Officer Wilson not indicted in killing of Michael Brown

by Simon 551 Replies latest social current

• 

  Pacopoolio

  I see two sides of this generation thing - yes, some families have wealth to hand down and they are priveleged / get a head start. If you don't then it doesn't matter if it was 1 or 100 generations - you got nothing and start from the same place that most other people did.

  So, I appreciate that as a group, there are fewer black people who are likely to have inherited wealth. But as individuals, there are lots of people who got the same big fat nothing regardless of their color.

  It's what you then do with your life that matters.

  And what do you do to change things? You can only change the future, we cannot change the past.

  Wealth is only ONE aspect; you can't ignore the psychological effects of the COMBINATION of:

  a) being born into poverty
  b) having no peers around you that succeed to follow in their example
  c) lack of exposure of positive influences or receiving lackluster education. There is a HUGE difference in the quality of inner city education (and also the distraction of dangers within - it's harder to study when you're worried about being beaten or killed daily)
  d) the effect of poverty on the brain. Not being properly fed as a child stifles mental development.
  e) having no safety net. Successful family, property, etc. all serve as safety nets that allow someone to take more chances. Without these, there's a huge difference.
  
  It's easier for me to "see" how people live in their day to day lives and how these things can affect them because I lived all sides, and can directly empathize. Therefore, in explaining this, I'm not really "attacking" anyone; I'm just showing that most people are only thinking of it in broad terms, and not looking at how broad things effect the microtransactions in one's life and change who the person is, and how they make decisions.
• 

  Pacopoolio

  Shirley, I did not insult your intelligence, I asked why you had a blind spot to the butterfly effect in this case, but not in the example of other things you discussed. I directly listed multiple examples that DIRECTLY addressed what you're asserting with the "2014" statements - none of which you even countered or acknowledged.
  
  The world runs on causality and chance, it's literally impossible for segregation that existed until 55 years ago to not have stymied MILLIONS of living people, just by default. That's just how those things work. How are people supposed to "get over in and pick themselves up like Tiger Woods" when their entire brain structure was adjusted by the conditions they were brought up in?!
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  You defined "gang wear" as a hoodie drawn across the face. That's not a strawman - that's the subject of the assertion in itself.

  Are you backpeddling out of that statement or do you still define gang wear as guy in a hoodie? I need to know those specifics before I attack it directly.

  Pacopoolio,

  There is nothing to backpeddle about. I have not defined "gang wear" as a hoodie drawn across the face. (Ref. my post 3293)

  Defining "gang wear" as a hoodie drawn across the face is a strawman in relation to what I've actually said.

  Do youi understand the concept of pararaph? If so, then take another look at what I have actually said. Its on page 13 of this discussion at my post number 3293. Please refrain from transposing your ideas onto what I've written and, instead, read what I've written literally.
• 

  Simon

  we can get into the studies that show that people think that black people are more likely to be on drugs or commit crime than other races ( Siegelman and Tuch 1996 ), or that a majority of whites view black people disproportionately as aggressive (Hurwitz & Peffley, 1998), combined with studies to show disproportionate news representation of black males being led away in handcuffs (often in sports gear).

  Are these based on views of white or people of all races? Are there studies on the views of black people toward whites and toward law enforcement? We hear a lot of accusations of racism so it would apear that both sides judge the other unfairly.

  I'm sure many people's views toward blacks and crime is based on the media representations (e.g. current images of looting and rioting) together with crime statistics that show that criminality among blacks is higher (violent crime).

  Is it fair or not for people to have views and opinions that match the actual facts? It sounds like you think people should "not think blacks are more likely to commit violent crime even though they are". The only way to stop people believing things that are true is to change the reality - lower rates of crime. Do we really think that people turn to violent crime because strangers may be hesitant to approach them in the street?

  Yes, people should be judged as individuals but when you are strangers you don't have that luxury and so skin color, clothing, behavior, speech etc... are all factors that we reach snap conclusions on.
• 

  AndDontCallMeShirley

  Successful family, property, etc. all serve as safety nets that allow someone to take more chances. Without these, there's a huge difference.

  Then how do you explain the people (including Whites) who have all the advantages in life and end up losers and failures?

  Your arguments are the default of someone looking to make excuses. There's no doubt that what happens in a person's life has an effect, but your arguments are dismally hopeless and depressing and ignore the indomitable will of the human spirit who've proven your hypotheses wrong millions of times.

  Shirley, I did not insult your intelligence, I asked why you had a blind spot to the butterfly effect in this case

  That's twice and I don't appreciate it. You are quoting stats with no source reference about decades-old data while completely ignoring the present:2014.

  Can you make an argument with current data or is 1970 the best you have?
• 

  Pacopoolio

  Then how do you explain the people (including Whites) who have all the advantages in life and end up losers and failures?

  Your arguments are the default of someone looking to make excuses. There's no doubt that what happens in a person's life has an effect, but your arguments are dismally hopeless and depressing and ignore the indomitable will of the human spirit who've proven your hypotheses wrong millions of times.

  I directly addressed this in a post above, already. Again, when talking about wholes of people, there will be exceptions on the top end of the curve and the bottom end of the curve. That is how you view a statistical curve in sociology. However, the vast majority will be in middle areas. That's why things like athletes, musicians, and actors aren't relevant; they're representative of less than the 99th percentile, and are at the absolute peak of the curve.

  It's not an exuse - it's the entire point of the study of sociology; looking at how groups of people are affected by outside influences, and determining how to adjust those influences, hopefully, for positive benefits. Blaming people for what society made them accomplishes nothing except propping the blamer up in their own minds - the point is to get to the actual underlying problem so as to fix the whole and prevent those things in the future.
  
  Ignoring the effects that hundreds of years of oppression have on a visually distinct people and saying "they should do better" is not only contrary to how human psychology works, but also does nothing to actually address or fix the conditions that result in this.
  
  edit: Again, people ~65 ad above, of which there were millions, lived through segregation and had limited education and opportunity based on that. Their children were raised directly under these effects. Why are you ignoring this and saying "it's in the past?" Those people live NOW.
• 

  Simon

  After watching nonstop news coverage on a variety of stations, what strikes me is how uniformly mainstream media is subtly (and maybe not so subtly) disapproving of the no-indict verdict. The media's job is to present the facts, not take sides. Okay, I'm naive. But I have to wonder how much the media is feeding the chaos and the public frenzy to destroy Wilson.

  I agree. Seeing the already discredited eyewitness "testimony" (lies) repeated over and over just reinforces the lie that justice failed. It didn't.

  The case is clear cut. It's a completely invented issue with contrived grievances. Some examples:

  • Family lawyer complaining the prosecutor didn't "reach out to them" (he'd been told everything had to go through him).
  • Family complaining his body was left out for 4 1/2 hours (the undertaker couldn't attend earlier becase of violence and needed a swat team).

  Something else: This situation has so dramatically deepened the color breach in this country. You see white journalists (albeit mouthing support for the protestors, directly or indirectly), white police offers, and then black protestors, black family members, black attorneys. Why haven't any black police officers spoken up publicly in support of their brother Darren Wilson? Why haven't any intellectuals spoken out publicly for the rule of law? Why has the impetus of mob force (which is what all of this is) silenced any other voice? I know why in part--because if you're white, you're terrified of being perceived as racist. And to say the wrong thing in the wrong place is to be labelled.

  It's a messed up world when the violent criminal who attacked someone is held up as a hero and the officer who stopped him made into the villain. IMO it says a lot about the community that he gets all this support. They are not interested in justice or fairness - it's all about race, that's all some people can see. Too much political correctness and people afraid to speak the truth about the situation.

  We even had the president talking about justified anger and being supportive of protestors but making no mention of the police who maintain law and order. I saw someone called for the president to invite officer wilson to the whitehouse. Of course he won't but he should. No doubt the family and "burn it all" step dad will get a trip out though.

  It's mental.
• 

  Witness 007

  I saw the shocking footage yesterday of Michael Brown high on pot stealing the cigars and assaulting the small clerk by pushing him into shelves and threatening and standing over him 3 TIMES. The clerk did not call the police out of fear but a customer did. Now his father says "My son respected law enforcement..." I guess he did not see this footage or his son does not respect clerks! If Michael continued with this attitude with the police is it any wonder he got shot. I hate people saying "He was a lovely family guy who loved his friends...gentle giant..." I bet he was but from the footage not on that night.
• 

  breakfast of champions

  I hate people saying "He was a lovely family guy who loved his friends...gentle giant..." I bet he was but from the footage not on that night.

  "He was just an excitable boy. . ." - Warren Zevon
• 

  Marvin Shilmer

  Then we can note how black children under 10 are less likely to be viewed as children and less innocent as compared to white children: https://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/psp-a0035663.pdf

  Pacopoolio,

  I selected the first peer reviewed paper you offered to see if it supports your assertion that "black children under 10 are less likely to be viewed as children and less innocent as compared to white children"

  Your source DOES NOT support your assertion.

  For example, your cited source (above) offers evidence that children under 10 are seen as EQUALLY INNOCENT regardless of race!!!

  Get your facts straight, and for goodness sakes READ your own cited sources before you have others spend time reading them for something they never say and, in fact, DISPUTE!!!