever so they can’t ever vote against this insanity. Also while your at it, have cops sitting around in E.R. departments doing nothing but running background checks on any black man who needs treatment, and throwing them back in jail for parole violation if they’ve been drinking, smoking or been in a fight. Welcome to America anno 2015. It’s a perfect circle of prejudice, disinformation and institutionalized discrimination.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

So true Yisheng! It's a crying shame! A crying shame! Makes me so,so angry!!! Jails full of young men that have no place in jail! That should be instead in colleges, at productive work helping to build the society!!!

But the cards are stacked against us from the moment we are conceived!



The Purple Cow said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Josh said...

"totally transforming a tree turns it into a bucket”. Which is nonsense. Frankly, I don’t know what else to call it."

Demonstrable straw-man. Silliness. Nonstarter. Red herring. And a dozen other things it can be called.

A bucket into a flower pot, however, is a common way in which many people fundamentally transform a vessel that was meant to be airtight to hold wet paint as an open-aired vessel to hold mineral-rich soil which will promote the growth of a healthy plant.

Just like it's quite popular for people to take those old, bulky, square computer monitors and fundamentally transform them into fishtanks.

"your interpretation of that phrase is one that you know is not what Obaba was saying."

1) Again, it's not an interpretation. Learn words.
2) I don't know what he fucking means. You don't know what he fucking means. Nobody knows what he fucking means! Every time somebody gets an opportunity to ask him what he means, they instead ask him how enchanting it feels to be president or some other softball horseshit.

"Well you would, you are a racist as previously discussed."

Obviously. Disagreeing with black people means one is a racist. That's just how it works. I know that to be truth; I came up in a 98% black ghetto in Suitland. If you didn't like the latest popular rap album, you were racist. If you didn't like Timberland boots, you were racist. If you didn't believe Jesus was black, you were racist.

A lot of black folks don't exactly have exacting standards for what racism is or isn't. 9/10th of the qualifying criteria rests on the person being white.

(cont)

Josh said...

(cont)

"1. America’s drug laws.
2. The vast majority of America’s police forces and its judiciary."


Prove it.

"Yeah, dem darkies are all criminals aren’t they, Josh?"

It is an objective fact that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime. But, I know, facts have a racist slant to them. Being disproportionate criminals, I guess it's impossible that black people taken to trial for drug charges already have existing records? Impossibru! Dat's WACIST!

"Ensure that black people have no choice in how they make a living"

Who ensures this? White people aren't burning down black businesses. Black people do that. White people are robbing black businesses. Black people are doing that. White people are keeping resources out of the black community; the black community is chasing them out. White people aren't keeping black kids from receiving an education, black kids are keeping themselves from it. White people aren't forcing black fathers out of homes, black women are.

White people aren't going to give someone a better fucking life for the mere act of being spit out of someone's loins.

"Yep that’s right, the single Mom in the ghetto can call up hey lawyer anytime she likes and get him to litigate against the school board. No problem."

Yeah, because it's not as if America isn't chocked absolutely full of race hustlers and race baiters who love nothing more than to bring these cases to the forefront, not to even mention the bleeding-heart liberals who love to take these cases pro bono, or the vast majority of media outlets who love to push the white privilege narrative and would show up in a minute to run the story.

Whatever planet I'm on, I guess I'm on the planet where this shit happens. You observe it from afar and pretend to have a grasp on it.

"Oh so that’s OK then!"

Again, you have to prove the two qualifying criteria for discrimination/privilege/whatever you wanna call it. You've done neither -- just some nonsensical griping about drug laws bereft of any and all context or data, and some sophistry about the poor, poor black mother who cannot remedy those white racists discriminating against her child. Which is implying directly, without a shred of evidence, that schools are discriminating against black children. You hysterical woman, you.

Cultural bias, I presume?

Same tune now for decades. Same boogeyman blamed now for decades. Same nonsensical blame-whitey shit for decades.

All I'm asking for here is hard data, scientific evidence. The burden of proof is on you to show systemic discrimination, not on me to disprove it. You first need to establish it. And other than sophistry, your well seems pretty dry.

The Purple Cow said...

”The Salon puff piece—“

Ahh yes, the attack the source if you can’t attack the content ploy…

**
…which, to its credit, not per usual, did cite actual stats--addresses as the biggest issue the cost of healthcare, with the correlation between the wealthy and life expectancy. As I've already fucking agreed, America's system needs to be changed because it's too damn expensive.”

This is a flat lie. The article addresses as its biggest issue the fact that Americans are dying much younger than people from other nations.

**
”The Forbes article is more of the same. It takes the healthcare system as aggregate data, not just outcomes. In this, America's outcomes are only behind Euro nations. Nothing about "third-world" outcomes in this one. On to the next...”

No, hold on. America comes dead last, eleventh out of eleven. That does not make it better than third world, only the worst of the eleven tested, In OUTCOMES it says America comes dead last on all three indicators of health. Sounds pretty third world to me.

**
”ZeroHedge's is strictly about the cost in America. Did you forget the part where I agreed with that? Get off your estrogen.”

Either you haven’t read this piece, or you conveniently missed the bit where it said America fails very badly in providing safe healthcare.

**

The Economist measured only 17 countries, and obviously America's costs are the highest, and their other factors are second-lowest. But this particular study causes me to scratch me chin. This one seems like they went purely for confirmation bias. "Okay, so let's find rich countries that outperform America based on these predefined metrics." The language is also very cunty, lacking any objectivity. Juxtapose this against the others; shit, you might even agree. Strong emphasis on "might."

ALL rich countries out perform the USA. So they wouldn't have had to search too hard would they?

**
”The Business Insider piece is so obviously lopsided that I could smell it before through with the unfocused, clashing preamble to act as filler
And, oddly enough, while this person is railing on against America's system, likening it to one that's heading toward third-world status, they contradict that dire prediction by stating that America, on the whole, achieves equivalent results with Canada, whose system is considered good. Lol”


That’s not what it said. You haven’t actually read any of these articles at all have you? You’ve just skimmed them, seeing what you wanted to see.

**

”But third-world? Hardly.”

America ranks 50th for longevity and 49th for infant mortality, just barely ahead of Belarus, Croatia and Lithuania. Life expectancy in Cuba is 3 months longer than the USA, despite the fact they spend an astonishing 96% less on healthcare.

Josh said...

"a neophyte on a blog filled with experts."

With this, I actually agree wholeheartedly.

This blog is filled with experts.

Experts on:

- Equivocating
- Straw-men
- Not understanding words
- Refusing context
- Confusing correlation with causation
- Committing fallacies of composition
- Committing fallacies of emotional appeals
- Using pure sophistry to make points
- Arguing from Ignorance
- Appealing to populous
- Not understanding fundamental logical principles
- Using masked-man fallacies
- Using propositional fallacies
- Smearing people as racists for simply being white and disagreeing with blacks
- Being blatant hypocrites
- And, Purple's favorite of all time, appealing to the stone

Many experts here in many fields.

Yīshēng said...

I wonder how many White blogs Jilly (Josh + Hilly) has been banned from?

Josh said...

"ALL rich countries out perform the USA. So they wouldn't have had to search too hard would they?"

This is the only point worth responding to, as it's probably the only one you'd bother to actually read.

It all depends on the metrics. That goes for any study.

The objective way to do it is to compare all the data side by side and rank accordingly and create the categories thereafter. What I'm saying is that particular study seems to have cherry-picked existing metrics.

I'm not going to argue with you over random quibbles here. Why? Because I fucking agree with you, you retarded motherfucker! What else can you possibly want?

Holy shit, man. Even when I'm agreeing with you, you still have to press on incessantly. And I'M the racist? You're only acting like a punk because I'm white, and we both know it.

I know America's healthcare system needs to be completely reformed. It fucking sucks. But we're not third-world. We don't have motherfucking malaria and dirty hospitals and disease outbreaks inside of treatment centers and healthcare that can barely cure even modest diseases. In the aggregate, it sucks. But we have some top-flight cancer treatment centers, some great cardiovascular options, good organ transplant options, and many of the world's top doctors and specialists.

It's not third-world, you delusional twat. Stop cherry-picking shit for your daily I-hate-America tirades. I get it!

You view America as racist and economically unfair and in need of the factual usage of fundamental transformation.

Got it!

Josh said...

Yisheng, honest question. But since I'm white, you probably won't answer.

You keep writing "Hilly" right after "Josh" in most of your posts. Who is Hilly? Do you think I'm this Hilly? Is "Hilly" an insult for "hillbilly" or something?

You do realize I was brought up in Suitland, right? lol Not a lot of hillbillies there, sweetheart.

lilacpr2000 said...

BTW Field I congratulate that church for caring about it's community and about matters of social justice.

As I read your post I was recalling that one of the last times I sat in my church, the pastor (a new pastor we had) had invited a pastor and wife from another church as speakers that Saturday.

The wife began talking about 'social justice' (and I remember she put it in quotes with her fingers). Saying that social justice or the lack of, had worried her.

But that her husband the pastor, had told her that "the church had no business delving into matters of 'social injustice', that the two were separate and had nothing to do with each other", and she said that he was right, so she wasn't concerned with it anymore !!! 0/0

I remember feeling shocked and angry at her words and I almost raised my hand to refute her on the spot!!! What did Jesus Christ struggle for all his life then!!!

But, you know in a church full of people on a Saturday morning and my grandmother there, who was a loyal church elder and deaconess, and who never questioned anything in her life! I thought better of it and just fumed.

I did tell my children otherwise though. I explained to them thoroughly how wrong that woman's statement was and why.

I was then in the position to put my money where my mouth was. So I sort of petered off going there any more. If that was that churches position, I would rather switch and go to another church. I never told my grandma. because I know she would have sided with them.

Excuse my rant guys :) I just admire so much a church that cares about social justice, That, to me is how it should be!

The Purple Cow said...

"I know America's healthcare system needs to be completely reformed."

Fundamentally transformed, would you say?

Josh said...

"That, to me is how it should be!"

Lilac, if you're a fan of social justice, then you may be pleased to know that it's not only churches adapting the cause. You can even find opinions about social justice being taught in physics classrooms.

That's right -- physics. The natural science that studies matter as it exists and moves through spacetime. A discipline that is supposed to be necessarily objective in nature. The science that gave us many great technologies, including the language for the computers on which we're communicating now, as well as nuclear physics, electromagnetism, thermodynamics, and much more.

Instead of dealing with the empirical and objective, some physics classrooms are now hubs for professors to preach from their pulpits their opinions on race and class in America.

That's exactly what physics needs, don't ya think?

The Purple Cow said...

”It is an objective fact that black people commit a disproportionate amount of crime.”

No it isn’t.

It’s an objective fact that black people are more likely to be charged with a crime than white people. They are also more likely to face more serious charges for the same crime, they are more likely to be found guilty, and they receive longer sentences for committing the same crime.

**
”White people aren't going to give someone a better fucking life for the mere act of being spit out of someone's loins.”

Actually I take it back. You are not a conservative at all are you? You are a proper fascist in the truest sense of the word.

**

”You hysterical woman, you.”

Add misogynist to the list of Josh’s many, many crimes against decency.

The Purple Cow said...

"Lilac, if you're a fan of social justice, then you may be pleased to know that it's not only churches adapting the cause. You can even find opinions about social justice being taught in physics classrooms."

Uh Oh, Josh is slowly morphing into Bill !

Josh said...

"Fundamentally transformed, would you say?"

Well, using the correct definition of the term, I'd caution restraint.

I mean, not fundamentally transformed to the point patients no longer have say over their doctors or treatment options. And not to the point where government gets to dictate who receives what type of procedure and why. Know what I mean?

Transformed in the sense that people can actually afford basic fucking care, at a bare minimum, and not have to worry about losing everything or going to jail should they fall ill through no fault of their own.

I'm more a free market libertarian-minded person via my ideology, but the social good trumps any and all leanings I have in that regard. I have witnessed firsthand, with my own mother, what a $50,000 heart stent bill does to a family. Court dates, garnished wages, threats of jail -- there is no place for that shit in the world.

As a skeptic who is actually lettered in evolutionary biology, allowing healthcare to operate as a for-profit industry is about as anti-evolution as you can possibly get. We evolved due to our cooperation. The more cooperative a tribe was, the more successful it was. Natural selection dictated that these genes were passed down. How we've gotten so far away from them is something I can't understand. I blame the fundamental religious in America who shun evolution. They don't understand things that are necessarily advantageous to survival of the fittest, like cooperating with people who are sick. They believe in the myth of "the strongest survive," where many seem to want to kill off the weak and sickly.

I do not abide that.

lilacpr2000 said...

Josh said...

White people aren't burning down black businesses. Black people do that. White people are robbing black businesses. Black people are doing that. White people are keeping resources out of the black community; the black community is chasing them out. White people aren't keeping black kids from receiving an education, black kids are keeping themselves from it. White people aren't forcing black fathers out of homes, black women are.
10:26 AM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Folks we have a new authority on Black lives and the Black community!

TALK ABOUT ANGRY,ATTENTION SEEKING TROLLS! Ahahaha!

I dare you to go into a Black neighborhood spouting this ish!


Ignorance is bliss

Josh said...

"No it isn’t."

Oh, I get it. The FBI is part of white government, so obviously their statistics on crime are doctored to make it look like the black man is out to rape and pillage America.

"You are a proper fascist in the truest sense of the word."

I have no idea what that means.

"Add misogynist to the list..."

I don't hate women. I just have an issue with men who act like women.

"Uh Oh, Josh is slowly morphing into Bill !"

You don't believe me that physics classes are now teaching social justice?

And is Bill Hilly? I can't figure this shit out.

Josh said...

"I dare you to go into a Black neighborhood spouting this ish!"

I came up in a black neighborhood spouting this ish, seeing this ish, and laughing at the self-defeating nature of this ish.

Black folks, in my experience, yell more than anything. Money Mayweather is the exception, not the rule. lol

But, Lilac, thanks for making black people seem like violent beasts, I guess. You want me to go into a black neighborhood, where you assume black people are so violent, unreasonable and adverse to criticism that they'd harm me or worse.

Boy, you sure do have a positive image of black people! Yet I'M the one called racist.

Purple Cow, you wanna chastise her, or should I?

The Purple Cow said...

Title
Examining Racial Disparities in Drug Arrests

Author
Mitchell, Ojmarrh · Caudy, Michael S.

Published
4 March 2015

Document Type

Research Article

Subjects
Drug Offending · Race And Crime · Race And Drug Offending · Racial Crossover

url.ingenta
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/routledg/rjqy/2015/00000032/00000002/art00004

Abstract
The War on Drugs popularized a set of policies and practices that dramatically increased the number of drug arrests, particularly for low-level drug offenses. The War’s tactics have affected Americans of every race; however, minorities have been most dramatically affected. There are several explanations for the observed racial disparity in drug arrests, but relatively little research directly tests these explanations. In this study, we test three common explanations of racial disparities in drug arrest rates. We find that racial disparities in drug arrests cannot be explained by differences in drug offending, nondrug offending, or residing in the kinds of neighborhoods likely to have heavy police emphasis on drug offending. Our findings are most consistent with explanations focusing on racial bias in drug sanctions.

[Emphasis is mine]

Published in a couple of weeks, should be an interesting read, even if reality does have a known left wing bias.

Josh said...

Hey, if you want to speak about strict racial profiling in police arrests, that--at least to me--is an entirely separate issue from systemic discrimination nationwide.

Or, maybe not so entirely separate as just a different thing. That is to say, the police picking someone up isn't sending them to prison; that's on the courts and the laws on the books. So, to argue that America is systemically discriminating, that is explicitly to argue that the laws themselves are intentionally racist.

Asshole cops playing the averages and focusing more on black citizens, as they feel they're more likely to be holding, is a real issue that I actually agree with you on. The fucking police no have right to violate private citizens' rights in such a manner!

And I believe drugs should be legal any damn way. It's none of government's fucking business if I want to put a needle in my arm or coke up my nose. Fuck off!

However, unless one is arguing the police are planting drugs on these individuals, they are still holding, so it's not as if courts are sending them in bereft of technical cause. I just wish the laws were, at the very least, tweaked in such a way that illegal search and seizures would render void most of this bullshit.

Bill said...


Josh said...
And is Bill Hilly? I can't figure this shit out.


Bill is me. PurpleCow believes he is insulting you.

Because I ring Pavlov's bell and PurpleCow comes running, PurpleCow is becoming obsessed over me. Like how Pavlov trained his dogs, I train cows.


Just write "Hitler is a socialist" or "Obama is not a conservative" to watch how he freaks out. It's been amusing to watch how so many anonymous pick up on this and "Ding Ding" PurpleCow into repeating himself over and over.

Josh said...

lol Point taken.

But who/what is "Hilly"?

My inclination is to think it shorthand for "hillbilly," but Yisgheng's capitalization of the word as a proper noun leads me to believe it's someone's name.

All I know is this: Many folks on Field's blog have no trouble assuming all white people here are the same, but damn if they don't clinch their cheeks and shout "RACIST!" should anyone assume the black people are the same.

But, despite my obvious racist ways, I still don't view blacks as poorly as Lilac views them. So, there's that...

Hitler's a socialist!

Yīshēng said...

Josh, Hilly was the main female antagonist in the movie "The Help".

The fact that it could also be short for Hillbilly is just one of life's ironies, LOL!!

lilacpr2000 said...

Josh said...
You want me to go into a black neighborhood, where you assume black people are so violent, unreasonable and adverse to criticism that they'd harm me or worse.

11:17 AM

Josh,josh, Josh! I'm back and I do want to apologize for wishing you weren't here any longer. that was mean of me and I apologize!

BUT AU CONTRAIRE MON FREIRE, THERE ARE MANY WAYS OF MAKING A PERSON WHO IS TALKING LIES AND NONSENSE AND GENERALIZING ABOUT AN ENTIRE PEOPLES LIKE YOU ARE DOING, FEEL THE ERROR OF THEIR WAYS!

IT DOES NOT HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH VIOLENCE OR AGGRESSION!

THE FOLKS IN THOSE NEIGHBORHOODS WILL HAVE YOUR ASS ON A PLATTER WITH WORDS, JUST AS THEY DO HERE XD

WORDS AND QUALITY DEBATE WILL SUFFICE TO DOWN YOUR NONSENSICAL, DISPARAGING GENERALIZATIONS JOSH

Contrary to your assumption of violence.

Did you know that words can be mightier than the sword Josh?

Cutting deep and extricating all of that nonsense you so passionately believe.

Don't be afraid we are an intelligent, kind and gentle people.

Go and discourse and debate, be not fearful of expounding your beliefs in the public square ;)

Josh said...

Where am I generalizing anything?

Oh, no. I offer my sincere apologies, Lilac. I honestly did forget that folks on this blog exist by a double standard. It's okay to say "white people," and the inbuilt qualification be that they're only talking about the "white people" necessary to illustrate the point of the surrounding context. But to say "black people" is to harshly generalize all black people!

And it is a double standard. It is a you problem. Not a me problem. Check your privilege, girl.

But, for the sake of clarity, let me rewrite that:

White people aren't burning down black businesses. The few people who manage to do that happen to be black by and large. White people are robbing black businesses. The people who rob black businesses in black neighborhoods happen, almost entirely, to themselves be black. White people aren't keeping resources out of the black community; the minority criminal element in black communities, which coincidentally is comprised of black people, are making it impossible for any outside efforts to take root and bear fruit. White people aren't keeping black kids from receiving an education, the kids who are acting out in these schools, which so happen to be a few black kids, are ruining everyone's experience. White people aren't forcing black fathers out of homes, black women are.

I'm not being sarcastic or condescending here -- I really didn't mean to generalize. I assumed, wrongly of course, that the context was obvious and that the statement was well qualified. Obviously not because I sometimes forget that we have sentence-hunters here, AKA quote-miners, whose biggest blogging passion is to take out of context another person's opinion.

Josh said...

"The fact that it could also be short for Hillbilly is just one of life's ironies, LOL!"

The implication being that I'm a white hillbilly and had a Freudian slip?

I'm not sure how many times I have to tell you this, I came up in Suitland, Maryland.

Oddly enough, simply being black here supposedly gives once license to say they understand fully the black experience, at every fundamental economic level in America, yet as far as I can glean, I'm one of the only fuckers here who actually grew up in a black ghetto. Talk about life's ironies.

ledenn said...

Thanks, Field!

lilacpr2000 said...

No,no,no, no quote mining here and def no taking your words "out of context" they were copied as you intended them in your statement.

Wassamaata Josh, scared now? LOL back peddaling now or what?

Looky here Josh,YOUR WORDS:

"The few people who manage to do that happen to be black by and large."

"The people who rob black businesses in black neighborhoods happen, almost entirely, to themselves be black."

"the minority criminal element in black communities, which coincidentally is comprised of black people, are making it impossible for any outside efforts to take root and bear fruit."

"the kids who are acting out in these schools, which so happen to be a few black kids, are ruining everyone's experience."

"White people aren't forcing black fathers out of homes, black women are."

12:38 PM
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Okay Josh, I think you made your point...it's a very reactive point of view, but you're entitled to it. If that's how you feel, that's how you feel!

Ce La Vie :)

Josh said...

Backpeddling? Hardly. Don't flatter yourself. You said I was generalizing by saying "black people," as if to imply I meant all black people are burning stores and fucking up schools! So, to put your mind at ease, I rewrote it as a standalone piece of context that illustrated I'm not attempting to say it's all black people.

"it's a very reactive point of view..."

Not it is not. TPC and I were debating the concept of systemic racism in America, whereby he was arguing that drugs are the only option people in downtrodden communities have -- with the implication being that it's the fault of white people. My response to that: No. White people aren't the ones trashing businesses in the black community. White people aren't the ones causing kids to fail school.

This isn't reactive, this is reality. White people aren't anywhere around these places in positions of power or authority. If white people exist in these places, they exist there in the capacity I existed there: As a citizen living alongside, not a member of the ruling class.

The Purple Cow said...

Yes that's correct because there are absolutely no white people in positions of political power, similarly Fortune 500 directorships are a white-free zone, there are no white people working in media, and none in the police or armed forces.

That makes total sense.

Mystere said...

Amidst watching the PBS doc "African Americans: Many Rivers to Cross," I took a break and read Field's post. As usual, much learning to be had here. Thanks, Field!

Re: Josh, The Purple Cow, and others, your comments only vaguely resemble a debate. It all looks more like a shouting match to me. Those are only fun for a little while; eventually, such exchanges become repetitive and dull. Y'all have reached that point.

As for fundamentally changing (or attempting to change) something that is cherished (or loved), life is change. Imo, desiring to keep something static is a manifestation of fear. I love my country (USA) but I don't like it very much right now.

Josh said...

"Yes that's correct because there are absolutely no white people in positions of political power, similarly Fortune 500 directorships are a white-free zone, there are no white people working in media, and none in the police or armed forces."

Damn that Bill Gates and white mayor of Amity Island for burning down those businesses in Ferguson. Damn them to hell.

Anonymous said...

Dear Mr Field, I am sending a link re: Chicago Police brutality against Blacks and the injustices that have gone on for years by one Police Detective by the name of Zuley.

I think you will find his horrific record which the Chicago justice system and later the military at Guantanamo found 'exemplary'.

Make sure Josh sees this. I am sure he will rejoice in the way the Chicago Police Dept. treated innocent Blacks.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/feb/19/richard-zuley-lathierial-boyd-police-brutality

Anonymous said...

Could not read all the agitation-propaganda. Please let me know how it all works out. Blessings to all.

Josh said...

Josh wrote: "Asshole cops playing the averages and focusing more on black citizens, as they feel they're more likely to be holding, is a real issue that I actually agree with you on. The fucking police no have right to violate private citizens' rights in such a manner!"

An anon idiot wrote: "Make sure Josh sees this. I am sure he will rejoice in the way the Chicago Police Dept. treated innocent Blacks."

But if I've learned anything from Purple Cow, it's that some people actually argue with you more once you agree with them. It's like they rejoice in rubbing your nose in shit once you find common ground, make a concession, or just manage to run across a topic on which you both agree. So, yeah, Josh is all about cops violating innocent private citizens.

It'd be funny if it weren't so sad, the mental state and anti-white hatred of you trolls.

Anonymous said...

"It'd be funny if it weren't so sad, the mental state and anti-white hatred of you trolls."

No mention of the anti-blah hatred from the trolls. Guess Josh is oblivious to that like he is to so much else.

Josh said...

I notice that the blahs themselves do a pretty good job of calling out and dismantling the racist horseshit from the anti-blah trolls. Though when the blahs themselves are the ones being anti-white racists, the other blahs all cream their jeans and cheer it on.

It's a lot of things, including something everyone expects to happen. It's nothing if not predictable.

ThatDeborahGirl said...

Equality = fight your own battles.

This is the problem with men in general and white men in particular.

They define words like 'equality' in ways that are blatantly incorrect and make no sense at all then wonder why people think they're stupid.

If people were treated equally there would be no battles to fight. We'd be too busy helping each other.

Josh said...

Writes, "They define words like 'equality' in ways that are blatantly incorrect and make no sense at all..."

Before going on to define equality the same way I defined it: Treated equally.

You can't make this shit up, I swear. Some people just want to argue and don't give a good damn what it is about which they're arguing.

"Equality = fight your own battles."

Let me explain this for those a little too touched to reason their way through it.

In the context of this, Yisgeng was attempting to tell me that I'd damsel a white girl in trouble. That I'd step up and be her white knight -- a Mario to her Princess Peach.

No. I don't believe in this. If a female is capable of starting a flame war, said female is capable of finishing the flame war. Women are individual human beings with their own agency. They're plenty smart enough and vocal enough and aggressive enough to hold their own in online debate. They do not need a man stepping in as a white knight.

But I realize this isn't what many folks want to define "equality" as. Many don't actually want people to be treated equally. They still want women to have preference, of course, and to be damseled by men who save them.

These beta males are forever joined at the hip with these codependent women. Sadly, though, the betas don't even get any gash out of it. They're friend-zoned while the codependent hangers-on screw alphas.

Vinny said...

If Black men are committing most of the crime or are even disproportionally committing most of the crime then to not have a bias would be foolish and "anti-science". This is all predicated on "if". Are they, field?
If not you better go explain that to Jesse Jackson. We know how he feels about young blacks approaching at night.

Timothy Adams said...

"We'd be too busy helping each other," that seems predicated on the idea that blacks are not responsible for helping blacks, but somehow whites are.

Josh has Ebola said...

Jive-ass Jerk Josh...

The reason you catch so much heat on this Black blog.....

You're a self-righteous, self-important, self-serving Amerikkkan Honky!!

You're lower than toejam and worse than Moonshine whiskey!

Take your ugly, bleach ass back to TMZ/Stormfront