Quote:
Originally Posted by itshotinvegas
This is why use of "systemic" is 100% bullshit. There is no legitimate answer to that question. People claim "systemic" issues because of disproporation results. But how do you get those results? It's nothing more than a collection of individual events, for instance criminal sentencing. If there were systemic issues, every single black person convicted of a crime, would get a harsher sentences than a white in similar circumstances. That does not happen.
How you tackle this problem of "systemic" is to isolate and correct the individual instances. One thing you can do is monitor individuals judges to see if their sentencing is harsher for one race, over another. However, this really does not occur much, because the entire focus is on changing the "system". You can change every law to a progressives wet dream, and if there are prejudiced people within the system, you will still get racial bias in the results.
People are prejudiced, not systems. People commit crimes, not systems. Lastly, it's reasonable to have a culture racism, but it's racist to have a culture of violence? That's the main flaw in Well Named argument. All these cultural factors that make white people "racist' or prejudices" are reasonable. All the cultural factors that lead to more crime in the black community is considered racist.
You could have a conservative like me who agrees there is racial bias among white people (which is a cultural issues), generally, but you will hardly get a progressive to acknowledge cultural issues within the black community, and they will attack that claim as racist, almost 100% of the time.
honestly all you do here is show you have little comprehension of what systemic racism is or how it works. It does not have to apply to ALL to happen or be valid.
Here is an example of how it works.
- Cops choose to randomly and disproportionately stop and search black people more than whites. Examples such as 'walking while black' or 'driving while black'.
- I recently was reading a study on the massively disproportionate pedestrian jaywalking stops of blacks in predominately black Florida neighborhoods as opposed to whites even in predominately white areas even when you had comparable foot traffic areas for both. The stat was something like blacks were 3 times more likely to be stopped by a cop for jaywalking.
- once stopped for jaywalking a black was 3 times more likely to get a ticket for jaywalking as compared to a white in that area of Florida.
- add that up. 3 times the number of people getting stopped. But if you take 10 of each group stopped the blacks are 3 times as likely to get a ticket
So what happens when a group of people blacks) get more tickets?
- ok due to poverty and other reasons a good percentage of these tickets don't get paid and eventually turn into bench warrants for outstanding fines.
- now when that same person is stopped again later for anything they may be arrested for the outstanding fines. Searched and secondary things such as marijuana will be found in some.
- now we have the secondary charges.
Note this all started not because the blacks were committing more crime (jaywalking) but because they were targeted more for jaywalking it results in more crime (unpaid tickets) and secondary busts (marijuana) subsequently.
Now the cops and people like you see those stats and see, they get more tickets for jaywalking, more tickets and arrests for not paying fines, and more secondary busts for Marijuana. Thus they do crime at a higher rate, thus they should be targeted more by police. Thus we are justified in blitzing those neighborhoods for jaywalkers and secondary offenses.
And on and on it goes.
And if instead you simply flipped the initial script and instead stopped and ticketed more white jaywalkers while letting the black ones off, the situation would be opposite.
.