Well, I tend to not think police are racist against blacks per se, so I would put the majority of the weight into systemic factors. If Asians became noticeably disproportionately more criminal (for whatever reason) I suspect as a group they would suddenly start getting a lot more police interest too.

At the end of the day I think most people (including police officers) are conditioned by what they experience, and the vast majority of any police prejudice against blacks probably has a lot more to do with their experiences with the black community, than any dogma they have concerning the inferiority of the black race.

And this supposition is backed by the majority of evidence on this topic, including the data suggesting that the officer being black themselves does not mitigate "discrimination" against blacks, and may in fact enhance it.

This is not intended to be a complete response to the above, just one observation - the laws themselves can contribute to the systemic aspect, for example, considerably harsher sentences for distribution/trafficking of drugs found predominantly within black communities (crack) vs distribution/trafficking of same quantities of similar drugs found predominantly within non-black communities (powder).

Systems can't be racist, only people. racism is a concept, an idea generated entirely from human beings. Systems are generated entirely from human beings.

potripper lost some hands, ergo he was playing fair.

Oops, sorry, missed that.

That's a meaningless semantic distinction. It's like saying AI algorithms that think black people look more like criminals aren't racist because they're just following their code that reflects concepts and biases exhibited by the material and people used to train them.

That's not a refutation against the idea that the system is embedded with racism and produces racist outcomes (which is what the idea of systemic racism argues), it's just argle-bargle about the adjective being used improperly.

yes thats pretty crazy I learned it here

A high level concept understanding event is happening ITT.

I also suspect that most progressive, white wokesters are convinced that "police are selectively murdering and gunning down black in the streets" because this is what they experience through dishonest messaging of anecdotes from media/social media/elites. And they aren't interested at all in the statistical truth that doesn't support their "experience"

AT 2:05-2:15, that guy lost all credibility.

itshot: When we talk about systemic issues, we don't mean really any more or any less than the kinds of considerations I was talking about in the earlier post I made which you said you loved. Sometimes "institutional" is perhaps a better word than "systemic", and maybe someone could even think of better words still, but the main idea is really just about the importance of social structure as compared to individual-level factors. "Systemic" issues are problems involving social structure and institutions.

Yeah, I get it. My main point of contention, though, is you are not fixing anything by focusing on the the system/institution. There is no system that is going to remove bias, whether racial, or any other sort. You have to have checks for individual instances. How many more times do we need to point out there is racial bias, irrelevant of the extent argument? And, it's not the only issue, vis-a-vie my argument about culture.

Fixing systems/institutions isn't even about addressing individual bias, per se. The point of talking about socio-economic factors is to point out the need to address those, quite independently. The point activists make about funding institutions besides the police is similar.

It's also not an either/or, it's both. One of the institutional problems within police departments is the failure to remove problematic individuals, like Chauvin (cf. the Brooks piece I linked earlier). You can't fix that just by saying that we need checks for individual instances. The widespread lack of such checks is a systemic problem itself, and the institutional solution involves actions to create them. Those actions transcend individual interventions.

It might be semantics, but removing problem individuals is an individual-type thing that can be solved with oversight of those individuals. We know how much grief I get for attacking police unions, which is an org that entirely focused on protecting police, than the citizens, and wield serious political power.

This is why protest against the police, and not the local governments is so apoplectically absurd. I mean it's fun poking fun at democrats, but there is real issues with how they run their cities. Throwing police to the wolves to save their own asses, is crazy, and nothing more than a catharsis. They get on board with being anti-police, and placate the mob, and say things that enrage the mob.

I'll know people are serious when they remove police unions.

I don't think anyone you argue with here is very supportive of police unions, so I suspect you are mistaking antipathy to other things you tend to say for support.

I think protests are aimed as much at local government as at police. And rightfully so, of course.

I suspect most of your knowledge of Chauvin has been filtered through ideologically focused narratives, and isn't very accurate. FWIW, during his tenure Chauvin received 2 medals of valor and 2 medals of commendation on top of that (according to Wikipedia). Of course, because of media bias we dont hear anything about that, and all we hear about is the 18 complaints. Of course what the media fails to do is give any context, including what exactly a complaint is and how common they are. Is 18 complaints over a decorated 20 year career as a street cop even a lot? I dont know and I suspect you don't either.

So, given all of this I am not sure your premise that Chauvin was problematic and would have been removed by a more efficient system prior to his (alleged) murder of George Floyd is a very accurate one. And is based more on ideological narrative than objective reality.

You're right, I don't know much about the substance of those complaints, except that I believe they involved his use of force. There's also the video of him murdering George Floyd. That seems like pretty important objective evidence, and a reasonable context in which to read his history. But we have a thread about that, and the choice of example is incidental, so I don't think it's worth arguing about.

Well, its relevant insomuch in that everyone seems to agree that we need a better process to remove problematic officers in order to remove systemic bias. But beyond this very general statement we don't have a very good idea what a problematic officer is, what removing them would entail, or how it would actually improve the system.

So much of what we "know" (such as what we know about Derek Chauvin) is driven by narrative as opposed to knowledge, I am pessimistic anything productive will be achieved by the current state of government officials making proclamations and taking actions to placate the mob, with no clear idea or plan beyond that.

The fact that we don't have much good info on problematic officers is another institutional problem :P

How many mayors have resigned? How many city counsel folks? Plenty police fired and subjected to criminal charges. This happens in the military a lot, the rank and file get railroaded, while the leadership gets out unscathed.

Abu Ghraib torture and prisoner abuse

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.


.

Let's say, for argument's sake, I agree with this, what do you disagree with in my post? (hint: incarceration of whites is increasing, and blacks decreasing)

Systemic :
1.
relating to a system, especially as opposed to a particular part.
"the disease is localized rather than systemic"


It's pretty much the opposite of what you're arguing.

I was going to lol at a tenured professor writing an anonymous letter but then I read this :

"consider the proportion of black incarcerated Americans. This proportion is often used to characterize the criminal justice system as anti-black. However, if we use the precise same methodology, we would have to conclude that the criminal justice system is even more anti-male than it is anti-black."

If this isn't an onion piece this guy really does need to be drummed out of academia.

lulz.

LOL how many times has that line been played in this forum. Turns out maybe these idiots are all Berkeley profs. Who knew.


No way this doesn't get pumped. Well, Achktually...