Evidence of Structural Racism

Spaulding!No!

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 22, 2019
Messages
1,341
Reaction score
366
Points
83
I was hoping legalmpot would cure much of the problems in the big city.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
411
Points
83
A) They're traffic stops resulting in searches. "Deserves" at this level strains credulity.
B) The screenshot/article addresses this. Blacks are being searched more often, and yet the searches result in arrests less often. So, the numbers say that blacks are being searched disproportionately.

I wouldn't expect you to actually read the article that I linked, because I recognize it may cause you to encounter some data that might challenge you, but it goes further:

This study is not surprising. More crime in inner city therefore more cops proportionally in inner cities. Therefore more traffic stops in inner city proportionally. Since high crime area there is more reasons to conduct searches.

See this played out in education as well. Huge black-white disparity in achievement and suspensions, yet never a peep about black responsibility.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
641
Reaction score
287
Points
63
The problem is that it's harder to change.
That’s no different than the city of Philadelphia imposing a city tax is sugary drinks. Local governments are always imposing things they should not. Or the city of Minneapolis and the $15 minimum wage.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113
This is such a red herring, but if you care so much, you'll call for more gun control. Most of the guns being used in Chicago are coming in from Indiana.
> Most of the guns being used in Chicago are coming in from Indiana.

That's an interesting claim. Why Indiana as opposed to, say, Wisconsin or Iowa? The criminals sure seem to have a lot of guns in Chicago.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113
Does he mean police reform like the GOP has put forth but the Dems refuse to work on? Or not that kind of police reform?
Not sure. Some people are a bit unclear about the difference in the meaning of the words "reform" and "defund."
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,105
Reaction score
1,686
Points
113
This study is not surprising. More crime in inner city therefore more cops proportionally in inner cities. Therefore more traffic stops in inner city proportionally. Since high crime area there is more reasons to conduct searches.

See this played out in education as well. Huge black-white disparity in achievement and suspensions, yet never a peep about black responsibility.
Apparently not since they're making fewer arrests based on those searches.
 

justthefacts

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 20, 2010
Messages
11,105
Reaction score
1,686
Points
113
> Most of the guns being used in Chicago are coming in from Indiana.

That's an interesting claim. Why Indiana as opposed to, say, Wisconsin or Iowa? The criminals sure seem to have a lot of guns in Chicago.
I shouldn't have said most come from Indiana. Most come from out of state, and most of those come from Indiana. As for why:

A)


B)



 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
641
Reaction score
287
Points
63
I shouldn't have said most come from Indiana. Most come from out of state, and most of those come from Indiana. As for why:

A)


B)



So the guns being used in Chicago are being purchased legally in Indiana. That’s very nice of the criminals to purchase legal guns in order to commit a crime. All states should require that hand guns be registered. That single step would help a great deal.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113
which is why the "legalize it and then regulate it" crowd had it wrong. "Regulate it" is almost as big of a problem as prohibition. Legalize it and decriminalize it and get out of the way.
Just make it a legit profession with minimal regulations (like a free/cheap business license plus the product has to be legit (not cut with tobacco or worse). And if you're caught selling harder drugs, you lose your license and can't work in another pot shop (e.g., your wife's or girlfriend's).

Problem is, whitey wants to make all the profits, and eliminate competition from other colors, if you get my drift. That's why all the regulations and barriers to entry. If you want an example of systemic racism, well there you have it. An out-there example, but a realistic one.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,140
Reaction score
1,954
Points
113
Just make it a legit profession with minimal regulations (like a free/cheap business license plus the product has to be legit (not cut with tobacco or worse). And if you're caught selling harder drugs, you lose your license and can't work in another pot shop (e.g., your wife's or girlfriend's).

Problem is, whitey wants to make all the profits, and eliminate competition from other colors, if you get my drift. That's why all the regulations and barriers to entry. If you want an example of systemic racism, well there you have it. An out-there example, but a realistic one.
there are a million examples of regulations, licensing, etc, being racist and creating huge barriers to entry for POC to get on the ladder of success. which party is in favor of those?
It's really hard to get people to vote for your paternalistic policies if they aren't victims and can succeed on their own.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113
I shouldn't have said most come from Indiana. Most come from out of state, and most of those come from Indiana. As for why:

A)


B)



Ah, I see. Funny thing is, the first thing that came to mind was Gary, Indiana. Funny how intuition works. Once the steel industry went caput, Gary became one of the worst cities in America. And an easy drive from Chicago. The delta in gun laws between the two states is quite amazing.

Once or twice I got off I-94/90 and took the back roads via Gary due to excessive freeway traffic, and I didn't feel safe the whole way. You wanna gas up before taking that route so you don't have to make any stops.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113
there are a million examples of regulations, licensing, etc, being racist and creating huge barriers to entry for POC to get on the ladder of success. which party is in favor of those?
It's really hard to get people to vote for your paternalistic policies if they aren't victims and can succeed on their own.
I doubt whether people of either party would openly admit to being racist themselves. Yet lots of people do move to a richer (and often lilly white) suburb, and partially with legit reasons like a better school district for their kids. However, those suburbs (whose political leaders often enact local rules and regulations that have a tendency to create entry barriers for POC (over and above the financial ones)) are also in the business of attracting lilly white people to move there.

And here's an example, getting back to the topic of more police attention in traffic stops for POC. I lived in Maple Grove for a while and it's for-sure a nice suburb and good schools. But for part of that time, I drove a black SUV with oversize tires and window tinting. I got pulled over by the cops all the time, like at least once a month. They always claimed they stopped me due to excessive window tinting, and they came out with a bogus meter to test it, and I suspect their meter didn't work. Now I guess there is a law on the books that limits the darkness of window tinting. But I always strongly suspected that the real reason I was being pulled over was an unwritten Maple Grove "rule of thumb" intended to limit the darkness of the skin of drivers in Maple Grove. Specifically, my vehicle looked like either a stereotypical drug-mobile or stereotypical pimp-mobile. So this was all about stereotypes. They'd pull me over and spout out the BS about window tinting, but always let me off with a warning once they saw that I was white. (The window tinting problem was more one of too much window tinting such that they couldn't see through the window that I was white, so therefore they had to stop me and check.) Later I moved to Brooklyn Park where the part I lived in was at least half black. Didn't get pulled over once for excessive window tinting there.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
411
Points
83
I'm arguing that the traffic stops resulted in fewer arrests. I'm basing this on the article I posted.
This shouldnt be surprising.
In higher crime areas cops are going to be more suspicious.
 

golf

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 11, 2015
Messages
1,039
Reaction score
411
Points
83
I doubt whether people of either party would openly admit to being racist themselves. Yet lots of people do move to a richer (and often lilly white) suburb, and partially with legit reasons like a better school district for their kids. However, those suburbs (whose political leaders often enact local rules and regulations that have a tendency to create entry barriers for POC (over and above the financial ones)) are also in the business of attracting lilly white people to move there.

And here's an example, getting back to the topic of more police attention in traffic stops for POC. I lived in Maple Grove for a while and it's for-sure a nice suburb and good schools. But for part of that time, I drove a black SUV with oversize tires and window tinting. I got pulled over by the cops all the time, like at least once a month. They always claimed they stopped me due to excessive window tinting, and they came out with a bogus meter to test it, and I suspect their meter didn't work. Now I guess there is a law on the books that limits the darkness of window tinting. But I always strongly suspected that the real reason I was being pulled over was an unwritten Maple Grove "rule of thumb" intended to limit the darkness of the skin of drivers in Maple Grove. Specifically, my vehicle looked like either a stereotypical drug-mobile or stereotypical pimp-mobile. So this was all about stereotypes. They'd pull me over and spout out the BS about window tinting, but always let me off with a warning once they saw that I was white. (The window tinting problem was more one of too much window tinting such that they couldn't see through the window that I was white, so therefore they had to stop me and check.) Later I moved to Brooklyn Park where the part I lived in was at least half black. Didn't get pulled over once for excessive window tinting there.
Could it be that tint was a point of emphasis for mg precinct but not bp for whatever reason? Cops are trained to look for things out of the ordinary, so a tinted truck like yours might seem out of the ordinary in mg but not bp? How can u assume the issue was racial, maybe if u were black they would have warned u as well?

Also, what are some of those rules that exclude blacks from suburban housing?

Not trying to be argumentative, just trying to educate myself. Thanks.
 

Section2

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 30, 2009
Messages
45,140
Reaction score
1,954
Points
113
I doubt whether people of either party would openly admit to being racist themselves. Yet lots of people do move to a richer (and often lilly white) suburb, and partially with legit reasons like a better school district for their kids. However, those suburbs (whose political leaders often enact local rules and regulations that have a tendency to create entry barriers for POC (over and above the financial ones)) are also in the business of attracting lilly white people to move there.

And here's an example, getting back to the topic of more police attention in traffic stops for POC. I lived in Maple Grove for a while and it's for-sure a nice suburb and good schools. But for part of that time, I drove a black SUV with oversize tires and window tinting. I got pulled over by the cops all the time, like at least once a month. They always claimed they stopped me due to excessive window tinting, and they came out with a bogus meter to test it, and I suspect their meter didn't work. Now I guess there is a law on the books that limits the darkness of window tinting. But I always strongly suspected that the real reason I was being pulled over was an unwritten Maple Grove "rule of thumb" intended to limit the darkness of the skin of drivers in Maple Grove. Specifically, my vehicle looked like either a stereotypical drug-mobile or stereotypical pimp-mobile. So this was all about stereotypes. They'd pull me over and spout out the BS about window tinting, but always let me off with a warning once they saw that I was white. (The window tinting problem was more one of too much window tinting such that they couldn't see through the window that I was white, so therefore they had to stop me and check.) Later I moved to Brooklyn Park where the part I lived in was at least half black. Didn't get pulled over once for excessive window tinting there.
Interesting that a white guy getting pulled over many times is an example of a racist policy?? I wasn't referring to suburbs for racist policies.
 

forever a gopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 20, 2008
Messages
1,318
Reaction score
274
Points
83
And here's an example, getting back to the topic of more police attention in traffic stops for POC. I lived in Maple Grove for a while and it's for-sure a nice suburb and good schools. But for part of that time, I drove a black SUV with oversize tires and window tinting. I got pulled over by the cops all the time, like at least once a month. They always claimed they stopped me due to excessive window tinting, and they came out with a bogus meter to test it, and I suspect their meter didn't work. Now I guess there is a law on the books that limits the darkness of window tinting. But I always strongly suspected that the real reason I was being pulled over was an unwritten Maple Grove "rule of thumb" intended to limit the darkness of the skin of drivers in Maple Grove. Specifically, my vehicle looked like either a stereotypical drug-mobile or stereotypical pimp-mobile. So this was all about stereotypes. They'd pull me over and spout out the BS about window tinting, but always let me off with a warning once they saw that I was white. (The window tinting problem was more one of too much window tinting such that they couldn't see through the window that I was white, so therefore they had to stop me and check.) Later I moved to Brooklyn Park where the part I lived in was at least half black. Didn't get pulled over once for excessive window tinting there.
Anything below 50% tint on the front windows is illegal (50% isn't very dark). I believe the backs are legal down to 20%. I have had almost the exact same experience. I have all the windows tinted on all my cars (illegally). The many years I lived in Mpls, I never was hassled once. I moved to the burbs, and I've been pulled over a few times. Each time, I've been given a warning and told to remove it (no tickets). I have no warrants, and no moving violations on my record. I suspect it's just a reason to pull you over and check to see if you have warrants, if your insurance is valid, if your tabs are current, etc. Of course it could be racial profiling. It also could just be that where I now live, they just don't have as much to do as a Mpls cop has to do. They're just bored and need people to pull over (with legal cause).
 

KillerGopherFan

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 15, 2013
Messages
17,024
Reaction score
1,849
Points
113
Can’t read the article, but I suspect that there is not nearly enough information to do a correct analysis. Your quote says that blacks and white USE is equal, but were the arrests plead down charges to MJ, quantities found during arrest, sellers or buyers, etc.

So many charges, even weapons charges are plead down to give the arrestee a break. We’ve seen it over and over, only to have the criminal go on to commit more significant crimes.

It’s a low level crime that has little consequence.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
641
Reaction score
287
Points
63

How will these polices not hurt students of color located in Minneapolis and St Paul. This will move the achievement gap even further. How can you not require daily instruction for students. These administrators are the very people saying they care about people of color and they are basically taking away their education for an entire year.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113
> Black owned homes are consistently assessed at higher values ...
From Cal Berkeley PHDs. If true, just more evidence of racism in Democrat run cities
Partly because black owned homes are more likely within less wealthy neighborhoods (given the current wealth vs. race distribution), and less wealthy neighborhoods are more likely within the city limits of a big city, and big cities often have a high rate of growth in real-estate values, and those properties tend to turn over more often, and every time a property is sold its tax basis is typically updated from sales price. In suburbs, families often live there 20 years or more, so less turnover of properties, therefore less often that the tax basis gets updated, so on average, suburban homes have a tax basis that on average is lower relative to actual property vaue than city homes.
Thank you for the link. They claim around half the disparity was due to the appeals process, as I referenced above. Minorities are less likely to challenge the assessment.
Plus, as mentioned, richer suburban households have the financial ability to hire a lawyer to challenge a huge tax-basis increase, and do so, but in-city dwellers (including minorities) are less likely to do so.

Not to mention, in-city property might be in or near neighborhoods experiencing gentrification, and like it or not, gentrification two blocks from your house increases your appraised home value. Plus, there's (lately - maybe not anymore after all the riots) a tendency for people to want to live near the hub of the metropolitan area, so more homes are bulldozed to make room for bigger apartment complexes and condos (especially near light-rail/subway lines), so with those competitors for the land, that pushes up values of old homes much faster than if the same old home were in a remote suburb.

There are typically discoverable causal factors for all of these phenomena. But it's rare these days that outright racism is in the causal chain. Sure, there might still be some redlining practices in some metropolitan areas depending on demographics and biases of the local people - and more work is needed to eliminate that sort of thing (which does constitute structural racism in some sense of the word).

With regard to actual percentages of home ownership by, for instance, the black-American ethnicity, that situation has been a mess and is going to get worse before it gets better. And the Democrats own the largest blame factor here, although we're all on the hook to a certain extent, for failing as a nation to do something about this.
It's ridiculous. At the end of the Obama admin, black home ownership rates were at a 50 year low, 41%. And I would guess that the majority of those homeowners are in urban areas with higher property taxes, or better known as areas of Democrat control. So they are quite literally VOTING for higher property taxes. That this could be explained by racial bias is absurd. JTF bought it without thinking again.
> At the end of the Obama admin, black home ownership rates were at a 50 year low, 41%.

The reason for this falls squarely on the Democrats, but the Republicans are also culpable. It was the well-intentioned-yet-stupid Democrats that pushed through (under Clinton and then Obama) silly banking legislation that was intended to grease the skids for a lot more blacks and other (Hispanic, other recent immigrants, etc.) ethnicities to more easily be able to finance a home purchase. Sounds great on paper. But the devil (and it was a really Satanic devil) is in the details. The new banking laws were written extremely poorly. No doubt under the influence of the banking lobby. The laws extremely relaxed mortgage qualification requirements such as downpayment amount, etc. Most notably, it both allowed and encouraged bankers to offer initial-budget-rate balloon mortgages to poor people including lots of poor blacks, many of whom did not understand the concept of a balloon. Furthermore, on initial qualification, they only needed to qualify for the initial rate and down-payment, with no foresight into how well they might handle the higher rate after the balloon period.

Of course this was a recipe for disaster. Anybody who has taken at least one economics class could tell you that this was a disaster waiting to happen. Yet the Dems (just as the are currently) were only concerned about securing tomorrow's vote from the poor, with actually zero care about their long-term welfare. Thus, these elected Congressmen (who in hindsight should be certified as mentally incompetent) - and with insufficient pushback by the Republicans who are also complicit in the deal - passed the ridiculously loose and un-monitored mortgage finance laws that started the housing boom. Tens of millions of poor (including many blacks) put their life savings on the line, and bought a house with a balloon on the mortgage, which would kick in in several years. Once these started kicking in, probably well over 50% of these families now could not afford the newly ballooned payments on the house that they supposedly "owned." And the banks started repossessing them, one by one. This means that these poor former homeowners were now all immediately homeless, and didn't have a penny to their name since the immoral banks took their down-payment money. If they had scrimped and saved a little more to have a bigger down-payment, and got a long-term mortgage at a good rate, they could have owned that home until they sold it some day, and reaped their equity. But under Dem pressure, Congress passed these horrible bills that on the surface seemed to be intended to help poor people, but actually made them poorer, when the housing crash of 2007 came into play.

Many many poor people, including many blacks, lost their shirt and lost their home in this crisis. Obama bailed out the banks (who made all the campaign contributions) but did very little and too late in terms of measures to help actual US citizens from losing their homes. Their stupid Congress-caused economic collapse also affected very many other people who had good mortgages and could afford their home payments, because with the economic collapse, many millions lost their jobs just long enough to get behind on their mortgage payments, and when no government relief came for home-owners in this predicament, even though they may have since then found a new job and were saving up enough money to make that one-time catch-up payment to the bank, they couldn't catch up in time, and they too lost their homes along with their life savings. So, in general, Congress (and mostly the Democrats are to blame) directly caused an economic collapse due to their extreme stupidity!

After a very slow initial recovery, Trump then lights a fire under the economy and things start soaring again. The rate of rise in income in lower-income classes climbed at a much faster rate than for the upper-income classes - for the first time in a long time. Some people are even able to buy homes again, but not all - as noted, blacks were still at an all-time low of 41% home ownership. This all-time low was due, of course, to failed Dem leadership that had advertised that they were giving blacks and other poor demographics the carrot of home ownership, when in fact they gave them the stick of reduced home ownership and just made the banks richer instead.

Nevertheless, under the Trump economic boom, blacks and in general all lower-income people were seeing the highest employment rate (and inversely the lowest unemployment rate) in 50 years. Things are booming again.

Then Covid hits. We have to shut down the economy for unanticipated medical reasons. That kills the economy, but it only kills the bottom end of the economy, actually. In my tech profession, available jobs and salary levels went up 2% during Covid. But for lower-skilled positions, unemployment skyrocketed to 50%. You may have only seen the 25% unemployment numbers, which is scary enough, but actually that's a curve ranging from high employment in big tech to 50% unemployment in unskilled labor. Fortunatey, the latter category is coming back the fastest as well. However, there are two very bad factors still in play. First, some of those jobs may never exist again. Second, thanks to weaponization of Covid by the Democrats, the opening up of the economy was delayed about an additional two months over what was truly needed, so that the only thing keeping some people afloat was the supplemental unemployment insurance from the federal government.

Then the extension of Covid relief gets politicized by both parties, with the Dems being the slightly more guilty party due to their insistence on attaching a much larger barrel of pork to the bill than the pork that the Republicans asked for. In fact, most of the Republican pork was just there in order to have something for the Repubs to offer up on the chopping block in return for the Dems chopping as much of their awful stuff as possible.

So here we are. Covid relief has expired, and the economy is somewhat recovering, but just like in 2008, it won't recover enough to save the poor people, which includes a lot of blacks. Craploads of Americans will again lose their homes and be made homeless, some with no jobs even. Black home ownership will likely fall from 41% to maybe as low as 25%. It's a horrible situation.

It's a situation in which the only solution will most likely contain social-benefit enablements far beyond what most Republicans are naturally wanting to endorse - and I suspect that Trump will need to take a leadership role in nudging the Repubs in that direction, for the benefit of the economy and the benefit of the entire country and the benefit of the entire population. I fear what might happen if Biden/Harris wins the election. Why? Well, Biden might push for similar solutions, actually, but in that case, the Republicans are likely to want to oppose such measures on principle. The Republicans, oddly, will only go in the correct direction if led by a Republican president.

Crazy times.
 
Last edited:

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113

I can vouch for that.

When I drove a black SUV that looked a lot like the steriotypical drug-mobile or pimp-mobile, I gut pulled over all the time. It was a nuisance. And they when I rolled down the window and they saw that I was white, you could see almost a "never mind" type of embarrassment on the cops' faces. So they'd conjure up some excuse why they stopped me, look at my license, give me a warning regarding whatever was the excuse-for-stopping-me topic, and let me go.

If the car looks more likely to have a black driver, and if there's any other demographic in play that suggests to the cop that there might be something to find there, they are definitely more likely to pull you over.

This is one of the largest categories of systemic racism that cops get away with all the time.

I don't know what the solution is.
 

CutDownTheNet

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2018
Messages
2,205
Reaction score
570
Points
113
Not sure, but isn't about 84% of the D.C. population black?

Plus, all the Congressmen smoking pot probably do so in the Congressional cloakroom where nobody is going to arrest them. I mean, there's got to be some explanation for the many horrible laws that Congress does pass, and the many opportunities for good laws that Congress ignores. Them smoking too much weed is perhaps as plausible an explanation as any.

/s
 

Wally

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 15, 2016
Messages
1,075
Reaction score
265
Points
83
That’s no different than the city of Philadelphia imposing a city tax is sugary drinks. Local governments are always imposing things they should not. Or the city of Minneapolis and the $15 minimum wage.
I think both are good ideas. Pop is as bad or probably worse than alcohol since kids can drink it, pure poison. A moderate surcharge is fine.
 

From the Parkinglot

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
641
Reaction score
287
Points
63
I think both are good ideas. Pop is as bad or probably worse than alcohol since kids can drink it, pure poison. A moderate surcharge is fine.
Why stop there why not tax fast food, processed snacks like potato chips. Why not give everyone and apple watch and tax them if they don’t walk over 2 miles per day. The governments job should not be to protect us from ourselves. If I want a coke and a burger from Wendy’s the government should not limit that.
 
Top Bottom