Discussion: Racism - Part 2

[Matt]

You liked macro discussions a moment ago Matt, why don't we chat about how mistreatment by police by race matches income level and station in society exactly: Asian, White, Hispanic, Black - in descending order, exactly. It's amazing how people can only try and prove their institutional racism "alt facts" when they compare white and black exclusively and try and eliminate all other racial groups as far as possible. The strange thing is institutional racism appears to be very much based on the amount of income being made by the race's in question, that's a little bizarre...

It's convenient to ignore macro discussions when correlation between class and institutional treatment becomes stronger than race and treatment by institutions, isn't it?

Last post in this thread.

First, I did acknowledge Latinos. Read the second to the last paragraph of my post.

Second, its not bizarre at all. The reason Asians are often excluded from conversations of this nature is two-fold:

1) As of the last census, there are only about 14 million Asian-Americans living in this country. Compare that to 55 million Latinos and 40 million African Americans. Therefore it is a much smaller sample size and much harder to pull consistent patterns and studies out of.

2) The Asian-American population is incredibly diverse and includes Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans, etc. It is more diverse than any other racial group in this country. Although ethnic diversity exists in every category, the biological and cultural differences of an Italian-American and an Irish-American are negligible when compared to the biological and cultural differences of a Korean American and an Indian American.

These factors make it very difficult to study Asian Americans, empirically. In fact, the BSJ statistics that I cited, while having a category for Asians, is not all encompassing. Indian-Americans and several other Asian ethnic groups are placed in the "other" category. The smaller the sample size, the harder it is to get accurate results, and because Asian Americans are so diverse and are small numerically (compared to other groups) as is, it makes it hard to get an adequate sample size.

Asians are not being ignored. There is simply limited data.

 

[Donner]

You liked macro discussions a moment ago Matt, why don't we chat about how mistreatment by police by race matches income level and station in society exactly: Asian, White, Hispanic, Black - in descending order, exactly. It's amazing how people can only try and prove their institutional racism "alt facts" when they compare white and black exclusively and try and eliminate all other racial groups as far as possible. The strange thing is institutional racism appears to be very much based on the amount of income being made by the race's in question, that's a little bizarre...

It's convenient to ignore macro discussions when correlation between class and institutional treatment becomes stronger than race and treatment by institutions, isn't it?

But class and race are intertwined. Or is it just a coincidence that black people are more likely to live in poverty? What Matt said and what you're saying are also related. He's talking about increasing funding to poor neighbourhoods so African-Americans have a better chance of getting a good education (and going on to some sort of post secondary), which will directly affect the class level of their children. You talk about class being the deciding factor whilst downplaying the racism that creates the class structure itself. Also, people don't have to be racist towards every group in order to be racist towards one. Someone can love Asians and hate blacks.

I think it comes down to the people who can decide where funding goes believe that if you're poor, it was because of bad life choices you made. If you're a drug addict, it's your own fault. If you live in a bad neighbourhood, it's your own fault. If you don't go to college, it's your own fault. They (and society in general) attribute success to personal attributes. The other factors that play into whether someone will be successful or not (race, religion, birth year, birth month, class, etc) are largely ignored. Have you looked at the statistics of how few people are actually able to move out of their socioeconomic class into a higher one? It's ridiculous.

Once you have that bias towards poor people and since certain races are more likely to be poor, does it not then go down the rabbit hole where someone will eventually believe that certain races aren't as successful because there is something inherent in them that holds them back?

 

[DeadPresident]

Last post in this thread.

First, I did acknowledge Latinos. Read the second to the last paragraph of my post.

Second, its not bizarre at all. The reason Asians are often excluded from conversations of this nature is two-fold:

1) As of the last census, there are only about 14 million Asian-Americans living in this country. Compare that to 55 million Latinos and 40 million African Americans. Therefore it is a much smaller sample size and much harder to pull consistent patterns and studies out of.

2) The Asian-American population is incredibly diverse and includes Chinese-Americans, Indian-Americans, etc. It is more diverse than any other racial group in this country. Although ethnic diversity exists in every category, the biological and cultural differences of an Italian-American and an Irish-American are negligible when compared to the biological and cultural differences of a Korean American and an Indian American.

These factors make it very difficult to study Asian Americans, empirically. In fact, the BSJ statistics that I cited, while having a category for Asians, is not all encompassing. Indian-Americans and several other Asian ethnic groups are placed in the "other" category. The smaller the sample size, the harder it is to get accurate results, and because Asian Americans are so diverse and are small numerically (compared to other groups) as is, it makes it hard to get an adequate sample size.

Asians are not being ignored. There is simply limited data.

As you wish.

This is still obfuscation, though. The data on Asian Americans might be limited, but there's enough to extrapolate.

The entire logic that predicates the notion of institutionalized racism and white privilege is that non-whites suffer at the hands of whites, and that the racial difference is the reason for this. It would seem a little odd then that for some reason institutions discriminate against people at the exact rate of prevalence that matches with income and status.

https://thesocietypages.org/toolbox/police-killing-of-blacks/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_ethnic_groups_in_the_United_States_by_household_income

Isn't it odd that for some reason the groups killed by police happen to correlate exactly in reverse order with the income earned by those demographics. It would appear that instead of race being the telling factor, it would be affluence. I know this doesn't sit well with the agenda people want to perpetuate because it's so emotionally satisfying to locate and lambast a single, homogenous group - but is it possible America has a problem with institutionalized classism and rich privilege as a primary driver, and institutionalized racism and white privilege as potential secondary drivers? I would find it very odd if someone becomes more or less racist depending on the economic mobility of the person in question, wouldn't you?


This doesn't lend itself very well to CNN hot button talk sessions or cute faux community groups like BLM, but it seems a lot more statistically robust than selectively editing and omitting data to make it appear like black and white are in direct opposition to one another in America.

 

[DeadPresident]

But class and race are intertwined. Or is it just a coincidence that black people are more likely to live in poverty? What Matt said and what you're saying are also related. He's talking about increasing funding to poor neighbourhoods so African-Americans have a better chance of getting a good education (and going on to some sort of post secondary), which will directly affect the class level of their children. You talk about class being the deciding factor whilst downplaying the racism that creates the class structure itself. Also, people don't have to be racist towards every group in order to be racist towards one. Someone can love Asians and hate blacks.

I think it comes down to the people who can decide where funding goes believe that if you're poor, it was because of bad life choices you made. If you're a drug addict, it's your own fault. If you live in a bad neighbourhood, it's your own fault. If you don't go to college, it's your own fault. They (and society in general) attribute success to personal attributes. The other factors that play into whether someone will be successful or not (race, religion, birth year, birth month, class, etc) are largely ignored. Have you looked at the statistics of how few people are actually able to move out of their socioeconomic class into a higher one? It's ridiculous.

Once you have that bias towards poor people and since certain races are more likely to be poor, does it not then go down the rabbit hole where someone will eventually believe that certain races aren't as successful because there is something inherent in them that holds them back?

Sure, which would mean class is the dominant decider with race being a contextualizing factor - which still flies in the face of this national panic being created that racism is America's biggest problem. I don't downplay racism, I've said repeatedly there is a skewed distribution in terms of treatment, I just refuse to believe that racism is the deciding factor.

If it is exclusively race why did OJ get off the first time? Surely the system would've made sure he was convicted? Why hasn't Bill Cosby seen the inside of a jail cell? Why didn't Chris Brown get jail time for a felony that would surely see every non-white put in prison, guilty plea or not? So strange that the racist system made exceptions for them, hmmm. Is it possibly because they were all affluent? Or maybe it's because they're all male? Everyone's so obsessed with race being the direct, primary causal factor that everything else is ignored.

By this logic there's institutional sexism at a far higher rate since almost all police killings seem to be of men…how could the white, male system allow "their own" to be killed by the police they control - that seems a little odd. No, no, it would seem the national panic should be that the rich hate the poor, not that whites hate non-whites, but that's far too reasonable and prosaic.

Where's the middle and lower class getting together to make "Poor Lives Matter"? Where are all the men getting together making "Male Lives Matter"? Whoops, I guess everyone's too distracted by how their skin color makes them inescapably different and irreconcilable. The poor are discriminated against overwhelmingly more to the rich than black to white, men are being discriminated against more versus women than black and white. But these aren't sexy topics that get the electorate all riled up, pity.

 

[Docker2.0]

Before I leave this thread, I would like to point out, if you have to ask these questions, you are being willfully ignorant and that is something I will not stand for. Reasonably people can disagree reasonably (see, Dead President and I). But I will not stand idly by as you spout false statements. Now, more than ever, is it crucial that we not stand for "alternative facts."

On average, black men make 73 % of what white men make. So for every $1.00 a white man makes, on average a black man would make $0.73 (source, Pew Research study published in July 2016).

In terms of police stops, in the most recently reported year (2011), 13 % of the black population were stopped by police. 10 % were white. Of those stops, 84 % of the white people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 68 % of the 13 % of black people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 2 % of white drivers were searched in traffic stops. Compare that to 6 % of black drivers. All of these statistics can be attributed to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a bureau of the United States Department of Justice).

There are two nuances that should be added to the BJS stats. First, though the numbers may seem small, these are out of total U.S. population. So a 3 or 4 % difference represents literally millions of Americans for each percentage point.

Second, these are, as mentioned, the numbers from 2011. The BJS compiles traffic stop stats once approximately every three years. So 2014 or 2015 numbers have been compiled but have not yet been calculated or released. Those numbers will likely show a rise in disparity between black and white people due to the rise of the BLM movement, which early studies indicate has led to increased enforcement against black people by police as push back.

These are simply two examples. There are more. Another example would be schools. High quality teachers generally avoid lower income districts. These schools are primarily populated by black students. These school districts are also generally funded poorly due to the tax income of their residents. This leads to poorer African Americans receiving lower quality, often inadequate, education (which limits opportunity for college and career choice later in life).

Further, you seem to operate under the faulty assumption that institutional racism is a bunch of white men, in a room, smoking cigars, evilly plotting to destroy black people and keep whites on top. Its not. Institutional racism are internalized feelings, policies, etc that have a disproportional impact on certain races.I t can be overt (i.e. a cop who intentionally follows and stops a black man because he is driving "too nice of a car" or is in "too nice of a neighborhood") or it can be covert. For example, Missing White Woman Syndrome. An observed and studied pattern of the media to give coverage to white women who go missing, are murdered, raped, etc while completely ignoring similar stories about women of color. This is not a case of a racist news producer saying "focus only on the whites!" Rather it is a subconscious effect caused by the fact that missing white women tend to play more to the sympathies of white people, who are the majority and therefore make up larger ratings blocs/newspaper sales demographics, etc. So they play up the stories that stir up the emotions of that group while ignoring those that do not. This would be an example of covert institutional racism.

Another example of covert institutional racism would be the effect of these policies. For example, African Americans are at higher risk of heart disease and diabetes due simply to the fact that junk food is cheaper and many African Americans live in poverty (due in part to the aforementioned factors). It can be as simple as that.

So there are five examples of road blocks that African Americans face in higher proportion than white people in 2017 due to institutional racism.

And to answer your question as to how to combat it, it largely starts with schools. As stated, primarily black school districts generally have poorer funding and due to that inferior teachers. Creating more opportunity for young African Americans by improving their quality of education would go a very long way.

It also starts with acknowledging a problem exists rather than brushing it off and saying "IN 2017 WE ARE TOO ENLIGHTENED FOR THIS NONSENSE!" Because institutional racism is often either overt but internalized (i.e. police pulling over black men) or covert, it is easy to ignore this problem. Simply acknowledging it and actively attempting to eliminate certain aspects (for example, improving quality of predominantly African American schools, ensuring pay equality) can go a long way.

As to institutionalized police racism, a lot of that can be solved with community policing. I am not going to get into a huge rigamaroll about what community policing is. You can Google it. But studies have shown that it OVERWHELMINGLY helps to combat institutional police racism and actually reduces crime as well.

Finally, to refute one more of your little alternative facts, it is not only a black thing. The BJS numbers are pretty similar between blacks and Latinos. Latino schools tend to suffer the same drawbacks as predominantly black schools, etc. So yep, not an exclusively black thing.

Anyway, I am outta this thread. Thank you for reminding me of why I avoid it like a plague.

*drops mic*

 

[hellified]

Sure, which would mean class is the dominant decider with race being a contextualizing factor - which still flies in the face of this national panic being created that racism is America's biggest problem. I don't downplay racism, I've said repeatedly there is a skewed distribution in terms of treatment, I just refuse to believe that racism is the deciding factor.

If it is exclusively race why did OJ get off the first time? Surely the system would've made sure he was convicted? Why hasn't Bill Cosby seen the inside of a jail cell? Why didn't Chris Brown get jail time for a felony that would surely see every non-white put in prison, guilty plea or not? So strange that the racist system made exceptions for them, hmmm. Is it possibly because they were all affluent? Or maybe it's because they're all male? Everyone's so obsessed with race being the direct, primary causal factor that everything else is ignored.

By this logic there's institutional sexism at a far higher rate since almost all police killings seem to be of men…how could the white, male system allow "their own" to be killed by the police they control - that seems a little odd. No, no, it would seem the national panic should be that the rich hate the poor, not that whites hate non-whites, but that's far too reasonable and prosaic.

Where's the middle and lower class getting together to make "Poor Lives Matter"? Where are all the men getting together making "Male Lives Matter"? Whoops, I guess everyone's too distracted by how their skin color makes them inescapably different and irreconcilable. The poor are discriminated against overwhelmingly more to the rich than black to white, men are being discriminated against more versus women than black and white. But these aren't sexy topics that get the electorate all riled up, pity.

The OJ criminal trial jury was made up of mostly minorities: Of the 12 jurors selected, 8 are black, 2 are Hispanic, one is white, and one identified himself as half white and half American Indian. Eight are women, and four are men. Result: NOT GUILTY

The OJ civil trial was made up of mostly whites: a jury of eight whites, two blacks, one Hispanic and one who is part Asian and part black. Seven are women and five men. Result: GUILTY

The OJ robbery trial was made up of mostly whites: The jury in Simpson's robbery trial consists of 10 whites and two Hispanics. Result: GUILTY

There's a reason why lawyers make so much about the racial, gender and age make up of juries. Its a science.

As far as Bill Cosby is concerned you have complaints and allegations that go as far back as 1965 and many of the women were white BUT most if not all of those complaints didn't come out until recently some 2, 3 or 4 DECADES later. Do you HONESTLY believe if bill cosby drugged and raped a white women in 1965 and she complained about it that he would have gotten a pass because he was a popular comedian on Ed Sullivan? That's why there's much doubt that taints the cases against him. Looking at those complaints in the light of TODAY'S social mores yeah that crap sounds horrible but in the FREE LOVE acid tripping 60s? How about the sexual revolution (and all that entails) 70s? How about the coked out 80s? When you consider the circles he ran in, dude was a staple at the playboy mansion, ****e central, where booze and drugs freely flowed. And the way women were treated and viewed and the things they PARTICIPATED in..whats considered sexual assault TODAY just wasn't 40 years ago. Going back to OJ do you REALLY think if he had killed a black woman rather than a really pretty blonde white woman it would have been the trial of the CENTURY and divided the country so?

Same thing with cosby... I'm sure if a white woman back then wanted to make a big enough stink about it hell yeah that would have been a game changing career killer for Bill then.


As far as Chris Brown he assaulted a black woman...instead of Rihanna make it Taylor Swift and tell me what you think would happen? (again consider OJ).

Race IS a factor no matter how much you try to downplay it.

 

[Laderlappen]

Before I leave this thread, I would like to point out, if you have to ask these questions, you are being willfully ignorant and that is something I will not stand for. Reasonably people can disagree reasonably (see, Dead President and I). But I will not stand idly by as you spout false statements. Now, more than ever, is it crucial that we not stand for "alternative facts."

On average, black men make 73 % of what white men make. So for every $1.00 a white man makes, on average a black man would make $0.73 (source, Pew Research study published in July 2016).

In terms of police stops, in the most recently reported year (2011), 13 % of the black population were stopped by police. 10 % were white. Of those stops, 84 % of the white people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 68 % of the 13 % of black people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 2 % of white drivers were searched in traffic stops. Compare that to 6 % of black drivers. All of these statistics can be attributed to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a bureau of the United States Department of Justice).

There are two nuances that should be added to the BJS stats. First, though the numbers may seem small, these are out of total U.S. population. So a 3 or 4 % difference represents literally millions of Americans for each percentage point.

Second, these are, as mentioned, the numbers from 2011. The BJS compiles traffic stop stats once approximately every three years. So 2014 or 2015 numbers have been compiled but have not yet been calculated or released. Those numbers will likely show a rise in disparity between black and white people due to the rise of the BLM movement, which early studies indicate has led to increased enforcement against black people by police as push back.

These are simply two examples. There are more. Another example would be schools. High quality teachers generally avoid lower income districts. These schools are primarily populated by black students. These school districts are also generally funded poorly due to the tax income of their residents. This leads to poorer African Americans receiving lower quality, often inadequate, education (which limits opportunity for college and career choice later in life).

Further, you seem to operate under the faulty assumption that institutional racism is a bunch of white men, in a room, smoking cigars, evilly plotting to destroy black people and keep whites on top. Its not. Institutional racism are internalized feelings, policies, etc that have a disproportional impact on certain races.I t can be overt (i.e. a cop who intentionally follows and stops a black man because he is driving "too nice of a car" or is in "too nice of a neighborhood") or it can be covert. For example, Missing White Woman Syndrome. An observed and studied pattern of the media to give coverage to white women who go missing, are murdered, raped, etc while completely ignoring similar stories about women of color. This is not a case of a racist news producer saying "focus only on the whites!" Rather it is a subconscious effect caused by the fact that missing white women tend to play more to the sympathies of white people, who are the majority and therefore make up larger ratings blocs/newspaper sales demographics, etc. So they play up the stories that stir up the emotions of that group while ignoring those that do not. This would be an example of covert institutional racism.

Another example of covert institutional racism would be the effect of these policies. For example, African Americans are at higher risk of heart disease and diabetes due simply to the fact that junk food is cheaper and many African Americans live in poverty (due in part to the aforementioned factors). It can be as simple as that.

So there are five examples of road blocks that African Americans face in higher proportion than white people in 2017 due to institutional racism.

And to answer your question as to how to combat it, it largely starts with schools. As stated, primarily black school districts generally have poorer funding and due to that inferior teachers. Creating more opportunity for young African Americans by improving their quality of education would go a very long way.

It also starts with acknowledging a problem exists rather than brushing it off and saying "IN 2017 WE ARE TOO ENLIGHTENED FOR THIS NONSENSE!" Because institutional racism is often either overt but internalized (i.e. police pulling over black men) or covert, it is easy to ignore this problem. Simply acknowledging it and actively attempting to eliminate certain aspects (for example, improving quality of predominantly African American schools, ensuring pay equality) can go a long way.

As to institutionalized police racism, a lot of that can be solved with community policing. I am not going to get into a huge rigamaroll about what community policing is. You can Google it. But studies have shown that it OVERWHELMINGLY helps to combat institutional police racism and actually reduces crime as well.

Finally, to refute one more of your little alternative facts, it is not only a black thing. The BJS numbers are pretty similar between blacks and Latinos. Latino schools tend to suffer the same drawbacks as predominantly black schools, etc. So yep, not an exclusively black thing.

Anyway, I am outta this thread. Thank you for reminding me of why I avoid it like a plague.

What I get from this is if you have poor, you're less privileged. This is something nobody is bloody arguing against. You also should know better than to pull out wage gap numbers. Also you criticize me for pointing out hate crime numbers but you want to rather focus on how news reports crime? I am more concerned about the women being raped and murdered than the news reporting on it.

 

[bell110]

Before I leave this thread, I would like to point out, if you have to ask these questions, you are being willfully ignorant and that is something I will not stand for. Reasonably people can disagree reasonably (see, Dead President and I). But I will not stand idly by as you spout false statements. Now, more than ever, is it crucial that we not stand for "alternative facts." I agree.

On average, black men make 73 % of what white men make. So for every $1.00 a white man makes, on average a black man would make $0.73 (source, Pew Research study published in July 2016). You really can't take over all averages like it's gospel. It's kind of like the gender wage gap myth. Context matters.

In terms of police stops, in the most recently reported year (2011), 13 % of the black population were stopped by police. 10 % were white. Of those stops, 84 % of the white people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 68 % of the 13 % of black people were pulled over for valid reasons. Only 2 % of white drivers were searched in traffic stops. Compare that to 6 % of black drivers. All of these statistics can be attributed to the Bureau of Justice Statistics (a bureau of the United States Department of Justice).
Hmm, so literally more white people are stopped than black people. And how is a "valid reason" defined?

There are two nuances that should be added to the BJS stats. First, though the numbers may seem small, these are out of total U.S. population. So a 3 or 4 % difference represents literally millions of Americans for each percentage point.

Second, these are, as mentioned, the numbers from 2011. The BJS compiles traffic stop stats once approximately every three years. So 2014 or 2015 numbers have been compiled but have not yet been calculated or released. Those numbers will likely show a rise in disparity between black and white people due to the rise of the BLM movement, which early studies indicate has led to increased enforcement against black people by police as push back.
I agree. Places like Baltimore and New York need to stop voting racists into their government.

These are simply two examples. There are more. Another example would be schools. High quality teachers generally avoid lower income districts. These schools are primarily populated by black students. These school districts are also generally funded poorly due to the tax income of their residents. This leads to poorer African Americans receiving lower quality, often inadequate, education (which limits opportunity for college and career choice later in life).
Ha, yes, the school system. My sister is a teacher, and when she started out, she taught in the inner city. Her life long dream was to be a teacher, but she wanted to quit. It's not the teachers problem, it's the students and lack of parenting.

Further, you seem to operate under the faulty assumption that institutional racism is a bunch of white men, in a room, smoking cigars, evilly plotting to destroy black people and keep whites on top. Its not. Institutional racism are internalized feelings, policies, etc that have a disproportional impact on certain races.I t can be overt (i.e. a cop who intentionally follows and stops a black man because he is driving "too nice of a car" or is in "too nice of a neighborhood") or it can be covert. For example, Missing White Woman Syndrome. An observed and studied pattern of the media to give coverage to white women who go missing, are murdered, raped, etc while completely ignoring similar stories about women of color. This is not a case of a racist news producer saying "focus only on the whites!" Rather it is a subconscious effect caused by the fact that missing white women tend to play more to the sympathies of white people, who are the majority and therefore make up larger ratings blocs/newspaper sales demographics, etc. So they play up the stories that stir up the emotions of that group while ignoring those that do not. This would be an example of covert institutional racism.
There is also no "Missing white male" syndrome either. And we're supposed to be part of the white patriarchy. That's not institutionalize. It's click bait. #trumpworsethanhitler

Another example of covert institutional racism would be the effect of these policies. For example, African Americans are at higher risk of heart disease and diabetes due simply to the fact that junk food is cheaper and many African Americans live in poverty (due in part to the aforementioned factors). It can be as simple as that.
Wow, that is a stretch that Mr. Armstrong would cry out in pain.
For one, junk food has been around for decades and white people eat it too. Two, exercise is cheap. The "Institution" isn't keeping black people from taking a walk.

So there are five examples of road blocks that African Americans face in higher proportion than white people in 2017 due to institutional racism.

And to answer your question as to how to combat it, it largely starts with schools. As stated, primarily black school districts generally have poorer funding and due to that inferior teachers. Creating more opportunity for young African Americans by improving their quality of education would go a very long way.
Nope, it largely starts with families. Schools now are basically nothing than public funded day cares. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Well, you can put a kid it a classroom, but you can't make them learn. But how much more opportunity do you have to give black kids other than other kids?

It also starts with acknowledging a problem exists rather than brushing it off and saying "IN 2017 WE ARE TOO ENLIGHTENED FOR THIS NONSENSE!" Because institutional racism is often either overt but internalized (i.e. police pulling over black men) or covert, it is easy to ignore this problem. Simply acknowledging it and actively attempting to eliminate certain aspects (for example, improving quality of predominantly African American schools, ensuring pay equality) can go a long way.
I agree. Unfortunately, acknowledging the problem sets people up to be labeled as racist. Thereby brushing the real issues aside.

As to institutionalized police racism, a lot of that can be solved with community policing. I am not going to get into a huge rigamaroll about what community policing is. You can Google it. But studies have shown that it OVERWHELMINGLY helps to combat institutional police racism and actually reduces crime as well.
Snitches get stitches. I'm fine with people looking out for their community. But I'm kind of sketchy on the "policing" part. Wasn't that what George Zimmerman was doing? My parents grew up in NYC, and said basically the Guardian Angles were just a gang. You can't have a police without an institution back it.

Finally, to refute one more of your little alternative facts, it is not only a black thing. The BJS numbers are pretty similar between blacks and Latinos. Latino schools tend to suffer the same drawbacks as predominantly black schools, etc. So yep, not an exclusively black thing.
I said non-white. I knew it was Latinos were going to come up. So how about those Asian kids?

I worked for some Chinese people. Adorably racist. Without all the white privilege and guilt and centuries of oppression that we're taught about, guess who they didn't like.

Anyway, I am outta this thread. Thank you for reminding me of why I avoid it like a plague.

I think this was an interesting conversation.

 

[hellified]

Ha, yes, the school system. My sister is a teacher, and when she started out, she taught in the inner city. Her life long dream was to be a teacher, but she wanted to quit. It's not the teachers problem, it's the students and lack of parenting.

Nope, it largely starts with families. Schools now are basically nothing than public funded day cares. You can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. Well, you can put a kid it a classroom, but you can't make them learn. But how much more opportunity do you have to give black kids other than other kids?

Snitches get stitches. I'm fine with people looking out for their community. But I'm kind of sketchy on the "policing" part. Wasn't that what George Zimmerman was doing? My parents grew up in NYC, and said basically the Guardian Angles were just a gang. You can't have a police without an institution back it.

IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM..

Back in the 1930s Blacks migrated from the south to the North East, MidWest and West Coast...but Primarily to the north east
looking for .."those good jobs in the factories in the north"... so they went to NYC, Philly, Boston, DC etc... except when they got there they found 3 things.

1. the whites in the north was about one tick less racist than the whites in the south (and by one tick I mean they didn't lynch as much)

2.. the whites in the north wouldn't allow them to get those factory jobs or join their unions.

3. as more blacks migrated to the north and urban areas, whites moved out and took the jobs with them.

Those large companies first moved those jobs out of the urban area then by the 70s and 80s shipped them overseas.

Those factors depressed the now increasingly black urban areas (Southside Chicago, Detroit, Philly etc) couple that with REDLINING and lack of significant entrepreneurial endeavors... banks won't give blacks loans to start businesses, city council won't bring contract work to the urban areas (and those cities with black mayors and city councils don't have the influence to do it) means lack of JOBS for a growing population in the urban areas. MIND YOU WE'RE STILL IN THE 50s AT THIS POINT!!

Things start to come to a head and blacks start demanding to be treated like full citizens and the big point in the demonstrations is for JOBS.

note the UNION JUSTICE signs

by the 60s its all boiling over and we see the riots and open conflict. Culminating to The March On Washington in 63...

But understand the full title of the march:

Look at how thats worded.. JOBS is first.. theres a reason for that. From jobs comes dignity and determination and freedom. Now combine this struggle with dealing with law enforcement thats mostly been used AGAINST the black population whether its a redneck sheriff and posse in the late 1800s and early 1900s or police departments in riot gear bashing peaceful protesters in the 50s and 60s

The police have ALWAYS seen blacks as a group to be hammered down and in urban areas as some kind of occupied sector to be patrolled using fear and loathing.

On the west coast there was a second generation of young blacks ready to take up the mantle. They called themselves Avenue Cribs but the term Crips became popular and accepted. Their original intent was to continue the revolutionary ideology of the Panther's and to act as community leaders and protectors of their local neighborhoods. But by that time in the late 60s the Civil Rights Movements was winding down as leaders were killed, jailed or marginalized. And other groups like SNCC and the Black Panthers were dismantled by the FBI. The lack of JOBS and positive direction for the youths meant that energy had to go somewhere and what was supposed to be a new generation of community leaders morphed into a street gang that branched off other gangs and became increasingly violent and constantly expanded their turf. By the early 1980's, the gangs were heavily involved in the drug trade.

Chronic high UNEMPLOYMENT combined with disrespect from and distrust of the police and general frustration of living in a system thats rigged against you at almost every turn and you start to see flare ups based on this status quo.

In the early 90s the riots in LA was based wholly on this combination. And we saw it again in the last decade and most recently.

SO WHATS THE PATTERN WE SEE???

LACK OF JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT FOR MINORITIES PARTICULARLY BLACKS (but make no mistake native americans, latinos and asians deal with the same issues)

LACK OF RESPECT AND A HISTORY OF INTIMIDATION AND VIOLENCE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT

What are the realistic ideas/ solutions for stopping police violence against black people?

The realistic simple solution is bring JOBS to the black community first and foremost then bring real reform to the LE/justice system.

More people working means less BS happening in black neighborhoods many of those issues would solve themselves actually. Employment means pride, dignity and less idle hands. Less idleness means less frustration and the need to move in negative ways which cuts down crime. Less crime means less police confrontations and on and on.

How does this effect the schools? Youre right the homelife is a huge issue and reason for why kids in urban areas are doing and behaving poorly. Much of the strife in the home is due to financial issues. Struggling parents or parent means that those issue affect the children in real ways and they go to school and act out or don't do well in their studies because of lack of sleep or hunger or just plain chronic stress. Why don't you see these issues happening as much in the suburbs and rich neighborhoods...because theres FINANCIAL STABILITY in those homes. If nothing else kids don't see and feel their parents struggling just to keep basic utilities on. Bringing JOBS to the urban areas lessens that issue and takes that burden off the children who are then less likely to act out in disruptive ways.

SO WHATS THE SOLUTION?? IN A WORD: EMPLOYMENT!

Trumps talks about sending feds to chicago when he really should be trying to send jobs and opportunity to that city and the rest will literally largely take care of itself.

 

[bell110]

IN ORDER TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION YOU HAVE TO IDENTIFY THE PROBLEM..
Yup, I think I said that. Unfortunately, identifying the problem makes you a racist.

Back in the 1930s Blacks migrated from the south to the North East, MidWest and West Coast...but Primarily to the north east
looking for .."those good jobs in the factories in the north"... so they went to NYC, Philly, Boston, DC etc... except when they got there they found 3 things.

1. the whites in the north was about one tick less racist than the whites in the south (and by one tick I mean they didn't lynch as much) Is tick an actual measurement of race? Serious question.

2.. the whites in the north wouldn't allow them to get those factory jobs or join their unions.

3. as more blacks migrated to the north and urban areas, whites moved out and took the jobs with them.

Those large companies first moved those jobs out of the urban area then by the 70s and 80s shipped them overseas.
Hmm. So things changed from the 30's untill the 70's. Interesting.

Those factors depressed the now increasingly black urban areas (Southside Chicago, Detroit, Philly etc) couple that with REDLINING and lack of significant entrepreneurial endeavors... banks won't give blacks loans to start businesses, city council won't bring contract work to the urban areas (and those cities with black mayors and city councils don't have the influence to do it) means lack of JOBS for a growing population in the urban areas. MIND YOU WE'RE STILL IN THE 50s AT THIS POINT!!
Black mayors and city councils don't have influence? That's what they are elected for. Mind you, in the 50s, my grandparents were living in Astoria.

Things start to come to a head and blacks start demanding to be treated like full citizens and the big point in the demonstrations is for JOBS.

note the UNION JUSTICE signs

by the 60s its all boiling over and we see the riots and open conflict. Culminating to The March On Washington in 63...

But understand the full title of the march:

Look at how thats worded.. JOBS is first.. theres a reason for that. From jobs comes dignity and determination and freedom.
I wish I had a record scratch right here.

Which candidate wanted jobs for Americans?

Now combine this struggle with dealing with law enforcement thats mostly been used AGAINST the black population whether its a redneck sheriff and posse in the late 1800s and early 1900s or police departments in riot gear bashing peaceful protesters in the 50s and 60s

The police have ALWAYS seen blacks as a group to be hammered down and in urban areas as some kind of occupied sector to be patrolled using fear and loathing.

On the west coast there was a second generation of young blacks ready to take up the mantle. They called themselves Avenue Cribs but the term Crips became popular and accepted. Their original intent was to continue the revolutionary ideology of the Panther's and to act as community leaders and protectors of their local neighborhoods. But by that time in the late 60s the Civil Rights Movements was winding down as leaders were killed, jailed or marginalized. And other groups like SNCC and the Black Panthers were dismantled by the FBI. The lack of JOBS and positive direction for the youths meant that energy had to go somewhere and what was supposed to be a new generation of community leaders morphed into a street gang that branched off other gangs and became increasingly violent and constantly expanded their turf. By the early 1980's, the gangs were heavily involved in the drug trade.

Chronic high UNEMPLOYMENT combined with disrespect from and distrust of the police and general frustration of living in a system thats rigged against you at almost every turn and you start to see flare ups based on this status quo.
Congratulations. Welcome to the Democrats' utopia. Feel free to pick up your government paid food card and don't ask questions. Remember to vote and vote often (as long as you vote Democrat)

In the early 90s the riots in LA was based wholly on this combination. And we saw it again in the last decade and most recently.

SO WHATS THE PATTERN WE SEE???

LACK OF JOBS AND EMPLOYMENT FOR MINORITIES PARTICULARLY BLACKS (but make no mistake native americans, latinos and asians deal with the same issues)
Yup, and want's more cheap labor in the US?

LACK OF RESPECT AND A HISTORY OF INTIMIDATION AND VIOLENCE FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT

What are the realistic ideas/ solutions for stopping police violence against black people?
The problem isn't police violence against black people. The problem is violence in the black community that the police are paid to stop. It's not the 50s any more.

The realistic simple solution is bring JOBS to the black community first and foremost then bring real reform to the LE/justice system.
And who wanted to bring jobs back to America?

More people working means less BS happening in black neighborhoods many of those issues would solve themselves actually. Employment means pride, dignity and less idle hands. Less idleness means less frustration and the need to move in negative ways which cuts down crime. Less crime means less police confrontations and on and on.
I've heard black familes have decreased since the 70s. I agree we should have more workers.

How does this effect the schools? Youre right the homelife is a huge issue and reason for why kids in urban areas are doing and behaving poorly. Much of the strife in the home is due to financial issues. Struggling parents or parent means that those issue affect the children in real ways and they go to school and act out or don't do well in their studies because of lack of sleep or hunger or just plain chronic stress. Why don't you see these issues happening as much in the suburbs and rich neighborhoods...because theres FINANCIAL STABILITY in those homes.
Nope. Kids don't know they are poor. They don't know about finances. They do know about their parents. Or lack there of.

If nothing else kids don't see and feel their parents struggling just to keep basic utilities on. Bringing JOBS to the urban areas lessens that issue and takes that burden off the children who are then less likely to act out in disruptive ways.

SO WHATS THE SOLUTION?? IN A WORD: EMPLOYMENT!

Trumps talks about sending feds to chicago when he really should be trying to send jobs and opportunity to that city and the rest will literally largely take care of itself.

That is literally what he campaigned on. Bringing jobs back to the US. Hillary and the Democrats were happy with being pro illegal immigrant.

 

[hellified]

That is literally what he campaigned on. Bringing jobs back to the US. Hillary and the Democrats were happy with being pro illegal immigrant.

1. yes "tick" is an actual measure of race

I don't know about astoria but I DO know even when there was a successful black side of town it was undermined and or destroyed google black wall street and rosewood florida for examples

As far as democrats vs republicans goes Yes the dems were and are racist cruds from the beginning who today take the black vote for granted..but the GOP isn't clean either. Republcans DID get black support and vote and on a number of occassions SOLD OUT the black vote for political expediency.

Rutherford Hayes becomes President at the cost of ending Reconstruction in the South was a significant blow to the blacks and showed how little interest the Republicans had in their cause (a point already made clear when the Republican administrations sold confiscated land back to white elite instead of making it available to the freed slaves as promised -- 40 acres and a mule?)

When the administrations of Warren Harding and Calvin Coolidge showed no interest in assisting Blacks regaining the franchise or putting a halt to lynchings and violence in the South, The support largely ended during the administration of Herbert Hoover when the Great Depression devastated the Black community and Hoover seemed to ignore that community’s plight.

Blacks began to migrate to the Democratic party (again those who could vote) and became enthusiastic supporters of Franklin Roosevelt. After World War II, elements of the Democratic party (although not the Southern bloc) began to seek out Black voters and Black votes while the Republicans began to court White Northern and Western voters.

And lets not forget Lee Atwater's 1981 quote about the southern strategy: You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni**er, ni**er, ni**er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni**er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni**er, ni**er.”

And thats a strategy thats STILL in effect TODAY.

American history is replete with the GOP playing theyre own games with the black vote. So BOTH parties are jacked up IMO

The violence in the black community comes from frustration due to chronic high unemployment and lack of opportunity. Its not the 50s anymore but in some ways it may as well be. And you exonerate the police as if they can do no wrong.

As far as kids go.. you'd be surprised how aware they can be about strife in their household. Some may not know particular details but they DO know about and see their parents or parent stressed the hell out and that stresses them out. Youre not getting around that issue.

You seem to believe that things happen in a vacuum (its not the 50s anymore) or theyre cut and dry (kids don't know whats going on in the house) and that actions from the past have an effect on the present and future. Its not that simple.

responding inside quotes is annoying because particular points can't be isolated and retorted please stop doing that

 

[moviedoors]

As far as Bill Cosby is concerned you have complaints and allegations that go as far back as 1965 and many of the women were white BUT most if not all of those complaints didn't come out until recently some 2, 3 or 4 DECADES later. Do you HONESTLY believe if bill cosby drugged and raped a white women in 1965 and she complained about it that he would have gotten a pass because he was a popular comedian on Ed Sullivan? That's why there's much doubt that taints the cases against him. Looking at those complaints in the light of TODAY'S social mores yeah that crap sounds horrible but in the FREE LOVE acid tripping 60s? How about the sexual revolution (and all that entails) 70s? How about the coked out 80s? When you consider the circles he ran in, dude was a staple at the playboy mansion, ****e central, where booze and drugs freely flowed. And the way women were treated and viewed and the things they PARTICIPATED in..whats considered sexual assault TODAY just wasn't 40 years ago. Going back to OJ do you REALLY think if he had killed a black woman rather than a really pretty blonde white woman it would have been the trial of the CENTURY and divided the country so?

Same thing with cosby... I'm sure if a white woman back then wanted to make a big enough stink about it hell yeah that would have been a game changing career killer for Bill then.

Am I misreading this, or does this read as a downplaying of Cosby's crimes?

 

[Donner]

Am I misreading this, or does this read as a downplaying of Cosby's crimes?

Sounds like it to me. Hellified sure has a way of turning people completely off of any argument he makes. This is why nothing progressive gets done.

 

[DeadPresident]

Am I misreading this, or does this read as a downplaying of Cosby's crimes?

hellified is out of touch and has zero competence when it comes to logic. The hilarious thing is his entire post boils down to victim blaming. Why'd the women get raped? They were at the Playboy Mansion, that's "****e central" - what should we expect? It was the "Free Love" 60s, they shouldn't have been so ****ty. 70s and 80s? If they didn't want to be raped they shouldn't have done so much coke. The only reason he wasn't jailed is clearly because those dumb white ****es didn't take their rape seriously enough, I mean why didn't they want to make a big deal out of it?

His entire thought process is based on framing and warping reality to excuse any negative behavior from a black source, and get it to have something to do with an action by a white source.

A quick test is to change the identity of Cosby throughout that diatribe to a white guy and imagine the reaction. Oh, wait, you don't even have to do that, just look at the reaction to Trump's allegations of rape from the election. I'm assuming hellified was one of the first people to lambast Trump for all his rape allegations, and he's busy trying to water it down and play it off for Cosby by using anecdotes and sophistry for an almost identical scenario.

 

[hellified]

Am I misreading this, or does this read as a downplaying of Cosby's crimes?

Sounds like it to me. Hellified sure has a way of turning people completely off of any argument he makes. This is why nothing progressive gets done.

I'm not downplaying anything.. Cosby hasn't been convicted of anything and according to american law he's innocent until proven guilty. Unless thats changed and I didn't get the memo.

hellified is out of touch and has zero competence when it comes to logic. The hilarious thing is his entire post boils down to victim blaming. Why'd the women get raped? They were at the Playboy Mansion, that's "****e central" - what should we expect? It was the "Free Love" 60s, they shouldn't have been so ****ty. 70s and 80s? If they didn't want to be raped they shouldn't have done so much coke. The only reason he wasn't jailed is clearly because those dumb white ****es didn't take their rape seriously enough, I mean why didn't they want to make a big deal out of it?

His entire thought process is based on framing and warping reality to excuse any negative behavior from a black source, and get it to have something to do with an action by a white source.

A quick test is to change the identity of Cosby throughout that diatribe to a white guy and imagine the reaction. Oh, wait, you don't even have to do that, just look at the reaction to Trump's allegations of rape from the election. I'm assuming hellified was one of the first people to lambast Trump for all his rape allegations, and he's busy trying to water it down and play it off for Cosby by using anecdotes and sophistry for an almost identical scenario.

All I'm saying is the social mores of the those time is different than today. Hell jackie gleason in the honeymooners made constant threats about punching his wife in the face as a joke..do you think that would fly today as a joke? The attitudes of the 60s, 70s and 80s concerning women and their treatment is NOT the attitudes of today so much so that THEY didn't even complain about it till some 30, 40 years later. Thats not downplaying anything thats WHAT HAPPENED. Unless you believe bill cosbys celebrity privilege protected him from prosecution over raping many white women all of whom registered complaints in the 60s and 70s for the last 4 decades. Oh wait they DIDN'T register complaints in the 60s, 70s and 80s

Meanwhile Kobe Bryant was accused of raping one white chick in colorado back in the late 90s and the whole world collapsed on him. That changed his whole good guy image even AFTER the cop dropped the case becuz it turned out she had sex with a FEW guys including her boyfriend and another dude during the time she claimed Kobe sodomized her. And even her friends testified she wasn't acting like a rape victim when she bragged to them she had sex with kobe bryant that same weekend.

trump had rape allegations during the election and STILL won..dude was caught on tape talking trash about women and cheating on his wife and STILL won. Not one organization took back any awards or distanced themselves from him over those rape allegations. The things that happened to cosby over his allegation didn't happen to trump so what was your point again??

 

[moviedoors]

I'm not downplaying anything.. Cosby hasn't been convicted of anything and according to american law he's innocent until proven guilty. Unless thats changed and I didn't get the memo.

This is such downplaying. No, he's not been convicted, but who honestly doubts the veracity of the claims? He's going down in history as a horrific monster and deservedly so. Why do you feel the needto resort to the legal technicality? Why do you find it necessary at all to temper and qualify in positive ways what we all know he committed?

 

[DeadPresident]

All I'm saying is the social mores of the those time is different than today. Hell jackie gleason in the honeymooners made constant threats about punching his wife in the face as a joke..do you think that would fly today as a joke? The attitudes of the 60s, 70s and 80s concerning women and their treatment is NOT the attitudes of today so much so that THEY didn't even complain about it till some 30, 40 years later. Thats not downplaying anything thats WHAT HAPPENED. Unless you believe bill cosbys celebrity privilege protected him from prosecution over raping many white women all of whom registered complaints in the 60s and 70s for the last 4 decades. Oh wait they DIDN'T register complaints in the 60s, 70s and 80s

Meanwhile Kobe Bryant was accused of raping one white chick in colorado back in the late 90s and the whole world collapsed on him. That changed his whole good guy image even AFTER the cop dropped the case becuz it turned out she had sex with a FEW guys including her boyfriend and another dude during the time she claimed Kobe sodomized her. And even her friends testified she wasn't acting like a rape victim when she bragged to them she had sex with kobe bryant that same weekend.

Ah, so social acceptability is your argument. So why do you keep bleating on about slavery? It was the social more of the time, right? The thing is, you're so obsessed with making sure that everything is viewed through the prism of race you can't even keep your story straight, when it's useful for you you just dismiss something as a socially "accepted" custom for its time. When it doesn't suit you then everything from the past can be used as a stick to beat people with today.

You're a massive hypocrite and you have no credibility. Everything you post is designed to create a bias irrespective of the facts at hand. In your whacky little world of relative morality if someone isn't convicted it means they didn't actually commit the crime?

trump had rape allegations during the election and STILL won..dude was caught on tape talking trash about women and cheating on his wife and STILL won. Not one organization took back any awards or distanced themselves from him over those rape allegations. The things that happened to cosby over his allegation didn't happen to trump so what was your point again??

Despite the American system being so horrendously racist Bill Cosby isn't in jail…what was your point again? Surely if this racist system was so effective Cosby would've been in chains by now, right?

 

[hellified]

Ah, so social acceptability is your argument. So why do you keep bleating on about slavery? It was the social more of the time, right? The thing is, you're so obsessed with making sure that everything is viewed through the prism of race you can't even keep your story straight, when it's useful for you you just dismiss something as a socially "accepted" custom for its time. When it doesn't suit you then everything from the past can be used as a stick to beat people with today.

You're a massive hypocrite and you have no credibility. Everything you post is designed to create a bias irrespective of the facts at hand. In your whacky little world of relative morality if someone isn't convicted it means they didn't actually commit the crime?

1. you do the exact same thing your complaining about.. minorities particularly blacks complain and point out police brutality and disrespect to the community and you scream about stats and say show me the numbers and convictions and if its not there then its not true and blacks are complaining about nothing much or its all in their heads. Youve been consistently doing that. You admit racism exists yet deny that it exists in the manner blacks are talking about.

BUT i'll make a deal with you.... I"LL accept and believe that cosby is in fact a criminal and rapist based on decades old allegations nearly all of which haven't been substantiated IF YOU believe that police and the judiciary is a racist system and has acted in such manner based on the complaints and allegations of many minorities over the decades.

2. Contrary to popular belief many slaves fought back, ran away and schemed their way out of slavery during the whole time. In that time people were fighting, complaining and arguing against slavery and systemic racism from the beginning. Thats why there was a abolitionist MOVEMENT, civil WAR and a civil rights STRUGGLE.

Despite the American system being so horrendously racist Bill Cosby isn't in jail…what was your point again? Surely if this racist system was so effective Cosby would've been in chains by now, right?

Its not like they aren't working hard to do that now...cosby is STILL going back and forth to court today.

But in the meantime Bill Cosby has been stripped of his legacy and career. Its forever tainted anyone looking at him sees a rapist not a beloved comedian. Some would say thats a fate as bad as jail. Particularly for someone whose positive image was soo important. That didn't happen to say Woody Allen whose STILL working and accepted despite his step children claiming he did things to them. nor Roman Polanski who was convicted of raping a kid. He still gets awards and work and critical acclaim.

Roman Polanski hopes plea deal will enable his return to the US
The director has been a fugitive from US justice for 40 years after admitting sex with an underage girl

 

[hellified]

This is such downplaying. No, he's not been convicted, but who honestly doubts the veracity of the claims? He's going down in history as a horrific monster and deservedly so. Why do you feel the needto resort to the legal technicality? Why do you find it necessary at all to temper and qualify in positive ways what we all know he committed?

if the question is why isn't he in JAIL its because he hasn't been convicted of any crime. You want to outraged at something...heres a thought DO YOU THINK COSBY WAS THE ONLY ONE DOING THAT??

they wanted cosby to give a deposition on drugging and sexually abusing a 15 year old girl in the playboy mansion.. fine..okay..

BUT NO ONE IS ASKING OR DEMANDING HUGH HEFNER TO EXPLAIN HOW A ****ING 15 YEAR OLD GOT INTO HIS PORNOGRAPHIC ABODE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And since hef owned the house and threw the party of which cosby was a guest himself...shouldn't hef share some responsibility there..in terms of drugs and alcohol and minors being in the same place.

And why aren't they asking that woman who was 15 at the time (she's 50 now)

* how she got in the mansion?

* how many times had she been there?

* were there other under age people at the mansion?

* how many other celebs did she interact with in her time there?

* what other kind of behavior did she witness from the people there?

* did she meet hef at any point?

* was drugs pervasive on the premises period? (this is the 70s mind you)

* did she hear any stories from other women about sexual assaults that happened there?

* if so who were they and what celebs did they accuse?

You know..basic cop investigation work.

I'm NOT saying don't investigate cosby or pursue any viable action against him if he committed crimes..I'm saying WIDEN the investigative net.If we're going to blow Cosby up in the name of combating rape culture then lets blow them ALL up.. lets start with the Playboy Mansion parties..if anyone thinks Cos was the only one passing drugs you have another thing coming..

All those chicks from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and even today start naming names and lets it get all out in the open.

 

[DeadPresident]

they wanted cosby to give a deposition on drugging and sexually abusing a 15 year old girl in the playboy mansion.. fine..okay..

BUT NO ONE IS ASKING OR DEMANDING HUGH HEFNER TO EXPLAIN HOW A ****ING 15 YEAR OLD GOT INTO HIS PORNOGRAPHIC ABODE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And since hef owned the house and threw the party of which cosby was a guest himself...shouldn't hef share some responsibility there..in terms of drugs and alcohol and minors being in the same place.

Good God…is this even real life anymore?

 

[regwec]

It's certainly clear that the last five years have brought a rancid foam of falsely claimed victimhood and self-serving racism to the fore.

 

[Matt]

if the question is why isn't he in JAIL its because he hasn't been convicted of any crime. You want to outraged at something...heres a thought DO YOU THINK COSBY WAS THE ONLY ONE DOING THAT??

they wanted cosby to give a deposition on drugging and sexually abusing a 15 year old girl in the playboy mansion.. fine..okay..

BUT NO ONE IS ASKING OR DEMANDING HUGH HEFNER TO EXPLAIN HOW A ****ING 15 YEAR OLD GOT INTO HIS PORNOGRAPHIC ABODE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

And since hef owned the house and threw the party of which cosby was a guest himself...shouldn't hef share some responsibility there..in terms of drugs and alcohol and minors being in the same place.

And why aren't they asking that woman who was 15 at the time (she's 50 now)

* how she got in the mansion?

* how many times had she been there?

* were there other under age people at the mansion?

* how many other celebs did she interact with in her time there?

* what other kind of behavior did she witness from the people there?

* did she meet hef at any point?

* was drugs pervasive on the premises period? (this is the 70s mind you)

* did she hear any stories from other women about sexual assaults that happened there?

* if so who were they and what celebs did they accuse?

You know..basic cop investigation work.

I'm NOT saying don't investigate cosby or pursue any viable action against him if he committed crimes..I'm saying WIDEN the investigative net.If we're going to blow Cosby up in the name of combating rape culture then lets blow them ALL up.. lets start with the Playboy Mansion parties..if anyone thinks Cos was the only one passing drugs you have another thing coming..

All those chicks from the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s and even today start naming names and lets it get all out in the open.

To preface, I have represented a rape victim. Your last two paragraphs perfectly sum up the problem with your mentality. Specifically, the your post indicates to me that you have no ****ing clue what hell these women go through. The young woman I represented is the bravest woman I have ever met. I am confident that her attacker attacked multiple women. Rape is seldom an isolated incident (unless the rapist is arrested immediately after his first attack). But if my client did not come forward, he would still be out there. Because in a rape case, more than any other, without cooperation of the victim, prosecution is impossible. You can prosecute other crimes without the cooperation of the victim. It becomes harder, but it is possible. Not rape. If the victim is not willing to take the stand and tell his or her story, there will be no conviction (or likely even a charge). Therefore, to sustain a rape charge, you need at least one victim who is brave enough to come forward and say "this man did that to me" in open court, on the public record.

That said, if she came into my office and said she did not want to move forward and cooperate with the prosecution, I would've understood and supported her entirely. It takes a special type of brave woman. Because she then has to deal with a defense attorney calling her a **** who wanted it throughout the trial. She then has to deal with the media, and in high profile cases like Cosby's, rape apologists calling her every name in the book. A perfect example would be Ben Roethlisberger's second victim. She didn't cooperate with the prosecution and the case (for other reasons besides that) fell apart. Her reason for not wanting to cooperate? She had just endured the most traumatic event of her life and didn't want people calling her a **** and a gold digger and all kinds of other horrible things all because they like the uniform the guy wears. That is what happens in these high profile cases.

And yet you have the nerve to sit at your computer chair and say "call them all out"? You do realize you are implicitly saying "[the victims ought to] call them out", right? So you are asking women who have been through hell to come forward and pursue 30 year old charges against wealthy, famous, powerful men who inflicted unspeakable harm upon them?

I am glad Cosby's victims have come forward. I hope he rots for what he did. Do I wish more victims of what you described would come forward? Absolutely. But considering what these poor souls have endured, I will pass no judgment upon them for not being willing to do so. They have endured enough without having to endure what Cosby's victims are enduring. And you have no right to do so either.

So rather than sit on your mighty internet high horse and scream about how we need to break up these "rape rings", in a thinly veiled attempt to defend Bill Cosby, a rapist, why not first ask yourself why hasn't it happened? Do you think, as you sit behind your keyboard and type away, you are the first person to ask these questions? Of course not. The simple fact is that the victims want peace. And that is their right. And every time you make a post like the stupidity above, you are casting a value judgment upon their decision to simply move on and cope with their trauma in their own way, rather than revisiting 30 years of hell. And you have absolutely no right to do that.

 

[DeadPresident]

Not referring to girls or women as "chicks" would be a pretty dandy adjustment too.

 

[hellified]

To preface, I have represented a rape victim. Your last two paragraphs perfectly sum up the problem with your mentality. Specifically, the your post indicates to me that you have no ****ing clue what hell these women go through. The young woman I represented is the bravest woman I have ever met. I am confident that her attacker attacked multiple women. Rape is seldom an isolated incident (unless the rapist is arrested immediately after his first attack). But if my client did not come forward, he would still be out there. Because in a rape case, more than any other, without cooperation of the victim, prosecution is impossible. You can prosecute other crimes without the cooperation of the victim. It becomes harder, but it is possible. Not rape. If the victim is not willing to take the stand and tell his or her story, there will be no conviction (or likely even a charge). Therefore, to sustain a rape charge, you need at least one victim who is brave enough to come forward and say "this man did that to me" in open court, on the public record.

That said, if she came into my office and said she did not want to move forward and cooperate with the prosecution, I would've understood and supported her entirely. It takes a special type of brave woman. Because she then has to deal with a defense attorney calling her a **** who wanted it throughout the trial. She then has to deal with the media, and in high profile cases like Cosby's, rape apologists calling her every name in the book. A perfect example would be Ben Roethlisberger's second victim. She didn't cooperate with the prosecution and the case (for other reasons besides that) fell apart. Her reason for not wanting to cooperate? She had just endured the most traumatic event of her life and didn't want people calling her a **** and a gold digger and all kinds of other horrible things all because they like the uniform the guy wears. That is what happens in these high profile cases.

And yet you have the nerve to sit at your computer chair and say "call them all out"? You do realize you are implicitly saying "[the victims ought to] call them out", right? So you are asking women who have been through hell to come forward and pursue 30 year old charges against wealthy, famous, powerful men who inflicted unspeakable harm upon them?

I am glad Cosby's victims have come forward. I hope he rots for what he did. Do I wish more victims of what you described would come forward? Absolutely. But considering what these poor souls have endured, I will pass no judgment upon them for not being willing to do so. They have endured enough without having to endure what Cosby's victims are enduring. And you have no right to do so either.

So rather than sit on your mighty internet high horse and scream about how we need to break up these "rape rings", in a thinly veiled attempt to defend Bill Cosby, a rapist, why not first ask yourself why hasn't it happened? Do you think, as you sit behind your keyboard and type away, you are the first person to ask these questions? Of course not. The simple fact is that the victims want peace. And that is their right. And every time you make a post like the stupidity above, you are casting a value judgment upon their decision to simply move on and cope with their trauma in their own way, rather than revisiting 30 years of hell. And you have absolutely no right to do that.

feel better?

where did I say cosby shouldn't be prosecuted or that he didn't or wasn't capable of committing any of those acts?

 

[hellified]

chicks?? oh the drama dp