Braves has proven post after post to lack a basic understanding of mathematics (i.e. 38% = 79% because disproportionate ldo) and that he is a racist (i.e. claiming blacks inherently get significantly more addicted to crack than whites on an avg per individual basis).

At this point I don't think anything will be changing his racist outlook. It's willful and aggressive ignorance and the horse has been lead to water many times but doesn't drink from unsegregated fountains. You might as well go to stormfront & argue there because you'll have just as many light bulbs go off (0).

I said this? Cite or you are as inept at reading or as dishonest as the rest of the cool kids club. I think you are just ****ing lying. Although the last part makes me question if you even know what the **** you are talking about.

If you dont understand the fact that crack affects blacks disproportionately more and do not understand this has nothing to do with inherent characteristics then you need to shut the **** up and go ask your teacher to do a better job.




This trash is what this forum has become known for. Lies and manipulations. Hope you are proud wookie. I'd be ****ing embarrassed to be a moderator here.

So glad you're here to expose all of us.

In braves mind because crack usage is disproportionate among blacks relative to whites, 38% = 79%. lol poor bastard

How does crack affect black people disproportionately?

Lol. De facto white only private pools are because black people don't like swimming and like hanging out with other black people.

Cite. Some Internet comment.

1:30

wow braves that is some legit awful posting

That change it at all?

It's possible to escape a culture into which you are born if you consider it undesirable.

It helps destroy their neighborhoods and makes them unsafe. There are no crack houses in Manhattan's upper east side. Go a couple of miles north into the west/south Bronx, that's where you'll find them.

----------------------------

2 questions: What do the 'it's racist!' crowd think should be done to correct the injustice as they see it?

Second: What do they think of the Anti gang task forces?

From that link:

I picked the Northern District of CA and
Santa Rosaat random.

Here is a link to the National Gang Center about which I was careful to make certain they are legit. Funded by the DOJ is legit enough, imo. Here is the National Gang Center's gang survey analysis w/ demographics in particular.

One of the graphs:



The point: The police go where they are told to go and they are told to go where the violent crime is first bec that's where people get killed. There is no heavy police presence on my block but if there were a street gang on the corner there would be and I'd be thankful for it. The Wall Street coke snorters are low priority bec they don't kill anybody. The people they buy from are far more discreet as well as less violent. The answer to all of this can be summed up in this way: The Fire Department responds to where the fires are. The police respond first to where the violence is. The inner city is where the violence is and, in the natural course of events, more minorities are going to be arrested bec that is where the police are.

I know that this part is ridiculous but I'm going to ask it anyway: Should the prosecutors/police make sure that there is no disparate impact in arrests by instituting a quota (or a wink/nod quota system) to ensure equal numbers of whites/minorities arrested for drug dealing?

....



There is a such a thing as stupid ****ing questions from people who are unwilling to read.

Why is it ridiculous? If we agree that drug dealing is bad in and of itself, which we do, since it's a crime it seems like a good idea to start stopping and frisking and busting up some suburban and upscale households.

I'm for an inverted punishment as well where the richer and more stable the household the harsher the punishment should be. We can be sympathetic to the poor person who deals drugs for lack of options. The guy who sells and uses while in a comfortable home and nice job is far more culpable and should be punished accordingly.

That is pretty amazing.

In before how this is a lynch mob.

Interesting, not only do you think drugs should be criminalized, you think violence and drugs should be mutually exclusive when forming a law enforcement policy and instead people should be profiled and targeted based on their income.

I guess you support profiling in order to get the numbers to line up....can you show me statistics that demonstrate that arresting people and putting them in jail has any sort of the impact on drug use? Changing the demographics does not solve the problem....besides we are already seeing a significant decline in the black population in jail and an increase in the white population.

Do you subscribe to Marxism?

What fault do you think these mythical people will find with this action?

Sigh. One of my favorite posters. Very well:

For the first part the police can't just bust up some suburban and upscale households. I know that I've defended stop and frisk but it's a non starter even though I'd be willing to undergo the procedure to balance things out bec I know it'd make inner cities safer, which is what I'm all about. Law enforcement needs probable cause, they have to make some buys and then they bust the place. This can take a maddeningly long time which I know from personal experience in trying to rid my buildings of drug dealers and anyone else can glean from reading the news which regularly details busts that are a year in the making. There has to be some upscale houses whose owners are dealing drugs at the retail level to all comers but we don't read about that much bec I'm guessing (reasonably I think)that it hardly ever happens. Maybe the owner is a dealer but he's not on a corner, not w/o a gang he isn't. Could be he has some small number of rich clients but this is all speculation. A dealer like that will likely get busted sooner or later but he is not causing the destruction of entire swaths of a community. A street corner dealer, otoh, is fairly easy to bust just by observing an exchange and swooping in. An equal impact outcome regarding prison populations is not going to come from your suggestion. An adjustment in sentencing guidelines would make the punishments more in line but I think we've come to an agreement itt that that is a proper goal to strive for. I'll stop this part here.

Second part: Unconstitutional, much? IMR, harsher sentences if you're well off? Not ever, ever, ever. And, come on! That from you? Encoded in the law that persons who ordinarily would be imprisoned for selling drugs can't be bec they tip the scale towards a disparate impact? Seriously?

A short personal story: I did a lot of volunteer work. Non profit mental health clinic, local community group and a really fine community center. I could be President w/ these creeds! So one day I was asked to join an anti drug coordinating group. The person running it had a catch phrase: 'We are victims of victims.' The 'we' part of the victims were dying literally in the street, robbed, burgled and terrorized. I had a fair number of drug murders happen on my properties. The 'of victims' crew were making money and living large (I know, I know) until they got killed or jailed. I couldn't take it and gave her a strong piece of my mind and was told later to never come back which was not a surprise. I have no sympathy for the poor person dealing drugs. I understand but have no sympathy whatsoever for the bringer of such misery.

This thread has turned to such aids

A person will survive the best way they know how. What's sad is when you speak about the culture some kids grow up in and perpetuate these disproportions you are called a racist on top of incessant straw man argument suggesting you are talking about inherent characteristics of someone. On the other end of the spectrum we have you that says you understand but have an obvious disdain for people who are lured into the drug game and support policies that have little to no impact on the problem that you despise. Stop and frisk isn't bad because it disproportionately target minorities, its bad because the lure of selling drugs and carrying a weapon is better than the suffering of being stopped and frisked. There is always another eager young person willing to step into the shoes of anyone who is caught with drugs or a weapon. The drug dealer does not see it as misery, they see it getting theirs. Their value system is different.

Says a lot coming from a person who has to dishonestly characterize peoples words in this very thread. I think you need to go away before you make it even worse. I digress, the mods do it so why the **** not. Right?

Most of the posters who shout 'RACIST!' have their hearts in the right place, imo. There's only one I don't care for: guess who, shouldn't be hard. Where I and they differ is a matter of degree. Of course there is racism but it shouldn't be a block to necessary policy decisions unless egregious which is not proposed from what I see. Of course some character upthread claimed that politicians passed a law they knew would be racist in practice even though a half of the CBC voted for it. Oh, well, maybe he'll think it over some more.

My main policy decision is to end the war on drugs which ends the gangs which makes walking down the street safer which makes the schools safer which makes getting an education easier which means an increased chance of making a life which means an end to the ghetto which means a decrease in racism. It ends the option of there being a 'job' for somebody that didn't do well in school.

I have a feeling that you don't know all that much about life in the inner cities. I don't mean that as a slap, just an observation. In fact the inner cities have an absolute beehive of activity designed to offer better life options. The churches, government programs (my community center couldn't exist w/o the funding), even the police themselves. There is an enormous effort to try and divert the young men onto a different life path but it's clear that drugs are simply too powerful a lure therefor I say remove the lure.

No matter which way I read it your stop and frisk sentence is garbled. Supporter that I am, I recognize that the community doesn't like it. It's better to do w/o it than alienate them.

Beale makes good points wrt explaining how at least *some* of the enforcement disparity can be explained without invoking racism.

On a related note, if you have groups A and B, B of which is more likely per-capita to commit drug-related crimes than A, that fact alone can result in a disparity in punishment when the groups are segregated geographically. The B criminals are like proverbial fish in a barrel, so its easier to concentrate police forces to affect arrests within group B. Meanwhile, even more there are more criminals in group A, they're in a larger barrel and are thus less conspicuous.

That seems pretty bananas, but I guess its not unlike giving someone a lesser sentence based on his intentions going into the crime.

Meh man, if anything your post making any sense just elucidates how senseless the war on drugs is.

I do not. I think there is multiple reasons why people shout racism.

1. its cool. I honestly do not think these posters would be friends with someone who disagreed with something they called racist. To fit in its better to just jump on the bandwagon.

2. Cognitive dissonance. There is a very real and evident prejudicial mindset that creates inner conflict and its easier to deflect this disharmony as some other persons problem.

3. Identifying something as racist is the single most important thing in this thread while discrediting and arguing against anyone who disagrees with that assertion. Its not enough I agree the policy on drugs is bad and affects minorities disproportionately, its not enough that I agree police brutality is bad and disproportionately affects minorities, I have to admit its racist in order to not be racist. Most of the people talking about racism in this thread are a joke who have no interest in an intelligent conversation.

Not really a reason but a direct counter to "hearts in the right mind":

the incessant need to be dishonest while characterizing other peoples words.


Offering better options is meaningless with out exposure.


I agree, remove the lure but these targeted programs that disproportionately impact inner city populations has had an impact. How much of the decrease in the proportion of black inmates is attributed to that can not be really be told as there are other variables such as the increased prevalence of meth that disproportionately impacts whites.

Its interesting you do not hear claims of injustice and racism when the government purportedly targets minorities in some instances but not for others. The standard of what constitutes as racism changes from issue to issue. I mean why is the NBA disproportionately black? There is a perfectly rational explanation that is not rooted in racism or racial bias (i.e. culture), yet these same reasons when applied to drugs is racist. There is no coherency to the argument.



Stop and frisk does not make you safer. There is no value in it. 330 Million people, there will be a certain percentage that will act violently. The number of violent acts you stop with stop and frisk is inconsequential. This the ******ed thing, all these things they claim as racist can be disputed based the fact they are bad policies to begin with.

Sorry, didn't feel like combing through the thread last night. If you point me to a specific post number where you address the question I'll read it.

While we are on the subject of reading, though, I'd suggest reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It seems like it would be beneficial to your perspective and understanding of the drug war.

Cmon man.

Sorry I don't feel like combing through that book right now. If you point me to specific chapters/pages that best describe his contentions about the New Jim Crow situations I will read them when I get the opportunity.

What do you find really bad about his posting? Thanks in advance for your contribution.