The striking thing about the footage is, again, the utter mundanity of the raid.
A family was just violently raided over an unmeasurable amount of pot. A man was
arrested over that pot. The money he needed for his business was taken from him.
Yet there’s no shame or embarrassment from the officers. There’s no panic that
the whole thing was captured on video. That’s when it hits you. They don’t think
they’ve made a mistake. This is what they do. The lead officers later tells the
camera, matter-of-factly, that the raid turned up “a personal use amount of
marijuana.” Perhaps realizing that he was also on camera back at the police
station promising a much larger stash of drugs, he adds, “It happens. Drug
warrants are, you know, 50-50.”
If they raid a home on the pretense that he has a large stash and is selling, fine. But when it turns out to not be true, they better pay for damage - no matter what else they find.
I wondered what the ethnicity of the person raided was, and of course he's black.
That's why there's no shame or embarrassment from the officers. That's why the Black Lives Matter campaign exists: the police have, in this case, done a substantial amount of damage to someone's life but not killed them. And there's not even an acknowledgement of that.
I'd hate to burst your bubble, but this shit happens to white people all the time. Just not the white people that HN folks are surrounded by (urban, upper class, educated).
I grew up in a poor, rural area of Appalachia, and this shit is routine.
Your assumption that the race of the victim is the reason the cops are cool with it is based on zero evidence other than your own preconceived notions. I've had my car seats slashed open in a vain search for drugs after I'd already been handcuffed and laid on the pavement with zero fucking apologies, and I'm not black.
Just because you live in a sphere of the world where white people are all rich and privileged doesn't mean that it's like that in the rest of (most of) America.
I doubt you'll find anyone saying this stuff doesn't happen to white folks at all.
The issue is that given the same set of circumstances, a black person is more likely to be searched/shot/whatever than a white person. In the case of police shootings, yes some white dudes have been shot as well as black dudes. But if you look at all the cases of police shootings in the FBI database and compare the cases of white dudes waving knives at cops vs the sample of black dudes waving knives at cops, the police are N times more likely to shoot and kill the the black dudes. (I can't recall exactly what N is but I think it was 5 or 6).
If you're going to "burst bubbles" when talking about privilege, I encourage you to learn about intersectionality first. Otherwise you're bursting a straw man version of the concept, which doesn't achieve anything. Privilege exists on multiple axes, and you still have white privilege even if you're poor and don't have class privilege.
Feel free to post the source for your statistic, because the studies I've seen showed that blacks are much, much more likely to be subject to police encounters a (probably due to a mixture of profiling and densely populated, high crime areas caused by a legacy of red lining and other discriminatory housing policies).
"But if you look at all the cases of police shootings in the FBI database and compare the cases of white dudes waving knives at cops vs the sample of black dudes waving knives at cops, the police are N times more likely to shoot and kill the the black dudes."
Another thing that drives me crazy about these "privilege" discussions is how insanely qualitative and emotion driven they are.
What's the outcome for a white kid born in a trailer park vs. a black kid born in a wealthy suburb? Is class privilege completely nullified by racial privilege, meaning the white kid is likely to earn more than the black kid as an adult? The data doesn't show this, and puts a much heavier weight on class and geography being the bigger barriers.
The result of these emotionally driven discussions is that once again, Americans are focused on race being a primary driver of inequality and distracted away from the much bigger issue of class. It's a very convenient tactic for the corporate elites who own our government and want to prevent real change. Racism is a convenient target, because it allows people to blame a problem whose solution doesn't involve massive overhauls of tax policy to better redistribute the wealth that is accumulating with the .01%.
"The result of these emotionally driven discussions is that once again, Americans are focused on race being a primary driver of inequality and distracted away from the much bigger issue of class. It's a very convenient tactic for the corporate elites who own our government and want to prevent real change. Racism is a convenient target, because it allows people to blame a problem whose solution doesn't involve massive overhauls of tax policy to better redistribute the wealth that is accumulating with the .01%."
I'd upvote this tenfold if I could. I think the race discussion in America pits us against one another and creates Trumps and anti-Trumps, instead of pinpointing the elite (both the leaders of the Trump and anti-Trump camps are elites).
It's horrifying how far away we are from talking about class. Racial privilege exists, but by focusing on it as the number one priority, the number one problem in America, we've turned it into a wedge issue.
The politicians and elite ALWAYS want us to be focused on wedge issues - gay marriage, abortion, race, a candidate's tax return - because otherwise we might unite against the true crimes of our day, such as inflation and currency devaluation. They emphasize divisive issues to keep us fighting with each other instead of fighting against them.
>>Another thing that drives me crazy about these "privilege" discussions is how insanely qualitative and emotion driven they are.
Asserting another person's privilege is a specific tactic for silencing speech. It is literally a method of supression if you believe in freedom of expression.
The positive side of this is that once you realize this, you can treat people who focus on "privilege" with the exact same tools you use on Mormons and Jehovas Witnesses. Race theorists behave in ways that earn them uncomfortable status in the BITE model.
Except it's not an emotionally driven discussion, it's an issue that has been studied for decades. Saying "it's an issue of class not race" is not a hot take on the issue, it's a distraction that had been quantitatively disproven over and over again.
Believe it or not people have done quantitative studies on the interaction of race and class. You can go read pretty much any study on intergenerational income mobility and find what you want to know: At every single income level blacks are less likely than whites to transition from their parents income bracket to a higher one [0]
And by the way it's not just police shootings that are the issue. Minorities are overrepresented at literally every stage of the criminal justice system. They're more likely to be searched following a traffic stop [1]. More likely to be charged with a more serious crime [2]. More likely to receive worse bail terms [3]. And more likely to receive longer sentences [4].
Please try to not let your emotions overwhelm the mountain of evidence pointing to the fact minorities really do have a different experience than white people.
Just because minorities on average have a different experience than white people doesn't mean there are not white individuals who have exactly the same experience as some minorities. Telling those white people that their experiences don't matter because white people on average have a better experience isn't likely to make them feel better, though.
Can you kindly also cite the studies which show that the level of social mobility in America is now one of the lowest in the industrial world?
Luck, particularly how much wealth you were born with, plays a large role in your likely social outcome, in ways which cast serious doubt on the success of the layout and rules of the economic system under which we attempt to flourish.
If you follow that logic, when you look at historical state-sanctioned inequality, from slavery to Jim Crow to de-facto de-segregation to the present, what we're witnessing isn't a continuation of Jim Crow. The lack of social mobility here (a raceless consideration) has condemned those who've started off many meters behind the 'Start' line of the race.
THAT is the interplay between race and class.
The fact that we can only articulate this in terms of race is the genius of how the dialogue continuously shifts away from wealth inequality (in America the top 1% own 40% of the wealth) and into discussions of white versus black. Now, the average white person and the average black person are pitted against one another, instead of BOTH screaming against this very fact.
It's not just a convenient target once you realize that as recently as the 1970s it was typical to redline neighborhoods so darker-skinned people wouldn't be shown certain homes. It was common to have white suburban flight, leaving all-black neighborhoods in the inner cities with little commerce or industry and few jobs. It's so easy to conflate class and race in some cities because a couple of generations out one still has been so informed by the other.
What's the outcome for a white kid born in a trailer park vs. a black kid born in a wealthy suburb?
I don't think this is a productive framing when there is a huge excluded middle in there, but to your point, when have you seen an upper class white person treated like Henry Louis Gates?[1]
See also: Paul Mooney's "Nigger Wake-up Call"[2]
Americans are focused on race being a primary driver of inequality and distracted away from the much bigger issue of class.
Class is a function of race in the US.
"The latter argument—“the issue is class not race”—claims that because we have poor and well-to-do people within all racial groups, what matters is really class difference. As the argument goes, differences in average wealth across racial groups are in fact caused by persistent class differences; race no longer has a measurable effect. Again, this dismissal of the issue of race does not hold up to empirical scrutiny. Class matters to be sure, but so too does race. Moreover, studies find that minority groups are not able to pass middle or upper-class status on to their children with the same frequency as Anglos. And the “class not race” argument simply avoids the most pressing question: Why should there be such drastic class differences between racial groups to begin with?"[3]
> I don't think this is a productive framing when there is a huge excluded middle in there, but to your point, when have you seen an upper class white person treated like Henry Louis Gates?
If it were to happen to an upper class white person, it would probably not become a national news story in which the POTUS involved himself, as was the case with Henry Louis Gates. So the fact that I haven't heard of it happening to an upper class white person does not suggest, at least to me, that it hasn't happened to an upper class white person.
And as I recall from the news reports, Gates became confrontational and argumentative with the officers who were investigating the report of the possible break-in at his home, as was their duty. That might have been a contributing factor in his getting arrested.
> Is class privilege completely nullified by racial privilege, meaning the white kid is likely to earn more than the black kid as an adult? The data doesn't show this, and puts a much heavier weight on class and geography being the bigger barriers.
What data? This is counter to any data I've seen.
> these emotionally driven discussions
To suggest that there is no rational, factual basis to racism in the U.S. is not helpful to a discussion of serious issues.
Rich black man in a dress shirt drunkenly waving a Wusthof in one hand and a glass of wine in the other in his granite-countered kitchen vs. a dirty white trash kid in a torn hoodie brandishing a machete. Who gets shot?
I think alienating two-thirds of the population and focusing on only a subset of the problem is generally counterproductive. I can support the gp with another anecdote of growing up in an overwhelmingly white small town watching cops harass, beat up, (and much worse that I'm not even going to mention) plenty of poor white folks. Race is just a proxy for a power imbalance that cops seek out and abuse, and focusing on race will guarantee the actual problem is never addressed.
I'm not sure where you are getting your numbers, but as far as murders by police, the numbers are generally 50% white, 25% black, 15% hispanic, and 10% other ([1] shows one year). The U.S. population is 60-75% white (depending how it is measured), 12% black, 12-25% hispanic (depending how it is measured).
So, these numbers seem to show that if you are black, you are 2x the average, white you are roughly 0.8x the average, hispanic right about 1x the average as far as likelihood of being killed by a cop. That puts black at about 2.5 as likely as white.
Point is, if you are black, you are absolutely more likely to have these problems than if you are white. This distracts from the actual problem though. The actual problem is the power imbalance that is being exploited by the cops in these situations, and race is just being used as a shortcut by the cop's brain to identify a power imbalance that can be exploited.
Again, focusing on race will guarantee the actual problem never gets addressed (even if it might make you feel like a really great person).
You are ignoring the representation of blacks in violent crimes, where they are disproportionately highly represented [0]. If a population represents between 30% and 50% of the violent crime, you would expect them to represent between 30% and 50% of the police shootings, no?
If true, that would further my point, which is that race is not the underlying problem with police shootings and use of force.
One additional note on this comment, sort of inversely related to my previous comment, focusing on race here also is not going to solve any problems. There are underlying issues leading to these statistics that are independent of race and are being ignored.
Yeah sorry, you're evidence sounded like the thing people usually put out when they say it's a race thing, and it's also not an entirely accurate analysis (in my opinion), which is why I posted that link. I'm in agreement with you. I don't think race is the underlying issue, or certainly not in the ways it's being portrayed as.
> If you're going to "burst bubbles" when talking about privilege, I encourage you to learn about intersectionality first. Otherwise you're bursting a straw man version of the concept, which doesn't achieve anything. Privilege exists on multiple axes, and you still have white privilege even if you're poor and don't have class privilege.
I've read a lot of Social Justice texts the last few years, and it's usually a mix of moralistic preaching, loudly asserting articles of faith as fact, and tearful wonderment at the moral superiority of the author and their ingroup over the common people.
"Intersectionality" writings are often the least coherent, as they try to make quite disparate theories of injustice fit together in some Grand Unified Theory.
I won't rule out that there is intellectually honest writing that quantifies these alleged real world phenomenons in a verifiable and falsifiable way. But if so, it is hiding real well.
If you examine this particular use of the concept though:
>... I encourage you to learn about intersectionality first. Otherwise you're bursting a straw man version of the concept, which doesn't achieve anything. Privilege exists on multiple axes, and you still have white privilege even if you're poor and don't have class privilege.
—you can see that the concept of intersectionality isn't actually used: they are just saying it was the victim's lack of class privilege (that caused them to be discriminated against) in this case, rather than something race related (and that this doesn't negate their white privilege). Intersectionality is related to issues of individuals belonging simultaneously to multiple social groupings and claims that the interactions of these groupings must be taken into account—but at least in the above quote, I'm pretty sure all the term adds is a sort of attempted intimidation factor.
If the premise of the GP is that it's a class/wealth problem, not a race problem, and police disproportionately use excessive force or degrading tactics against the poor, you haven't really provided a counter example. Since black people are more likely to be poor (and racism, institutional and otherwise, likely plays a role in this), you would see more cases of excessive force used against them under this premise.
It's entirely possible, and I think quite likely, that both are occurring. The question then arises as to which is a stronger factor. I suspect that they are close enough in strength that it may change from region to region, city to city.
Your borderline autistic model of privilege is being used as club to justify systemic abuse from the same authoritarian forces you are attempting to describe with your faulty model.
So the state police have went over the heads of the local PD to raid the local mayor's residence. Raid went about as well as they usually do - no-knock, shoot the dogs, handcuff everyone inside, turn the place upside down, leave without any apology.
And here's what the sheriff who ran the raid had to say afterwards: "We've apologized for the incident, but we will never apologize for taking drugs off our streets. Quite frankly, we'd do it again. Tonight."
The one good bit that came out of this story was that the mayor, being in a position to influence other people, rammed through a law that required the state to collect statistics on SWAT raids (like, what laws SWAT is used to enforce, how many raids are no-knock, how many shots are fired etc), and publish it regularly. Police unions have pushed back on that big time, but it passed anyway. The results were entirely unsurprising - SWAT is mostly used to enforce drug laws, many raids are over simple possession charges, and there's a disturbing number of no-knock warrants.
Class based discrimination exists along side of racially based discrimination. Often, "white trash" is used as class and racially based slur. Ironically, it is often seen as a moral failure for a white person to be less educated and poor or very poor. I have not seen the same class based discrimination towards racial minorities, as lower to middle income is expected.
While I agree with your closing statement, I've sat in a few courtrooms where it has been very clear that white people with less education, income or job security are treated with a harsher temperament than some others.
I would replace both of your uses of "regardless of" with "independent of", both because different types of privilege aren't directly comparable, and because it results in a weird "both > and <" situation if you compare a rich black person to a poor white person.
It's well-known enough I'm not going to spend valuable time producing it. While it's reasonable to ask for evidence, we don't have time to find and produce evidence on everything.
Well-known is not the same as correct. It's well known that women will do the same work as men for 23% less. It's also disproven.
Here's at least one study that finds no such bias: researchgate.net/publication/256079484_No_evidence_of_racial_discrimination_in_criminal_justice_processing_Results_from_the_National_Longitudinal_Study_of_Adolescent_Health
Incorrect, I have lived in many poor places, grew up poor and in a very racist part of Colorado. (I'm white)
I now live in a nice area and am no longer poor.
I can tell you from personal experience that cops are much nicer to white people All the time.
The worst white trash human being is still white and when confronted with arresting a white person or a black person, white people go free.
Even after you're arrested and put in jail when you go to court with all the inmates on the docket that day you will see harsher sentences for any non white person, and what essentially is a slap on the wrist for the white people.
Just go to your local court and sit in for a day, you will leave deflated and unimpressed by our judicial system.
Sure they'll put white people in jail but listen to the charges and you will see firsthand that although someone who is not white has 4 priors and gets sent away for a year, a white guy who comes in on his 10th, but has a suit on, and a lawyer might get supervised probation and 10 days.
How often are white people allowed to come back to court on their own recognizance vs. Black people that always have to post bail.
Always wear a suit, always hire a external lawyer and never talk to the police until they tell you the charges (and when they do, only say, not guilty).
For example, early-90s, me growing up in the sticks. Poor people were busted for growing/selling pot. It was reasonably their only choice, there were no jobs. 19 year old gets his car confiscated, and loses his job. Has no way to support his new wife/baby. It just happened to be at the house where the pot was being grown. He did not live there. This kid gets hit with a felony, now he'll never get a job.
Meanwhile, 20 year old son of local construction company owner gets his plants confiscated, and a few hundred in tickets.
Everyone involved here was white. Judge, poor family growing pot, and the family that owned the construction company. The only difference is poor rednecks versus rich rednecks.
This whole clusterfuck is thanks to Reagans (Nancy and Reagan).
Prior to the 80's "War On Drugs", it was only an offence to MAKE drugs. In Prohibition, only those who made alcohol were violating the law. You could still possess and drink it. That's why Speakeasys were a thing.
Fast-forward to the Drug war. And now, even a single pill is enough for a felony. Sure makes sorting out "undesirables" easier. And Harry Anslinger back in the late 30's put a fine point on it.
_______________________
" “There are 100,000 total marijuana smokers in the US, and most are Negroes, Hispanics, Filipinos, and entertainers. Their Satanic music, jazz, and swing, result from marijuana use. This marijuana causes white women to seek sexual relations with Negroes, entertainers, and any others.”
“…the primary reason to outlaw marijuana is its effect on the degenerate races.”
“Marijuana is an addictive drug which produces in its users insanity, criminality, and death.”
“Reefer makes darkies think they’re as good as white men.”
“Marihuana leads to pacifism and communist brainwashing”
“You smoke a joint and you’re likely to kill your brother.”
“Marijuana is the most violence-causing drug in the history of mankind.”"
_______________________
Crazy, I say! These negroes think they're somehow equal to us whites!
All I can do is shake my head, and wonder why such an obvious racial discrimination with regards to culture is still banned today. We got rid of the "colored water fountains"....
> “The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people. You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin, and then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities. We could arrest their leaders, raid their homes, break up their meetings, and vilify them night after night on the evening news. Did we know we were lying about the drugs? Of course we did.”
John Ehrlichman, Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs under Nixon.
Nixon is definitely to blame for starting the whole thing, but practically every administration since than has contributed - and not just Republicans.
For example, you know that progressive darling, Joe Biden? Well, that guy has been instrumental in expanding civil asset forfeiture in collaboration with the Reagan administration, which put in place the economic underpinning of the whole "war on drugs" thing that makes the law enforcement agencies so heavily invested in continued prosecution of it. He was also behind the "COPS" program, which evolved into the present system of police departments militarizing by acquiring surplus and retired equipment from the military, all funded by the feds.
Just because $policy has a disproportionate effect on one race or another doesn't make $policy racist or mean that we should abolish it. The reasons why marijuana should be legal have nothing to do with racially disproportionate effects of enforcement.
> Just because $policy has a disproportionate effect on one race or another doesn't make $policy racist
Yes it does, even if it is completely accidental and without malice. Racism is not only a way people feel about other people who are racially different from them, it is also a construction of systematic discrimination.
But the fact is that the "war on drugs" happens to be racist with malice.
> or mean that we should abolish it.
It does if you want to live in a more just society; or even if you just want to live in a healthy, functioning society. Policies which disproportionately harm a group of people lead to a permanent underclass. Even if you don't care about the people who are impacted the most, it undermines all of the other institutions of society.
> The reasons why marijuana should be legal have nothing to do with racially disproportionate effects of enforcement.
There are many, many reasons to legalize marijuana (and nearly all of them apply to all other drugs). One of those reasons is absolutely the harm that its prohibition has caused to people of color and poor whites.
You start out in 1954 by saying, “Nigger, nigger, nigger.” By 1968 you can't say “nigger” — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Nigger, nigger.”
By Lee Atwater, an American political consultant and Republican party strategist. He was an advisor of 40th U.S. President Ronald Reagan, the campaign manager for 41st U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
So, the talking point here is: "When does it migrate from blatant full-on racism(Darkies, nigger, etc.) to policies that directly are racist and affect certain races much more negatively (totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse)?"
Or, further, should we be taking data on how our policies affect different demographics, and adjust how policies are done? Should we not strive for equality, even in areas where it's simple economic decisions that do disproportionately affect certain peoples?
There are multiple definitions/types of racism, but one of the most significant ones to enter discourse and study in the 1960s was institutional racism, which more or less defines policies that are disproportionately being used to affect one race as racist.
My point was that there is a difference between a policy used to negatively impact one race and a policy that happens to negatively impact one race. Statistical anomalies and/or demographic trends are not racist.
That people of color are more likely to be arrested, convicted, or sentenced to prison for drug crimes than white people, despite comparable levels of drug use, is most certainly an example of racism in our society.
"Demographic trends"
There's a rich history of redlining and discriminatory housing practices, which is why communities still tend to be racially segregated. By concentrating police activity on these neighborhoods- perhaps a decision often made today by looking at maps that show rates of arrests- you get a feedback loop or cops arresting people of color in predominately minority neighborhoods, because cops were able to do a bunch of that before. In sum it ends up being institutionally racist, even though there may not have been any intentionally racist decision making throughout the way.
There are of course plenty of solutions, but not arresting lots of people for common harmless activity is a good start. Not focusing all policing around areas with the highest arrest rate would be progress. Figuring out how to desegregate neighborhoods would also be useful. The status quo, however, defaults to racism, which is why institutional racism is so insidious.
The only drug that leads to both pacifism and violence.
That said, War on Drugs was Nixon; and it was incredibly popular with people who would show up to vote, which is likely why Reagan let his wife get on the bandwagon and didn't fight it.
>White and black people report using drugs at similar rates, according to the latest data from the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
>A 2009 report from Human Rights Watch found black people are much more likely to be arrested for drugs. In 2007, black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people.
>Human Rights Watch found more than four in five arrests in the war on drugs are for mere possession, while the rest are for sales. That suggests police are targeting drug users, not traffickers.
>For every 10,000 residents, about 3,400 more black people are stopped than whites, and 360 more Latinos are stopped than whites. Stopped blacks are 127% more likely to be frisked -- and stopped Latinos are 43% more likely to be frisked -- than stopped whites.
>Now consider this: Although stopped blacks were 127% more likely to be frisked than stopped whites, they were 42.3% less likely to be found with a weapon after they were frisked, 25% less likely to be found with drugs and 33% less likely to be found with other contraband.
That statement directly contradicts your evidence:
>black people were 3.6 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than white people.
Please don't exaggerate, particularly when it comes to politically heated topics like this. Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you have some kind of axe to grind and the only people that push back are other axe grinders.
Also, as the other poster pointed out, it's not clear if any of this data has been correctly normalized for income level. This same lazy tactic is used by racists to associate crime with black people, so it's very counterproductive to perpetuate stats that don't adjust for income.
There's a lot of deliberate misinformation by people who want black people to be arrested at a higher rate than whites.
And part of the genius of their misinformation campaign is deliberately coming up with policies that target poverty, so that it's difficult to tease out how much of the racism is just a natural outcome of the policy vs. biased policing.
But that's the thing. Even if the policing isn't biased against blacks (you know it is) the policy is deliberately biased against blacks.
Adjusting for income demonstrates that the police aren't totally to blame - and that's correct. They may not even be primarily to blame. But adjusting for income also understates the scope of the problem.
Arguably, the deeper problem is that doing drugs while poor will land you in jail for 15 years while doing the same drugs while rich will get you a slap on the wrist.
STOP DOING THIS. It's not a way to conduct a rational discussion.
>Arguably, the deeper problem is that doing drugs while poor will land you in jail for 15 years while doing the same drugs while rich will get you a slap on the wrist.
Yes, being poor lands you into trouble much more frequently because poor areas are so much more heavily policed. But that's the point, many of these issues are related to biases against poor communities in general, not specifically black people.
You said "exaggerate" which was a tacit acknowledgement that you know and have seen the income-adjusted numbers. Obviously the income-adjusted numbers are less dramatic, but they are just as damning.
What's no way to conduct a rational discussion is when any figure, no matter how well-researched, is immediately called into question apropos of nothing.
If they are damning, use those numbers. Stop lying. Rational people don't call you out for illustrating a problem, they call you out for misrepresenting it.
Why are you so eager to deliberately misrepresent information to make things seem significantly worse than they actually are? When you do that and people find out that you effectively lied, you lose credibility and they stop listening. How do you plan to affect change with that strategy? Get the people stupid enough to believe your lies to riot?
> Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you have some kind of axe to grind
There is an axe to grind. I live in a country which has had about three centuries of experience finding every possible way to marginalize black people, and in the last few decades has found every way to dress up the marginalization of black people to preserve plausible deniability and work around laws preventing the direct marginalization of black people (for instance, finding things like income or geography that are correlated with race, and then applying disproportionate policies based on that, so they can convince kind-hearted people like you that they're not discriminating on race when that is totally the intention of the policy). Why should we not have an axe to grind here?
Please stop pretending that this is some sort of dispassionate "politically heated" issue that you can have a friendly watercooler discussion about. Otherwise rational people disengage because it's clear you are making the irrational assumption that both sides are being equally reasonable and participating in equally good faith.
It's not like it's just fine and dandy to discriminate against poor people unless it's being done with the underhanded intent that most of those poor people will also be minorities, is it?
I totally agree that minorities should be upset at these policies, but so should the non-minorities that are being affected by them, too, and hopefully those "kind-hearted people" you talk about, too.
How does that directly contradict my statement? Also, you left out the very important context, which is that while they are 3.6x as likely to be arrested, black people use drugs at the same rate as white people, so what justifies the 3.6x increase?
And, how does income affect stop-and-frisk or drug possession arrests? Do cops have some sort of x-ray vision where they can see a suspect's W-2?
> how does income affect stop-and-frisk or drug possession arrests?
It's typically poor communities that these tactics are done in. I think the tactics are reprehensible, and race probably does have something to do with it, but I've also seen cops roll up into rural trailer parks to start shit, too. What gets lost in a lot of the media narrative is how poor folk in general get taken advantage of by the authorities.
I know a white guy whom just got a felony for two pills in his car, a majorly stupid thing you can't do these days. It was all over Fox national news like he was some sort of gang/drug lord. In reality he was just working a full time 9/5 at amazon box and hustling a little on the side to pay the bills. Now he lost his job and is sitting around on welfare because no one will hire a felon.
I've encountered plenty of "stop everyone and check their license/registration/insurance" points where they just wave me past. Presumably because I'm a late-20's white male wearing business casual in a decent/good car.
It's not perfect - occasionally you'll stop someone who looks like a homeless guy and it'll turn out to be Robert Downey Jr. doing some method actor research for a new movie.
Most of the time, though, if you want to target someone who's low-income, there'll be a part of town and a set of characteristics you can pretty reliably look for.
The point I've been making this entire time, how black people are much more likely to be harassed by police than white and poor people. The "poor white people have it just as bad" angle is wrong.
Then we don't particularly disagree on most items. Poor people are harassed (as I've noted, they're fairly easy to target). Black people are harassed. Poor black people are doubly harassed as a result, and institutional racism has ensured there's a higher proportion of poverty there as well.
Aren't the poor side of cities mainly black ? If that's the case then that's just a consequence but it kinda makes sens.
If police patrols more in those sides of the cities, the probability for someone black to be arrested then goes higher.
The real problem would be that the poor side of the city is mainly black and that it is trapped in a vicious circle where they have less education and are then more likely to turn to crime and not succeed in life.
Still, being less likely to be found with contraband and such heavily suggests blacks/poors are being frisked more often than nescessary --at the very least, there's some unjustified bias.
> If they raid a home on the pretense that he has a large stash and is selling, fine
If you ask the police, anyone who owns a scale (which lots of users do, to verify the weight of what they're buying) is a "drug dealer" with intent to distribute.
