The "N" word vs the "N" word...

[darthtang aw]

The numbers are not the problem. The problem arises when you imply that blacks are more likely to commit a crime or murder and if you are white, you are less likely. Those statistics are just numbers. They don't control for other things such as income status, education, or single parent home to name a few different variables. While it may be a good starting point, you can't really reach any real scientific conclusion until you have controlled for some if those other factors. That is my point, if that makes sense?
Do those variables not make up cultural differences?
Lmao! If we as a group of people cant discuss a simple topic for pure discussion sake without arguing about how the info is present, whether the numbers are correct, whether the source of numbers is credible, how can we expect our elected leaders to reach agreement and discuss anything with a positive attitude and potentially positive result?
With the few amount of people in this discussion not one solution or potential explanation was brought up. Numbers were questions, motives were questions, the process was questioned. But not once was the problem actually discussed and approached.
My aquarium friends, our current elected leaders are an exact replica and mirror of our current population. No wonder the country is the way it is. And i am just as guilty as everyone else.
Darth ( see my point yet) Tang

 

[beth]

DT, your presentation is flawed with this.
You can't throw out curiously off stats and a biased conclusion then expect us to just take that at face value and discuss it as if whatever you say is reason to springboard into a discussion. You like doing this sort of thing, I know, but setting up a scenario and already having an expectation in mind is flawed thinking and a flawed way to come up with an analysis that means anything. You establish a conclusion before you even start the test. That makes the exercise meaningless.
Also, as to our political leaders, they don't have to think too much about the validity of the stats they get when they are working in a committee or attempting to come up with a solution to a perceived problem. They have the full force of the federal government's resources in staffers and whole agencies to just order up the documents and statistics they need to work with. In this discussion, the stats looked off going out the gate, and so did the conclusion you threw out. So, before establishing the validity of the material you were throwing out, there was no discussion to be had.
I'd have to say, even with all the resources available to our political leaders when it comes to their decision making process, I hope they still have it in their head to smell something that is off when they see it and are able to say, "Hey, how did you derive at that information?" Maybe if Congress had done that 2003, we wouldn't have gone to war over mis-information about WMDs.

 

[fattytwobyfour]

SMH. There are basic things about processes you should educate yourself with before trying to act like an expert of the process. When you refuse to do so, don't be surprised when you aren't taken seriously.
I remember sitting in classes during my first semester in college with people who had cocky attitudes. They tried to challenge the professors anytime they opened their mouth. Those people didn't last halfway through the first semester of college.

 

[2quills]

So what might be some of the reasons then why 13% of the population commits more homicide than 77%?
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-06.pdf
http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-05.pdf
What are the variables at play here that could lead to such drastic differences? And why are there more black males incarcerated today than were enslaved back in 1850? http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/michelle-alexander-more-black-men-in-prison-slaves-1850_n_1007368.html

 

[beth]

To me, what stands out is the last linked article. You have the woman and her analysis, then you have several comments below the article. Everyone has a different argument, and a different stat, a different take, and a different solution. One solution proposed was inter-racial marriages!
My feeling is that you see more blacks in jail because they can't get away with criminality as well as whites do. First and foremost, many don't have the financial means for a good lawyer. This is particularly true for people in jail due to drug related offenses. That is an opinion.
Is there a culture of criminality among young black men? And, if there is, why? I don't think we'll find the answer on a given website, or from a particular group of advocates (even if that group are African Americans). I certainly don't believe that the answer will come from people who already feel like they know the answers and the solutions...... People who feel that that if this group would only behave as my group behaves they will see success rather than jail time in their future.

 

[2quills]

Good points. And thanks for not calling me a racist for posting that info. IMO, the title of that article could have just as easily read that there are more whites incarcerated today than there were black slaves in the 1800's. It really doesn't mean anything because it's simply a numbers game. More folks in the country now than there were back then. But the title draws negative attention to a certain group as I believe it is being used for an attention getter.
Along the lines of interacial relationship and Bang's comment of our differences becoming less opaque over time, perhaps there is something to that. At the rate we are going now it seems like only a matter of time when we reach a point where we can all be considered, Mixed. I wonder if things will be different. Or I wonder if we'll still have groups of people of the same color fighting eachother for being from different neighborhoods in virtually the same city or town.

 

[beth]

We'd probably need to check back in a few hundred yrs to see if we are all "blended". The blending of societies and cultures is worldwide, and it is a phenomena which is in its infancy. We probably need 500 or so yrs to see what the end result is. You see an example of this in Japan which 70 yrs ago, we could say we had absolutely nothing in common with. Now, its a westernized country but still has their very unique culture.
LOL I haven't called anyone a racist. Its easy for everyone to see things from their own perspective and try to prove their points. That's not being racist.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396046/the-n-word-vs-the-n-word/60#post_3528226
We'd probably need to check back in a few hundred yrs to see if we are all "blended". The blending of societies and cultures is worldwide, and it is a phenomena which is in its infancy. We probably need 500 or so yrs to see what the end result is. You see an example of this in Japan which 70 yrs ago, we could say we had absolutely nothing in common with. Now, its a westernized country but still has their very unique culture.
LOL I haven't called anyone a racist. Its easy for everyone to see things from their own perspective and try to prove their points. That's not being racist.
It is easy and no, I don't think you were ever saying anything like that. Though it would be pretty cool to be able to come back and see the way things turn out for the future generations if they're still around 500 years from now. Personally, I like the fact that we are all different minus the hatred aimed at one another. I can only imagine how boring the world would be if we all walked, talked and acted the same. I mean come on, how many of us around here stock our tanks with all the same species? BOOORING!
If people want to address themselves with whatever words they wish to use as a sign of camaraderie then I say more power to em.

 

[beth]

Quote:
Originally Posted by 2Quills http:///t/396046/the-n-word-vs-the-n-word/60#post_3528240
If people want to address themselves with whatever words they wish to use as a sign of camaraderie then I say more power to em.
Except it gives license to those restricted from using that word a reason to B-word! LOL
If its such a hateful word, don't use it. Those who are not African American and prohibited from using the word because of its hatefulness feel like those using it are actually totally disrespecting themselves and others of their own race. Its just hard to hear it used; at least for me it is.

 

[2quills]

I don't see what the big deal is really. Perhaps my background is a little different than a lot of other folks because of the different places that I've lived over the years. I feel fortunate enough to have experienced much of what the black, hispanic, country redneck and even city slicker cultures have to offer. Sometimes a word really is just a word. It's typically fairly easy to see when it's being used in a hateful way. People should know what to or what not to say to a stranger. But I've palled around with some of my boys back home in the D (detroit) and have even had some of my black amigos refer to my white arse as their n_gga lol. Typically I took it as a sign of respect. Even though I couldn't bring myself to use the word along with them they never did call me a cracker. At least not the ones that I considered my actual bud's.
A lot of things could be associate with hate if you really think about it. Take it in the context, I say. Everything else is water under the bridge.

 

[darthtang aw]

DT, your presentation is flawed with this.
You can't throw out curiously off stats and a biased conclusion then expect us to just take that at face value and discuss it as if whatever you say is reason to springboard into a discussion.  You like doing this sort of thing, I know, but setting up a scenario and already having an expectation in mind is flawed thinking and a flawed way to come up with an analysis that means anything.  You establish a conclusion before you even start the test.   That makes the exercise meaningless.
Also, as to our political leaders, they don't have to think too much about the validity of the stats they get when they are working in a committee or attempting to come up with a solution to a perceived problem.  They have the full force of the federal government's resources in staffers and whole agencies to just order up the documents and statistics they need to work with.  In this discussion, the stats looked off going out the gate, and so did the conclusion you threw out.  So, before establishing the validity of the material you were throwing out, there was no discussion to be had.
I'd have to say, even with all the resources available to our political leaders when it comes to their decision making process, I hope they still have it in their head to smell something that is off when they see it and are able to say, "Hey, how did you derive at that information?"  Maybe if Congress had done that 2003, we wouldn't have gone to war over mis-information about WMDs.  
Beth, If you stop and think about about it, I did the very exact thing our elected leaders do all the time. I cherry picked a conclusion I desired, and then presented only "evidence" or stats that support my "conclusion".
Which is my entire point. You were the only one in the thread that didn't allow your political thought process to interfere with you decision towards the comments. You questioned validity...not the numbers, but how the numbers were reached. No one else did that.
We did the same thing in 2009 as we did in 2003. no one read a 1400 page bill.

 

[bang guy]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396046/the-n-word-vs-the-n-word/60#post_3528349
Beth, If you stop and think about about it, I did the very exact thing our elected leaders do all the time. I cherry picked a conclusion I desired, and then presented only "evidence" or stats that support my "conclusion".
Which is my entire point. You were the only one in the thread that didn't allow your political thought process to interfere with you decision towards the comments. You questioned validity...not the numbers, but how the numbers were reached. No one else did that.
We did the same thing in 2009 as we did in 2003. no one read a 1400 page bill.
Darth, what you say is true. Unfortunately, we don't have Beth in government pointing this stuff out.

 

[darthtang aw]

Now, lets continue a bit more...
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/press/htus8008pr.cfm
"Blacks were six times more likely than whites to be homicide victims and seven times more likely than whites to commit homicide."
The question presented is Why?

 

[beth]

Thanks for the compliments, gentlemen....but I have a good feeling the country is better off wo me in politics.

But, Darth: Why put those in this conversation to a "test"? Sometimes we can just discuss an issue without relating it to how crappy our politicians are. Truthfully, it is up to us to hire these politicians, so we get what we pay for (figuratively speaking). Getting people to start thinking before voting begins with conversations rather then an exercise.

 

[2quills]

Blah...what good is voting if the people who get voted in won't do the job that they campaigned to do?
2 (so sick of the system) Quills

 

[beth]

Then next time around make sure they voted OUT. Uninformed citizens is the problem.

 

[darthtang aw]

Thanks for the compliments, gentlemen....but I have a good feeling the country is better off wo me in politics.  

   
But, Darth:  Why put  those in this conversation to a "test"?   Sometimes we can just discuss an issue without relating it to how crappy our politicians are.  Truthfully, it is up to us to hire these politicians, so we get what we pay for (figuratively speaking).   Getting people to start thinking before voting begins with conversations rather then an exercise.
I wasn't conducting a "test" of the people here per say. I had a feeling how some would react is all. My thought process I have been pondering is, do our representatives reflect the people that elected them? For a long time I didn't think so. But as i grow older, I am changing my thoughts on this aspect of our government and beginning to think they do adequately mirror our population...in general that is. Not necessarily how they vote on things but how they "discuss" and "solve" things. Their approach is mirrored in my estimation. they pick the result first before picking the data.
I also did it to show some people do need to "think" more. But also that a discussion needs to take place. In this case, the actual discussion never took place concerning the problem. The discussion was entirely about the numbers. Even though it is obvious that there was a problem.

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/396046/the-n-word-vs-the-n-word/60#post_3528361
Then next time around make sure they voted OUT. Uninformed citizens is the problem.
And when you run out of good options to replace them with, then what? Feels like it's simply a matter of going with what you believe will be the lesser evil.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396046/the-n-word-vs-the-n-word/60#post_3528362
I wasn't conducting a "test" of the people here per say. I had a feeling how some would react is all. My thought process I have been pondering is, do our representatives reflect the people that elected them? For a long time I didn't think so. But as i grow older, I am changing my thoughts on this aspect of our government and beginning to think they do adequately mirror our population...in general that is. Not necessarily how they vote on things but how they "discuss" and "solve" things. Their approach is mirrored in my estimation. they pick the result first before picking the data.
I also did it to show some people do need to "think" more. But also that a discussion needs to take place. In this case, the actual discussion never took place concerning the problem. The discussion was entirely about the numbers. Even though it is obvious that there was a problem.
Politicians are a reflection of the people who chose to put them there? Seems logical. Yes, we have problems, lots of them. And big one's! Some have seen enough numbers to know why the generalizations are there, IMO. To me it's not so much a matter of why things are the way they are but rather what do we have to do to fix them when the nation is so clearly divided on the big issues?

 

[darthtang aw]

And when you run out of good options to replace them with, then what?  Feels like it's simply a matter of going with what you believe will be the lesser evil.
Politicians are a reflection of the people who chose to put them there?  Seems logical.  Yes, we have problems, lots of them.  And big one's!  Some have seen enough numbers to know why the generalizations are there, IMO.  To me it's not so much a matter of why things are the way they are but rather what do we have to do to fix them when the nation is so clearly divided on the big issues?
In order to fix something you have to know why or how it broke. If your tire goes flat do you just keep pumping air into it to fill it up. Or do you first figure out if it is just low on air or blown?

 

[2quills]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/396046/the-n-word-vs-the-n-word/60#post_3528367
In order to fix something you have to know why or how it broke. If your tire goes flat do you just keep pumping air into it to fill it up. Or do you first figure out if it is just low on air or blown?
Uh...it's clearly blown if you ask me.