I get exactly this treatment from mine when I do this... using certain "non-prestige" dialects I grew up with... (that have incedentally been unilaterally declared illegitimate in this very thread IIRC
)
Why "All Lives Matters" is wrong
- Thread starter jackelgull
- Start date
)
warpus
Sommerswerd asked me to change this
My dad grew up in a part of Poland that uses different pronunciation of certain letters, which makes it sound "A bit Russian, a bit like they're a bit drunk". i.e. it is a regional dialect (I think?) and/or a regional pronunciation that's not common anywhere else in the country. So to all the people who learn "Regular Polish" in school (equivalent to "regular" English people learn in school I'd assume) it sounds funny. Those people get made fun of as uncivilized, Russian, etc. Usually in a joking-like manner, especially between family members, but it depends on who's doing the mocking. It goes beyond just sounds, they use certain unique words too, but you can easily understand 99% of what they are saying.
Anyway, my dad has shed this accent and now sounds "Regular Polish". But nobody else in his side of his family has shed the dialect and they all sound funny to us. I wouldn't be surprised if these people had issues trying to get a job in Warsaw and/or any of the other large cities in Poland. They would probably be discriminated against, because they "talk funny". Mind you I have never seen this happen first hand, and for all I know that accent/dialect is now extinct aside from a couple pockets here and there.
No idea if that's similar to this "non-prestige" stuff, but it sure sounds similar.
Anyway, my dad has shed this accent and now sounds "Regular Polish". But nobody else in his side of his family has shed the dialect and they all sound funny to us. I wouldn't be surprised if these people had issues trying to get a job in Warsaw and/or any of the other large cities in Poland. They would probably be discriminated against, because they "talk funny". Mind you I have never seen this happen first hand, and for all I know that accent/dialect is now extinct aside from a couple pockets here and there.
No idea if that's similar to this "non-prestige" stuff, but it sure sounds similar.
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
Yup. Though you'll be more receptive than a native speaker of a different dialect, I'd bet. You actually get that the language is there, and you're missing it. Fancy yourself fluent and you'll claim that the language is flawed rather than your understanding. Since if you can't see it, it must not exist.
I get exactly this treatment from mine when I do this... using certain "non-prestige" dialects I grew up with... (that have incedentally been unilaterally declared illegitimate in this very thread IIRC
"That's not a word."
"Yes it is! That was authentic frontier gibberish, darnabit!"
Lexicus
Deity
Bart: Barbershop? That ain't been popular since aught-six, dagnabbit.
Homer: Bart, what did I tell you?
Bart: No talking like a grizzled 1890's prospector, consarn it.
Tim has made the (very apropos) point that CFC is kinda like a club where folks get to know each other over time... but the fact that I've argued/debunked/refuted/analyzed a point to death in the past doesn't mean that the person I'm currently speaking to has heard it. Part of me being super-lighthearted in this thread is that I've already made ad-nauseum arguments on this topic, and alot of these guys have already heard my arguments on this subject... that's not your problem... but maybe you can at least appreciate why I wouldn't rehash stuff I already beaten to death when in my estimation, the (your) argument wasn't even being made seriously/in-good-faith/seeking analysis or rebuttal....
Anyway... if you really want a more serious response from me, again, rather than do a complete rehash... here's one. Here's another. And more:
Spoiler From the "Black lives Matter" thread :
Say, for example... Like this?
Spoiler Also From the "Blacks lives Matter" thread :
I so rarely "get" what you are saying on the first try (I actually had to read it twice 
). A very nice bit of writing
But now you are kinda changing the subject. "Black Lives Matter" is about saying that the police should stop killing, shooting, tazing black people to death for behavior that they would simply arrest or warn white people for... of course a tangent to this is that the criminal justice system should stop arresting, charging, prosecuting, convicting, sentincing, executing blacks more harshly for the same crimes.
What? That's the whole basis for the disproportionate treatment they have concerned themselves enough to conclude that blacks are the criminals and deserve worse treatment.
Ah, finally.
Ok, these are - at a glance - all fine and well.
Like, i have an issue with the two linked posts, cause in one you not merely claim crime stats are skewed, but implicitly dismiss them wholesale.
I'd rather reason that disenfrenchised, poor urban African Americans are bound to have higher crime rates, for the very reasons you alude to in the other post.
I'd say this would not be enough. And there needs to the "uplifting" you dismiss, ending racism wouldn't be enough. Damage done has to be remedied.
If i wanted to argue in bad faith, i'd call you libertarian here.
Now, as an etatist i'm perfectly happy to hear your thoughts about school choice, to hear you about how African Americans themselves know best how to use remedying funds.
This is mostly white people's fault. And enough are still at it today. For the record.
(Let's not go out our way to disagree here. I find free will v determinism boring and divisive. I hope we can settle for "mostly".)
So, of course the statistics are skewed. Are all differences a result of that? I don't think so. I think if you mistreat people, they'll generally and broadly be "not well" and crime comes with that.
It doesn't really matter though, in terms of our disagreement in this thread.
Because... the quotes in the large spoilers - as far as i can tell - all address the same argument, an argument that i am not making here.
Btw: Your math on the 2013 murder statistics is actually in lots of peril (which apparently Funky didn't exploit - good for you), based on two reasonable (and somewhat evident) assumtions: 1. Check the victims table and assume most are killed by a member of their own "race". 2. Assume that there may be biased ressource distribution based on the "race" and privilege of the victim. Murder is an outlier in both regards.
None the less i accept and affirm the broad thrust of your argument (even while you didn't recommend that in a disclaimer), and would basically be willing to do so without evidence at all:
African Americans are in general massively overexposed to investigative pressure. Of course they are. This is particularly true for misdemeanors and low level felonies.
Actually i strongly implied in that post you disliked so much, that i deem said argument rather dubious. And i called The New Jim Crow just that.
So i am afraid, that you seemingly mistook me for Funky, may not necessarily be my fault.
Btw: I appreciate that you may be tired, particularly since, apparently some sort of metaphor about carrots and cute critters was inflicted on you (i skimmed that part, forgive me).
Anyway, let's get to the point.
First, let me make clear that i am making the implicit assumption that you are not some weird form of equal-opportunity super-tough-on-crime advocate; raising the rate of police-caused fatalities of all other groups to the level suffered by African Americans is not the outcome you desire. Right?
This is where my argument comes in: As i said, plenty of the original motivation behind the War on Crime was racist, and a fair chunk of it still is today.
That doesn't necessarily mean that focusing on that is particularly effictive in dealing with the problem.
You may argue that the US has more racism than other countries, you may argue that the US has a particular kind of racism. We could debate that, i wouldn't outright dismiss the claim.
However relative to many otherwise comparable countries, that do have crime, poverty, disadvantaged minorities and biased police, the striking difference is not that police in the US is more biased. It arguably is, somewhat, but arguably not to the extent necessary to suffice as an explanation. Firearms are more available in th US, but when we do certain international comparisons that can't hold as the core factor either.
The striking difference is that is has become normalised in the US that the police is killing pretty much everyone, to varying degree. That is just off the charts relative to otherwise comparable countries.
So, then the question is what do you want to do about it?
Hypothetical #1:
Let's do what BLM, SJWs, whoever... seem to suggest or may suggest to alleviate African American disenfranchisement, crime in many African American communities, said disproportionate investigative pressure etc.
Since these are movements not organisations, let me make some good-faith-suggestions as to what we might be talking about:
1. By various means redirect police efforts, reduce police bias.
How much will that get us? How much will that "~3" in my chart for whites rise and that "~7" for African Americans drop?
2. Some sort of criminal justice reform scaling back sentencing guidelines etc.
Does this change the rates in the short term at all?
3. Some form of reparations in cash - just for the heck of it. Let's spend a trillion on that. Not much. A mere 25k per capita (roughly 4k to pay per white person).
4. Some form of huge subsidised program for workfare, small business founding etc. Being slightly less poor is little good without opportunity. Let's spend another trillion.
5. A fundamental education reform, stripping (racist) municipalities and states of most of their agency in education, and making a huge effort in redeeming an enourmous number of underfunded schools; add adult education efforts. Let's spend yet another trillion, since this is a cause dear to my heart - i consider this a particularly viscious and hideous injustice.
A trillion here and there. Soon enough we're talking about real money.
What would this get us in terms of police-caused fatalities, today or tomorrow or next year, or in five years?
I suspect less than one might initially hope.
Millions of African Americans would still have to catch up on lost opportunities, education, trauma they suffered etc.
If all of the above is done, how well will traumatised black men released from prison really do?
So the above is laudible and any liberal should feel free to pursue any or all of those goals.
But this is a generational plan. In what timeframe will this bring down African American police-caused fatalities to the white level of ~3?
How close are we to getting any of this done, even a fraction of it?
So far you're getting into month-long media quagmires about whether one black teenager or another "reached for the gun" or not. Conservatives seem to be relatively fine with those.
Oh, and a racist guy with bad hair is trying to take millions of African Americans' health insurance away.
Now let's suppose we'd refocus just some part of all that laudible effort to do the following:
Hypothetical #2:
1. Allow cops to police in whatever unequal fashion they currently do (just for arguments sake)
2. Have police conduct change to be somewhat more "European" (somewhat, not all the way), in that they don't shoot dead, well, everybody.
What would we have to do? Some PSAs, funding for retraining police, feel free to throw in some desired equipment, some pay raises, cost of new and different staff.
What would that cost? 20 billion, mostly diverted from other funding? Spread over say 5 years?
What might that get you? Say, 5 times the FRG's rate of fatalities (which is not that low a rate to begin with)? Not the same, not a lot more; A full freaking five times.
That would be 0.4
Suppose the effect of police bias stayed roughly the same. So the African American rate would be twice that.
0.8 - five years from the start.
Is this feasable? It's not easy. But it's possible.
It's so possible you can get those Oregon Standoff cretins on board who got upset in the first place when they discovered that mandatory minimums are a thing (you can sign them up for that too).
This would not be fair.
It'd be the dirty, sad business called pragmatism.
But right now, in the language of that comic, there is no water, no hose and all the houses are on fire. Some more than others.
And the comic's characters are doing....what? wait? For Trump to resign? For an apology? From some teenage Milo fan? From Nixon? From some German socialist on the interwebs?
And, yes i do get that plenty of people intentionally use "all lives matter" as a dogwhistle.
However, many others are just somewhat ignorant.
Anyway.
Here's the list:
http://killedbypolice.net/
It will get longer today.
The count is at 272.
The newest entry with a photo is #268, Alteria Woods, 21, pregnant, deceased march 19th 2017, suspected of absolutely nothing:
Spoiler :
You want to spend a month debating with O'Reilly and Funky whether her boyfriend used her as a shield or not?
I'm sure, they'll gladly indulge you if you ask real nice.
Does it matter if he did? I think not.
This is about a search warrant. Cops were fired upon; they apparently managed to kill the young woman and gain control of the situation without harming the actual suspects.
You may argue they should have been after white people instead.
Will you get that? No.
I'm arguing they should have double backed and gotten a criminal psychologist with a megaphone or something.
You know, like sane people.
Can we get that?
I claim: Yes, we can.
Last edited:
KmDubya
King
Ah, finally.
----SNIP------
Anyway.
Here's the list:
http://killedbypolice.net/
It will get longer today.
The count is at 272.
The newest entry with a photo is #268, Alteria Woods, 21, pregnant, deceased march 19th 2017, suspected of absolutely nothing:
Spoiler :
You want to spend a month debating with O'Reilly and Funky whether her boyfriend used her as a shield or not?
I'm sure, they'll gladly indulge you if you ask real nice.
Does it matter if he did? I think not.
This is about a search warrant. Cops were fired upon; they apparently managed to kill the young woman and gain control of the situation without harming the actual suspects.
You may argue they should have been after white people instead.
Will you get that? No.
I'm arguing they should have double backed and gotten a criminal psychologist with a megaphone or something.
You know, like sane people.
Can we get that?
I claim: Yes, we can.
So you're blaming white people and racism because a criminal suspect fired upon the police and then used his girlfriend as a human shield and she was killed? Really????
This could almost be a Darwin award for being caused by hanging out with idiots like the dead girl's criminal boyfriend. The circumstances that led to her death most certainly do matter and the important parts are - don't hang out with criminals. don't shoot at the police, and especially don't hang out with a boyfriend who'd use you as a human shield.
metalhead
Angry Bartender
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2002
- Messages
- 8,031
Do you find yourself in the course of a relationship asking your SO if they'd use you as a human shield?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
It's always hilarious when someone makes an argument after quoting a post that preemptively addressed their argument. This is a sign that your positions have been so thoroughly ridiculed already that you should abandon them, or at the very least keep them to yourselves.
We agree on this and I think this is pretty much the point of the thread. I read the rest of your post (sorry for taking so long), but I think these two sentences pretty much settle/sum up the issue.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Purely out of interest:
Let's say somebody wants to make sure that not only black victims of police brutality are talked about but also white victims. What would be the proper way of doing it? "White Lives Matter(s)"?
Timsup2nothin
Deity
- Joined
- Apr 2, 2013
- Messages
- 46,737
I'd go with "reform the police and get rid of the killers and thugs."
EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
I recommend using phrases like "criminal justice reform", "police accountability", and so on. Broadly speaking, if there's no explicit mention of ethnicity, we're covered implicitly. Phrases like "All lives matter" or "White lives matter" sound dismissive or mocking.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
But that's the very same platform BLM is using, is it not? So in the end, if both want the same, then why not ditch the whole race thing altogether and form a united movement?
Race isn't just something you can ignore and pretend doesn't exist, there are clear differences in how white people and black people are treated by the police
That would involve getting rid of all police
That would involve getting rid of all police
Senethro
Overlord
Because BLM is addressing (racism + criminal justice reform). The racism is a significant element for them.
Ryika
Lazy Wannabe Artista
- Joined
- Aug 30, 2013
- Messages
- 9,393
Well, I agree that racism is an additional factor that mostly affects the minority race(s), but I don't really see how that makes it impossible to combine everybody who is against police brutality. If you could have a united movement that stands for the idea that all lives matter and that acknowledges that minorities are generally more affected by the prejudices of bad cops, wouldn't that be so much stronger than a movement that focuses on a point that is, in my opinion, unnecessarily narrow?
Farm Boy
I hope you dance
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2010
- Messages
- 28,269
If you want low class whites not on good terms with law enforcement their phrases and cries are covered by the same umbrella of things associated with, oh hell, this sort of thing. Unless I'm just being old about it.
Spoiler :
