Shooting in USA-thread. (14 Viewers)

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,773
What is their problem? (honest question)



What does that say about african american culture?
An accute lack of civic investment and social self alienation, which gives birth to a dog eat dog culture since there is serious lack of faith in the existing judiciary structure. So it is a more primitive perspective on justice and success. like i said earlier policies such as affirmative action only make this worse. Any migrant that comes to America regardless of color creed or ethnicity can make it because the system in general rewards law abiding citizens who put in the effort.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
what do you think it says about African American culture and/or communities?
I can't know from that article.

An accute lack of civic investment and social self alienation, which gives birth to a dog eat dog culture since there is serious lack of faith in the existing judiciary structure. So it is a more primitive perspective on justice and success. like i said earlier policies such as affirmative action only make this worse. Any migrant that comes to America regardless of color creed or ethnicity can make it because the system in general rewards law abiding citizens who put in the effort.
Law abiding citizens who put in the effort should have a fair shot at making it in any developed country.

So even when African Americans are killed you see the problem mainly within the African American culture but I don't remember you blaming in any way the North African culture (muslim community specifically) in say Belgium even when they kill. Why is that? (I'm comparing the two solely on the basis of the points you raised: lack of civic investment, social self alienation, lack of faith in the existing judiciary structure: all applied to both groups, and one can argue that North Africans in europe are actually guilty of much more than that).
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,773
I can't know from that article.



Law abiding citizens who put in the effort should have a fair shot at making it in any developed country.

So even when African Americans are killed you see the problem mainly within the African American culture but I don't remember you blaming in any way the North African culture (muslim community specifically) in say Belgium even when they kill. Why is that? (I'm comparing the two solely on the basis of the points you raised: lack of civic investment, social self alienation, lack of faith in the existing judiciary structure: all applied to both groups, and one can argue that North Africans in europe are actually guilty of much more than that).
First of all that is irrelevant to the point and it unfortunately shows me that you were more interested in finding contradictions, though really farfetched, in my historic reactions to similar events then actually being curious to know why i think what i think. But as you know even if i do contradict myself it doesn't take anything away from the points made above. Disappointing.
Secondly, i have always compared the 2 groups actually, having lived and traveled extensively in Europe. But i always made the distinction that Europe is a lot more entrenched in its notions of difference with pronounced nationalism which jay doesn't exist here. No country offers the opportunities to success the US does irrespective of who you are. Take Muslims in France and Muslims in the US, and i don't buy the whole educated Muslims came to America. Most the success stories i know their parents drove cabs, worked construction... And they are fully integrated and work in all industries regardless of their name or appearance. God bless capitalism.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
First of all that is irrelevant to the point and it unfortunately shows me that you were more interested in finding contradictions, though really farfetched, in my historic reactions to similar events then actually being curious to know why i think what i think. But as you know even if i do contradict myself it doesn't take anything away from the points made above. Disappointing.
Secondly, i have always compared the 2 groups actually, having lived and traveled extensively in Europe. But i always made the distinction that Europe is a lot more entrenched in its notions of difference with pronounced nationalism which jay doesn't exist here. No country offers the opportunities to success the US does irrespective of who you are. Take Muslims in France and Muslims in the US, and i don't buy the whole educated Muslims came to America. Most the success stories i know their parents drove cabs, worked construction... And they are fully integrated and work in all industries regardless of their name or appearance. God bless capitalism.
I was genuinely interested in knowing your reasoning and it's a real shame that you thought i had other intentions. I find your stand inconsistent with your previous stands on (in my opinion) a similar issue. Your contradicting yourself doesn't take away from the points you made, but it questions the way you read and interpret them to draw a conclusion. I don't disagree with the points you made (my comparison reaffirms them in fact), what I disagree with is your conclusion that blames a community for their lack of success as a result of those characteristics because i personally think all those characteristics are exogenous.

Instead of US muslim versus Europe muslim comparison, take north-african muslims in Europe (Belgium, France) and other immigrants in those same countries. If Europe's nationalism is to blame, why does it make it the hardest for north-african muslims? Didn't you say a few pages back that if the system was to blame in the US, why indians (i don't remember what example you used) are doing just fine but african americans are not?

I'm not looking for contradictions, I'm saying you have two similar sets of problems with similar comparison bases, but you draw two strikingly different conclusions. In my opinion, the reason why a community excels while the other fails in the same environment has to do with the unique interaction between the system's characteristics and those of each particular community. If a community fails, it's on the system for the most part to realize why (because it has the required power to initiate a change) instead of attributing the problem to that community, which is, ironically enough, perceived to be screwed and expected to start a change from within all at the same time.
 

GordoDeCentral

Diez
Moderator
Apr 14, 2005
70,773
I was genuinely interested in knowing your reasoning and it's a real shame that you thought i had other intentions. I find your stand inconsistent with your previous stands on (in my opinion) a similar issue. Your contradicting yourself doesn't take away from the points you made, but it questions the way you read and interpret them to draw a conclusion. I don't disagree with the points you made (my comparison reaffirms them in fact), what I disagree with is your conclusion that blames a community for their lack of success as a result of those characteristics because i personally think all those characteristics are exogenous.

Instead of US muslim versus Europe muslim comparison, take north-african muslims in Europe (Belgium, France) and other immigrants in those same countries. If Europe's nationalism is to blame, why does it make it the hardest for north-african muslims? Didn't you say a few pages back that if the system was to blame in the US, why indians (i don't remember what example you used) are doing just fine but african americans are not?

I'm not looking for contradictions, I'm saying you have two similar sets of problems with similar comparison bases, but you draw two strikingly different conclusions. In my opinion, the reason why a community excels while the other fails in the same environment has to do with the unique interaction between the system's characteristics and those of each particular community. If a community fails, it's on the system for the most part to realize why (because it has the required power to initiate a change) instead of attributing the problem to that community, which is, ironically enough, perceived to be screwed and expected to start a change from within all at the same time.
1.comparable is not similar
2.all the europe stuff is irrelevant to this subject
3.west indians are black
4.system can only be efficient if it is market based, this is why social engineering bs like affirmative action only make things worse.
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
1.comparable is not similar
2.all the europe stuff is irrelevant to this subject
3.west indians are black
4.system can only be efficient if it is market based, this is why social engineering bs like affirmative action only make things worse.
Your answer is honestly not worth any further comment aziz :)
 

Seven

In bocca al lupo, Fabio.
Jun 25, 2003
39,307
That makes no sense.

First of all it acknowledges blacks are more likely to encounter police force. And not by a small amount. 50% ffs.

But then it completely disregards that when looking at shootings. Imagine you're 30 and the cops have been annoying you because you were black since you were 12. Obviously the odds of you disrespecting a cop at some point are going to be high. And when you do you get shot.

Also, if we say blacks are simply involved in more violent crime it makes sense that they are less likely to get shot. When the figures rise, the percent of fatalities will go down.
 

ALC

Ohaulick
Oct 28, 2010
46,524
That makes no sense.

First of all it acknowledges blacks are more likely to encounter police force. And not by a small amount. 50% ffs.

But then it completely disregards that when looking at shootings. Imagine you're 30 and the cops have been annoying you because you were black since you were 12. Obviously the odds of you disrespecting a cop at some point are going to be high. And when you do you get shot.

Also, if we say blacks are simply involved in more violent crime it makes sense that they are less likely to get shot. When the figures rise, the percent of fatalities will go down.
At least you were white until you were 11
 

king Ale

Senior Member
Oct 28, 2004
21,689
The study, as acknowledged by the author himself, has important limitations. One that is not mentioned is that it's the data of people being shot "before attacking an officer". The data is police generated, based entirely on police reports. This is a huge limitation to reliability of the data because officers anyway claim that they were attacked and that they were trying to defend themselves, and if the person shot is dead, if there's no evidence, you have to believe them. There have been cases in which the officers were later revealed to have lied because somebody had filmed the incident. But do you know what the data suggests if we take it as it is? That police officers are equally likely to feel that their life is at risk when confronting a black (versus a white) person, hence an equal shooting likelihood. It should naturally remove all the sympathy towards police for being more afraid of black people on the basis of their criminal history and likelihood, right? So although they don't think their life is in greater danger, they still use excessive force more frequently on blacks than on whites. Besides, police brutality (which was the subject of my input here in this thread) isn't only shooting (i mentioned Eric Garner's example a few times). It's use of severe force, and as evident by this data is likely to be racially motivated.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 13)