the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
To coincide to what I said, here is the income of the aboriginal peoples in the United States, which you didn't include, Simon:
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
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.
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
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).
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
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.
after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.
let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .
LoveUnit:
"Walking down an alley" is not a poor example, as it was used to show the boundaries of the difference between "victim blaming" and showing people why what they did was wrong in an instance in a one-on-one situation. It wasn't an analogy - it was drawing the boundaries on where you confront someone on that level.
Regarding football - the issue there is that you don't cure racism by doing that, you just remove it from the public. Ending apartheid and segregation didn't make people not racist, it just made it legally wrong to do so in public in ways that directly affected people in those instances. It pushed racism to a hidden thing that could not be proven as easily, and is harder to fight, as opposed to a blatant, obvious thing.
So, for instance, that's why we have bar owners that enforce dress codes more strictly on some races than others to try to control the racial diversity of the crowd, as opposed to having a sign that says, "only 25% latinos allowed at one time." Or people telling their sons and daughters, "you'd better not bring a white person home." The problem is still there, it's just hidden in places where it can't be enforced now.
So yes, you should make laws curbing public and obvious racism/segregation/etc., but that doesn't actually solve the UNDERLYING issue, that just cuts out one ASPECT of it. For more, you need education, etc., which was mentioend on the last page.
Breakfast of champions - in 3rd party discussions of "why did this happen," and "how do we prevent this from happening in the future," those are the only discussions you can have. Why do people end up in these situations, and how can you prevent them from happening in the future.
hard questions lead to problematic answers.
"tricky, complicated, and controversial.).
emotions stem from values and values are personal.
Terry, Coded Logic explained to you why your answers to your own questions are wrong. There is no one, unique answer to the questions you asked that specifies a race or religion, as there are multiple answers. Your attempt to say "Muslims" is incorrect as members of other religions currently are doing the thing you speak of, for instance. It's a wrong answer.
The fact that your questions have no unique answer shows you why the worldview of those that believe it does is so errsant in the first place. Because all of these things are tied in with nuances and specifics of peope in similar situations, things that cross bounds like race and religion, it's impossible to single out a single one at any point in time for such broad questions.
-That's- pure fact.
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
"White privilege" is a sociological term that has an exact meaning and definition. If someone thinks a hamburger is chicken soup because they have never heard of a hamburger, and when you explain to them what it is, and they say "that's your definition, it means chicken soup," then there's no way to communicate with someone because they refuse to use common language. It ceases to be about understanding things, and instead about trying to look right or prove what already exists.
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.
On a side note - thanks everyone for the PMs on this, but this is about as far as I go :)
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
Just as a quick, broad resposne before I leave on the dating analogy that got turned into a derail.
(Specific and not borad, ie. gender or healthiness) Attraction is probably based on familiarity. People are basically attracted to what they learned to be attracted to in childhood over a ridiculous number of micro-influences. Since people tend to be around their own race more, due to social structures, it often hedges towards that, but it also often changes when people are adopted into other races or brought up in other areas where the minority/majority shift changes.
A huge influence, as well, is what media SHOWS as attractive, which is something that can definitely be adjusted, and is being adjusted over time, with seemingly positive results.
Dating sites have search preferences or "who do you want to date" toggles that cover age, race, height, weight, etc. Sites have published their findings on the administrative end (they have access to that data), and on sites like Match, that actually shows up on one's profile, so it can be searched manually yourself in whatever area you wish (and some of this data has been combined and published as well).
the michael brown tragedy has garnered a lot of attention in the media recently highlighted.
by the recent county court decision to not indict the lone officer who did the shooting which caused the death of micheal brown.. .. now after more information of the event has been released openly to the public, we can evaluate upon are self.
in are own opinion toward was the law handed out in this particular event proportionately fair or to a professional standard ?.
Simon accuses me of playing word games, and look at his quote in post 16046 of 16047.
I clearly said that no one said that black people were the most disadvantaged in response to him stating that as a topic.
He highlights quotes where I gave an example of black people being disadvantaged and says I'm the one with "silly rambling" and "word games."
Are you kidding me? This is ridiculous, and inexcusable in any type of reasoned discussion. Things and subjects are constantly getting twisted and distorted, whether due to a lack of comprehension or purposely doing so for whatever reason.
after a thorough investigation and weighing of the evidence the grand jury has decided not to indict the officer.. the reaction so far seems as predicted - people refuse to accept that the result represents justice despite claims that is what they wanted.. there is now violence and vandalism, including gunshots.
let's hope the police contain the troublemakers.. .
It was MBs fault on an individual level - he chose to rob a store, verbally abuse a cop, ignore instructions, try to take the cop's gun and charge the cop.
I would like to give you a test case, for you to apply your sociology skills.
In the UK in the 70s and 80s, racism was a big problem in football (soccer) grounds. Virtually every team had hardcore fans that would racially abuse referees, linesman, opposing players, even their own team's players if they performed badly. Sadly, monkey chants and throwing bananas onto the pitch were regular occurrances.
At what level was it the racists' fault and how would you, as a sociologist, go about reforming 80s football fans?
As far as I can see each racist fan was individually responsible for his own conduct - whether other factors influenced him like poverty, unhappy home life, limited education, low wages, unemployment, etc. cannot be used as an excuse.
If I'm talking about the individual in question, I would assign blame to their actions in talking directly to them, while being careful not to victim blame, depending on the instance (if someone is raped or robbed, you don't say "shouldn't have walked down that alley" to the person). Same for talking to an individual who says "M.B. was killed because he was black" (fallacy), or an individual that equates all black people to thugs (racism). But those are individual cases, and you frame it in that way because you can have an effect on that individual by framing it that way.
When talking as a third party about the concept of large groups of people doing things, I don't blame it on the individual because I know that an individual is made up of influences from their surroundings.
For instance, racism and racial prejudice is often caused by a mix of upbringing, limited experience with members of that race, a lack of education and other things. So to combat that, you would try to change those surrpunding influences en masse. There are a lot of ways to do this that I can't get into at the moment due to time.
Michael Brown's case is a huge mix of combining issues on both sides; far too much to whittle down to "he shouldn't have done that" on either side.
