Was justice served fairly in the Micheal Brown tragedy, whats your opinion ?

by Finkelstein 164 Replies latest social current

• 

  Simon

  Of course this is a thread where someone obviously inserted the word "most" in an instance where it wasn't used, included a swipe afterwards, and instead of admitting an error and apologizing when it was directed pointed out, attempted to dodge, so it's pretty much completely obvious as to what's going on here, and no further explanation is necessary. As stated, everything is plain for everyone to read; and it's a clear example of why some people refuse to see things that plainly exist, even when backed into logical corners where they cannot deny it.

  I think you need to go back and re-read. I did not say that you claimed that african americans were the most disadvantaged, I was pointing out that if you used your 'logic' then there were other groups that would be more disadvantaged just by being a smaller population. The smallest would be 'the most' disadvantaged.

  If someone says "by your logic then ..." the bit after the "then" is very rarely a quote.

  I made no error but you have been all over the place interjecting irrelevant and baseless "examples" (dating sites?!) that you claim to have facts to backup but then convert them to analogies when pressed.
• 

  Razziel

  I worked for a large multinational corporation of over 150,000 employees that is headquartered in the US. I took their management training courses, which also covered diversity in the workplace, equal opportunity, affirmative action, and hiring practices.

  According to them, it is not enough to have minorities and women fairly represented in the workplace according to regional demographics. They must be over-represented.

  The training material went so far as to say that even if the department is well represented and diverse beyond the regional demographics, if presented with the choice of hiring a highly qualified white male candidate or hiring a minority or female candidate who only meets the minimum qualifications, the less qualified minority or female should always be hired.

  There's some privilege for ya!
• 

  Pacopoolio

  I think you need to go back and re-read. I did not say that you claimed that african americans were the most disadvantaged, I was pointing out that if you used your 'logic' then there were other groups that would be more disadvantaged just by being a smaller population. The smallest would be 'the most' disadvantaged.

  And as I responded, the smaller groups ARE often the most disadvantaged (or, in the case of women, groups that have suffered under systematic oppression for so long that society has many issues ingrained). And when I asked, "what does that have to do with anything since no one ever said black people were more disadvantaged than other minorities?" or whatever, you said that I was "rambling" and quoted me posting that a black person would be disadvantaged on a dating site.
  
  (When it comes to dating sites, black women and Indian men are the most "disadvantaged" on either side of the coin in the majority of the U.S.; if people don't want to look up the sites on their own and prove it right or wrong to themselves, being that it's publically available information, there are several Oktrends and other articles you can google that show the message response disparity, at least).
  
  The last time I took ~30 minutes to look up and post 15 citations that contained linked citations again, two people just scanned for a bit specifically to find flaws in them, and the only real direct response anyone came up to any of them was "you wrote more as opposed to less, so you didn't read it, so I'm not reading any more." Someone in this thread linked to an article about privilege as relative to social standing, and the best response was "this article has wrong stuff in it," without a single quote or direct refutation of anything that would engage a discussion of the specifics so that people on either side of the issue may come to different understandings or perspectives. I've proved (and can link to) the fact that I can cite things, but I'm not going to the effort if people aren't bothering to actually research and listen to each other and engage actual arguments.
• 

  Simon

  And as I responded, the smaller groups ARE often the most disadvantaged

  Ok, so if you assume that the smaller the population, the more disadvantaged they are likely to be then if we look at the measures of each population we should find a progression where people do increasingly worse as they come from a smaller and smaller group and increasingly better as they come from larger ones, is that correct?

  I still don't see how people's personal preferences on dating sites is supposed to prove "white privilege" or whatever - I thought you'd dropped that but now I see you're back on it)
• 

  Pacopoolio

  Simon:
  
  - No, it's not 1-1 because things like immigration create self selection issues. For instance, if a country has a rough or lengthy immigration process, it will self select for the type of people willing to go through that process, who are then raising their children with the mentality that brought them to that country in the first place. However, if there was an indigenous population that was conquered and perhaps lived below poverty, that self selection process will not be in effect for them, since the group will be more randomized. That's just one example of how that process can be skewed.
  
  (Also, there is a point in which the percentage of the population someone belongs to is so small that their uniqueness will work to their advantage)
  
  - Again, as stated, anyone can go browse users in your area on a site like Match, scroll down to their racial preferences, and see for yourself without having to sign up or log in (unless they changed that recently). It's a way to show one singular instance of an undeniable handicap that certain peoples have, and others do not, without having to go find long papers that no one will read. You can look at it, pretending you're a Middle Eastern man, for instance, and then see how woman after woman excludes you from their preference, and then imagine how that would affect your dating outlook in general from there as you meet people in public (wondering if the percentages are the same).
  
  Whether you wish to make up your own definition of a defined term because you don't like the word usage or whatever or not, the sociological concept of privilege means that someone has an unearned advantage in an area just due to the nature of unchangable and unchosen things about themselves. On a dating site, people defined as white/caucasian have an advantage in the U.S. as a whole because 5 or less percent of women and less than 1 percent of men purposely exclude them from their searches and pools, as compared to anywhere from ~80% or less for other races. This is a strict numerical advantage that cannot be denied, can be publically searched, and is simply a noted example of an advantage. It's a case in point to where anyone here can put themselves in the shoes of another person.

  Similarly, a privilege straight people have over gay people is to be able to "assume" that whoever they meet of the opposite sex, anywhere, is straight as well, without having to consider that they are gay. This is a ridiculously huge advantage that straight people enjoy. Nobody "blames" straight people for this, again, it's just an advantage. That's simply the concept, something that so many people even try to deny exists in the first place (but then are QUICK to claim it in other areas, for instance atheists talking about Christian privilege in the country).
• 

  Simon

  Here are the rough populations:

  Ethnicity	Population
  White	63%
  Hispanic / Latino	17%
  African American	14%
  Asian	5%
  Other	1%

  And here are the incomes:

  

  The population sizes and incomes don't quite seem to match as the theory suggests they should.

  Shouldn't asians by the most disadvantaged and way at the bottom? There are only 5% of them - how come they are doing better than white people with all their privilege?

  Why the gap between hispanics and african americans despite hispanics often being the 'newer' immigrants? Do you think it's rich hispanics that are immigrating?

  The bottom line is that "white privilege" is a convenient and easy answer but it isn't the explanation for everything that people seem to imagine.
• 

  Pacopoolio

  I'm guessing you posted that before reading my response, so, again:

  - No, it's not 1-1 because things like immigration create self selection issues. For instance, if a country has a rough or lengthy immigration process, it will self select for the type of people willing to go through that process, who are then raising their children with the mentality that brought them to that country in the first place. However, if there was an indigenous population that was conquered and perhaps lived below poverty, that self selection process will not be in effect for them, since the group will be more randomized.
  
  That is just one factor, among others like starting points and initial viewpoints and opportunities, etc.
• 

  Simon

  You talk about the dating site stats (again) and say that no one "blames" white people for their alleged advantage and that is the point: having an advantage is not blameworthy but privilege implies some blame and unfairness which is why I think it is a poor word to use.

  I still don't think personal dating preferences are meaningful in this discussion.
• 

  lisaBObeesa

  *never mind* again
• 

  Pacopoolio

  To coincide to what I said, here is the income of the aboriginal peoples in the United States, which you didn't include, Simon:

  1. According to the 2000 Census, Indians (Native Americans) living in Indian country have incomes that are less than half of the general U.S. population.