"We had no choice" -American Poor

[Gin1984]

Luck- look at my quote again- I asked a question.  I didn't make a statement.  So it matters not if I don't believe in polls- I am not quoting one or referencing one.  Grow up.

I literally asked "Could it be possible that blacks are 4x-8x more likely to be arrested for weed because 4x-8x more blacks are CHOOSING to smoke weed?"

And the answer is yes it could be possible.  Is it probable? Maybe not based on some skewed statistics, but do I really care? No.  I am not the one who invoked race into a conversation that has nothing to do with race...unless you of course believe that blacks are more likely to be poor....

Actually it does matter because you are making decisions based off skewed beliefs, not looking into research.  And peer reviewed data get ripped to shreds if they do not have proper methods which include a proper sample size and the ability to generalize (meaning they are not trying to get an answer they want, merely an answer).  Asking a provocative question, because you have decided to be uneducated is a waste. 

[Daley]

Very true. No worries about my stereotyped label though. You can accuse me of someone who looks past race all day. Or as someone who doesn't put faith in polls or near meaningless surveys.

Though as an enigineer I also know that ANYTHING can be skewed out of context. Take this post for example....my initial issue was not even addressed. Only a portion- to take the focus away from what I really said- the reason why (in my humble and insignificant opinion) we should not have income equality in this nation.

But it's ok ip. We are all stereotyped for our internet posts. Cruel world :-(

You're missing the point, and trying to paint yourself as a martyr in the process. My post was made to highlight the flaw with your own approach and self-professed meritocratic tendencies and judgment upon others. It doesn't matter how much you toot your own horn or pat yourself on the back for trying to look past it all to do the right thing, so long as you hold that judgment against others, your own actions are tainted. The world is not just, and it's not just because of how people behave. It's the nature of sin. Sin holds no discrimination, we're all guilty of it. As such, if we are striving to do the right thing, we must not succumb to the divisive and judgmental nature of sin which causes this inequality of justice and righteousness in the first place.

Your brain might be in the right place, but your heart betrays your actions. I'm simply illustrating how your own words condemn yourself to an ugly stereotype in the same manner you condemn others. You sit and type out with what appears to be a straight face about how all people deserve their lot in life due to their personal choices, and then when that same "deserved" fate is folded back on you for race bating to justify your world view, somehow you try to rewrite your own rules to try and avoid the consequences of your actions.

It's not just about helping others, it's forgiving them if they've genuinely made mistakes, recognizing that our own actions individually can harm others in ways they do not deserve, and that we too can easily be placed in a compromised position by external forces even if we try to do everything right. A misguided sense of altruism for those less fortunate from a self-righteous individual is no less toxic to society than the forms of social reform you denounce.

You try to temper your words with kindness, but stating them next to your core philosophy does you no favors.

[thepokercab]

thepokercab - and such not-judging is much appreciated :) My reply were directed at the rather more judgey comments at the beginning of the post.

I think other issues run much deeper.  For me, the school-to-prison pipeline for is the biggest one, where schools (especially in urban areas) are armed and staffed to the teeth with police officers; engaging in "no tolerance" policies that suspend and/or expel students for relatively minor infractions, all with the consequence (some would say goal) of pushing kids into the highly profitable and subsidized correctional system.  Suffice it to say that iPhone ownership at that point is the least of your problems when it comes to rising out of your situation.

One, go work at those inner city schools. Or attend ones. My high school had metal detectors because students/gangs brought handguns and knives to school. Luckily no one died but people were seriously injured every year. Robbery, theft, assualt, those were everyday occurances. I welcomed large ex-football playing rent a cops beating kids over the head. Better their blood on the old floors than mine or my friends. They were animals. I was trying to study chemistry.

Two, I live in Asia now. 9 years this August. WTF is wrong with American inner city kids that shooting, assualting, robbing is OK. I live in a city of 8 million people and I've heard of these things happening but never seen it myself. I'm so tired of the pity party for young, poor people. Work hard, dont knife people or steal their purses. Read a damn book. Problem solved. Somehow children whose parents are nearly illiterate end up at great universities in Asia, then go to grad school in the USA. We spend a fortune on educating in the USA and get shit results. Go to Harlem and teach for a couple years and tell me how you feel then.

I have worked and gone to schools in the inner city, and yes, there is certainly violence.  I'm not trying to argue that...

If you just google school-to-prison pipeline, or attempt to gather some facts other than your own singular experience, you might understand what I'm talking about.  I'm talking about the criminal justice system in many schools taking over ALL disciplinary responsibility and shuttling kids from school to prison.  I'm talking about the 11 year old girl who gets arrested for violating the dress code, or the 10 year old boy who gets arrested for bringing nail clippers to school.  I'm talking about zero tolerance policies in middle schools that suspend students on the spot.  I'm also talkng about the same policies that disproportionately affect students with disabilities. 

And amazingly, studies tend to conclude that getting sent to juvenile facilities tend to fuck kids up more often than not.  Go figure.  Maybe that should be a last resort, instead of the first. 

Here is a good, quick article on the phenomenon in case your interested:

http://nation.time.com/2012/12/11/the-worst-school-to-prison-pipeline-was-it-in-mississippi/

What do these school kids have in common? The teenage girl with a bladder disorder who left class without permission, ignoring a teacher and racing for a bathroom rather than wet herself; the boy who was rude to a school administrator; another who was tardy. They are children of color who, as a result of breaking minor school rules, were allegedly arrested and thrown into a juvenile detention facility in Meridian, Mississippi. It appears to be the most blatant case in a nationwide phenomenon that the U.S. Department of Justice, in a 37-page lawsuit, calls a “school-to-prison pipeline.”

[Jamesqf]

Could it be possible that blacks are 4x-8x more likely to be arrested for weed because 4x-8x more blacks are CHOOSING to smoke weed?  I don't know the answer just saying it could be possible.

Fairly easy to answer - no.

For all illicit drug use, not just marijuana, Black/African American people are about 10-20% more likely than White people to have used illicit drugs in the last month, but are more than three times as likely to be arrested for possession of illicit drugs.

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

[Constance Noring]

Could it be possible that blacks are 4x-8x more likely to be arrested for weed because 4x-8x more blacks are CHOOSING to smoke weed?  I don't know the answer just saying it could be possible.

Fairly easy to answer - no.

For all illicit drug use, not just marijuana, Black/African American people are about 10-20% more likely than White people to have used illicit drugs in the last month, but are more than three times as likely to be arrested for possession of illicit drugs.

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

Probably the best response to your question was posted all the way back on page 1 of this thread:

Some years ago, I got to attend a presentation or two from a sociologist.  I can't do it justice in a relatively short bit of text on a forum, but basically her idea was that the socioeconomic status you grow up in helps cement some of your values, which changes your thinking in ways you don't realize sometimes.

For lack of better names, as she put it, she had labeled these value systems as poverty, middle class and wealth.

Now it's not a rigid thing, I for example found while I had mostly (like 75% or so) middle class values, I had some poverty class values (like 20%) and I even had one or two wealth class values.  These values were gauged by tests like if you had an authentic Picasso painting, what would you do with it, what's the best reason to wear jewelry, and so on.

It was basically a similar idea to Maslow's Hierarch of Needs; the more material wealth you have the less you worry about subsistence, so your priorities change.  Basically the poor's minds are all on subsistence, the wealthy are all about self-actualization, and the middle class is awkwardly spanning the levels in between.

Anyway the point of the presentation was she was starting to find that these values she'd identified were something of a package deal; since many of the individual items in these value sets had mutually exclusive resolutions, and some ideas lent themselves to others, it was hard to have a personal value system that incorporated a plurality of its values from the opposite ends of poverty and wealth because the logic just broke down.

In less words, it was like a crude spectrum from poverty to wealth, meaning you could blend poor and middle, or middle and wealthy, but you just couldn't have poor and wealthy simultaneously for a plurality of personal values because it wasn't logically consistent to do so.

And she didn't put dollar figures on any of this either, pointing out these were value systems so culture played a large role too.  One of her examples was she'd found a poor county in some southern state where most of the people actually showed middle class values, but that same level of income/wealth in an urban population tended more toward poverty values.

Now continuing, her other point was these value systems arose because they represented notions that particular group of people typically needed to survive.  For example, one of the reasons she gave for why broke poor people often have expensive designer clothes, "bling", and trendy electronics is that in their value system, that is more indicative of status than it is for middle class or wealthy people.

Finally she tied this all together, pointing out that in the real world, socioeconomic status isn't just three crisp, easily delineated levels, so a lot of people at the edges of these value systems or people who are born into one value system but adopt another are often socially penalized for it, which creates behavior that looks insane to an outsider who doesn't have the same values. 

In other words, if you are someone who earns very little, but you prioritize your spending differently than your peers and don't buy the status symbols, you probably don't find a lot of acceptance in your peer group, and in that strata of society the acceptance of your peers is one of your best survival tools, you dare not give it up.

See to my middle class value system, it sounds ridiculous to say that if you don't have a late model Iphone and expensive sneakers and an expensive ball cap and sports licensed apparel your family, friends, etc. are going to ostracize you.

Middle class me sits there and screams "What is wrong with you people, why are you so devoted to expensive material items, why don't you buy some books or some tools or invest that money!?"

But I have to look in the mirror.  My own social strata won't regard me positively if I'm not employed and don't have formal education and don't use trendy websites or take expensive vacations or if I'm not technology savvy, etc.

To a person who comes from wealth, my crap sounds just as ridiculous as the ghetto dweller's expensive jewelry looks to me.  Why am I so obssessed with being employed for the sake of saying I have a job?  What's the point of a degree from a place that won't give you the social and business connections to work for a top firm?  Who cares if you don't have a LinkedIn profile, you ought to be sipping rare mineral water while visiting a sculpture garden in south rural France because it's a rare, enriching experience before you take off on your private jet plane to go sign the papers to break ground on the children's cancer treatment center, you know, doing things that matter.  And you'd better do it with grace too.

The actual level of socioeconomic status doesn't really matter.  The point is you have your societal peer group, and it's much easier to adapt to the norms of that group rather than migrate to another group.  If I, as a middle class person, try to have the value system of a wealth person, I look pretentious and arrogant.  Ditto for someone from poverty trying to emulate the middle class value system.  Someone from wealth trying to emulate the middle class is crass and gauche.  And so on.

This social penalty mechanic creates a perverse incentive for people to pursue maladaptive behaviors.  And since the values tend to come in a "cluster", if some nagging sense of loyalty or duty to someone or something keeps you devoted to one or two of your key "poverty" values, well Bob's your uncle.

Like all academic theories, this was all very interesting and it seemed at least somewhat valid in modeling the world at large, but it really offers few practical solutions in and of itself.

'Culture' is made up of millions of markers, shared between people of similar linguistic, geographic, religious, racial, and yes, socio-economic backgrounds. And as long as there has been poverty, substance abuse has followed it like a shadow. Anything to make the physical and mental stress and insecurity more bearable, if only for a little while. So sure, from an outsider's perspective, engaging in such behaviors seems irrational. But from within, they seem like the only reasonable thing to do.

And as for the last part of your question, it has been widely demonstrated that African-Americans are far more likely to be apprehended for drug use than their white counterparts, and receive harsher sentences. Unfortunately, driving/walking/sparking up while black is prone to get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than doing so while white.

[thepokercab]

Unfortunately, driving/walking/sparking up while black is prone to get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than doing so while white.

Well, if you knew you were more likely to be targeted when walking around, wouldn't you avoid that behavior if at all possible?  Or at least go to considerable lengths to make sure you weren't walking around?   

[Gin1984]

Unfortunately, driving/walking/sparking up while black is prone to get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than doing so while white.

Well, if you knew you were more likely to be targeted when walking around, wouldn't you avoid that behavior if at all possible?  Or at least go to considerable lengths to make sure you weren't walking around?   

My husband is Hispanic and we lived in an area with a large Hispanic population, in the year prior to us leaving he was pulled over three time while I was in the car alone.  We moved to buffalo where most people think he is Italian, and has not gotten pulled over once.  No other changes.  It was kind of a smack in my face, showing me that racism.

[bluecheeze]

Luck- look at my quote again- I asked a question.  I didn't make a statement.  So it matters not if I don't believe in polls- I am not quoting one or referencing one.  Grow up.

I literally asked "Could it be possible that blacks are 4x-8x more likely to be arrested for weed because 4x-8x more blacks are CHOOSING to smoke weed?"

And the answer is yes it could be possible.  Is it probable? Maybe not based on some skewed statistics, but do I really care? No.  I am not the one who invoked race into a conversation that has nothing to do with race...unless you of course believe that blacks are more likely to be poor....

Actually it does matter because you are making decisions based off skewed beliefs, not looking into research.  And peer reviewed data get ripped to shreds if they do not have proper methods which include a proper sample size and the ability to generalize (meaning they are not trying to get an answer they want, merely an answer).  Asking a provocative question, because you have decided to be uneducated is a waste.

Yes, peer reviewed data.  A survey done by a politician to help get some law enacted/retracted?  Again, I don't know, but just don't weight it as heavily as you do.  Race has nothing to do with the original statement that I made.  I formulated my thought based on what I have seen in the real world- people ultimately refuse to accept the consequences for the actions they have previously made- no one wants to have their debts collected.  Unfortunately, sometimes making a bad decision hurts.  It's really hard to accept it sometimes.  Sometimes we don't get caught.  Statistically, those who are caught are the ones who REPEAT the decisions.  Your life observation may vary? It's OK if it does and you don't need to berate mine. 

I never want to see anyone in pain, but yes, sometimes it is necessary for us as humans to grow, in order for us to change.  Just look at your own life- when have you ever really made a true change? Usually it's when you are down at the bottom, or close to it.  This is where we as humans showcase our strength- the ability say "This is not who I am"- and do something about it is a very powerful force.  We shouldn't try to force everyone into the same mold, yes there are outliers, sometimes the evil people get ahead and the good people stay behind.  But if you really know whats important in life does it matter?

Very true. No worries about my stereotyped label though. You can accuse me of someone who looks past race all day. Or as someone who doesn't put faith in polls or near meaningless surveys.

Though as an enigineer I also know that ANYTHING can be skewed out of context. Take this post for example....my initial issue was not even addressed. Only a portion- to take the focus away from what I really said- the reason why (in my humble and insignificant opinion) we should not have income equality in this nation.

But it's ok ip. We are all stereotyped for our internet posts. Cruel world :-(

You're missing the point, and trying to paint yourself as a martyr in the process. My post was made to highlight the flaw with your own approach and self-professed meritocratic tendencies and judgment upon others. It doesn't matter how much you toot your own horn or pat yourself on the back for trying to look past it all to do the right thing, so long as you hold that judgment against others, your own actions are tainted. The world is not just, and it's not just because of how people behave. It's the nature of sin. Sin holds no discrimination, we're all guilty of it. As such, if we are striving to do the right thing, we must not succumb to the divisive and judgmental nature of sin which causes this inequality of justice and righteousness in the first place.

Your brain might be in the right place, but your heart betrays your actions. I'm simply illustrating how your own words condemn yourself to an ugly stereotype in the same manner you condemn others. You sit and type out with what appears to be a straight face about how all people deserve their lot in life due to their personal choices, and then when that same "deserved" fate is folded back on you for race bating to justify your world view, somehow you try to rewrite your own rules to try and avoid the consequences of your actions.

It's not just about helping others, it's forgiving them if they've genuinely made mistakes, recognizing that our own actions individually can harm others in ways they do not deserve, and that we too can easily be placed in a compromised position by external forces even if we try to do everything right. A misguided sense of altruism for those less fortunate from a self-righteous individual is no less toxic to society than the forms of social reform you denounce.

You try to temper your words with kindness, but stating them next to your core philosophy does you no favors.

IP- I respect your opinion but where is the judgement in my belief that when you do something, something else happens?  If an observation= judgement then I am guilty.  Why do you refuse to hold people accountable for their actions?  Why does our society allow a man who goes into a movie theater and murders our sons and daughters for no reason other then the satisfaction of murder to escape a swift and definite trial- because he is insane?- no shit Shirlock- I am no lawyer or scholar but I can tell you he was insane.  Why waste time and resources when common sense and logic can dictate that particular scenario?  I know that is one extreme. 
We all deserve much worse then what we have been given.  I am not trying to make any excuse for what I said.  Taking the bait about the race issue was my fault and I should have let it lie.  But IP, you can forgive someone and still love them enough to let them grow from their own mistakes- while teaching them through it (if so requested).  I do agree that sometimes you can do everything "right" in your mind and things don't go as planned (in your mind).  Roll with the punches, make some changes.  You still have a job to do here on earth (and no it's not getting FIRE'd).  There was also a hint of malice and self righteousness in your post no?

In any way this seems to have taken a serious digression so I apologize for those who I offended in the process. 

[MrFancypants]

My husband is Hispanic and we lived in an area with a large Hispanic population, in the year prior to us leaving he was pulled over three time while I was in the car alone.  We moved to buffalo where most people think he is Italian, and has not gotten pulled over once.  No other changes.  It was kind of a smack in my face, showing me that racism.

So despite the large Hispanic population, the police force wasn't also made up of a higher percentage of Hispanic officers?

[Gin1984]

My husband is Hispanic and we lived in an area with a large Hispanic population, in the year prior to us leaving he was pulled over three time while I was in the car alone.  We moved to buffalo where most people think he is Italian, and has not gotten pulled over once.  No other changes.  It was kind of a smack in my face, showing me that racism.

So despite the large Hispanic population, the police force wasn't also made up of a higher percentage of Hispanic officers?

Honestly, I am not sure.  I can check, later, have to go be responsible and work.  If anyone wants to check for me, San Jose, Ca.

[thepokercab]

Yes, peer reviewed data.  A survey done by a politician to help get some law enacted/retracted?  Again, I don't know, but just don't weight it as heavily as you do.

Thanks for putting this out front.  Means I didn't have to read the rest of it. 

[rosaz]

My husband is Hispanic and we lived in an area with a large Hispanic population, in the year prior to us leaving he was pulled over three time while I was in the car alone.  We moved to buffalo where most people think he is Italian, and has not gotten pulled over once.  No other changes.  It was kind of a smack in my face, showing me that racism.

So despite the large Hispanic population, the police force wasn't also made up of a higher percentage of Hispanic officers?

Honestly, I am not sure.  I can check, later, have to go be responsible and work.  If anyone wants to check for me, San Jose, Ca.

A quick Google is not helping me and I'm too lazy to look farther :)

But it's not hard to imagine why that might be the case... if a large percentage of that Hispanic population were non-citizens (not saying undocumented, just non-citizens), the police demographics might not reflect their size.

Also, even if there were a lot of Hispanic police officers, even say, 5% of the cops being white and racist could be enough to cause quite a lot of trouble.

[MrFancypants]

But it's not hard to imagine why that might be the case... if a large percentage of that Hispanic population were non-citizens (not saying undocumented, just non-citizens), the police demographics might not reflect their size.

Also, even if there were a lot of Hispanic police officers, even say, 5% of the cops being white and racist could be enough to cause quite a lot of trouble.

This is all true.  I was just presenting the possibility that it could have been more than racial profiling.  There's always the possibility of political pressure in one area versus another increases police harassment of all individuals.

[HSH Princess Grace]

Could it be possible that blacks are 4x-8x more likely to be arrested for weed because 4x-8x more blacks are CHOOSING to smoke weed?  I don't know the answer just saying it could be possible.

Fairly easy to answer - no.

For all illicit drug use, not just marijuana, Black/African American people are about 10-20% more likely than White people to have used illicit drugs in the last month, but are more than three times as likely to be arrested for possession of illicit drugs.

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

Some years ago, I got to attend a presentation or two from a sociologist.  I can't do it justice in a relatively short bit of text on a forum, but basically her idea was that the socioeconomic status you grow up in helps cement some of your values, which changes your thinking in ways you don't realize sometimes.

For lack of better names, as she put it, she had labeled these value systems as poverty, middle class and wealth.

Now it's not a rigid thing, I for example found while I had mostly (like 75% or so) middle class values, I had some poverty class values (like 20%) and I even had one or two wealth class values.  These values were gauged by tests like if you had an authentic Picasso painting, what would you do with it, what's the best reason to wear jewelry, and so on.

It was basically a similar idea to Maslow's Hierarch of Needs; the more material wealth you have the less you worry about subsistence, so your priorities change.  Basically the poor's minds are all on subsistence, the wealthy are all about self-actualization, and the middle class is awkwardly spanning the levels in between.

Anyway the point of the presentation was she was starting to find that these values she'd identified were something of a package deal; since many of the individual items in these value sets had mutually exclusive resolutions, and some ideas lent themselves to others, it was hard to have a personal value system that incorporated a plurality of its values from the opposite ends of poverty and wealth because the logic just broke down.

In less words, it was like a crude spectrum from poverty to wealth, meaning you could blend poor and middle, or middle and wealthy, but you just couldn't have poor and wealthy simultaneously for a plurality of personal values because it wasn't logically consistent to do so.

And she didn't put dollar figures on any of this either, pointing out these were value systems so culture played a large role too.  One of her examples was she'd found a poor county in some southern state where most of the people actually showed middle class values, but that same level of income/wealth in an urban population tended more toward poverty values.

Now continuing, her other point was these value systems arose because they represented notions that particular group of people typically needed to survive.  For example, one of the reasons she gave for why broke poor people often have expensive designer clothes, "bling", and trendy electronics is that in their value system, that is more indicative of status than it is for middle class or wealthy people.

Finally she tied this all together, pointing out that in the real world, socioeconomic status isn't just three crisp, easily delineated levels, so a lot of people at the edges of these value systems or people who are born into one value system but adopt another are often socially penalized for it, which creates behavior that looks insane to an outsider who doesn't have the same values. 

In other words, if you are someone who earns very little, but you prioritize your spending differently than your peers and don't buy the status symbols, you probably don't find a lot of acceptance in your peer group, and in that strata of society the acceptance of your peers is one of your best survival tools, you dare not give it up.

See to my middle class value system, it sounds ridiculous to say that if you don't have a late model Iphone and expensive sneakers and an expensive ball cap and sports licensed apparel your family, friends, etc. are going to ostracize you.

Middle class me sits there and screams "What is wrong with you people, why are you so devoted to expensive material items, why don't you buy some books or some tools or invest that money!?"

But I have to look in the mirror.  My own social strata won't regard me positively if I'm not employed and don't have formal education and don't use trendy websites or take expensive vacations or if I'm not technology savvy, etc.

To a person who comes from wealth, my crap sounds just as ridiculous as the ghetto dweller's expensive jewelry looks to me.  Why am I so obssessed with being employed for the sake of saying I have a job?  What's the point of a degree from a place that won't give you the social and business connections to work for a top firm?  Who cares if you don't have a LinkedIn profile, you ought to be sipping rare mineral water while visiting a sculpture garden in south rural France because it's a rare, enriching experience before you take off on your private jet plane to go sign the papers to break ground on the children's cancer treatment center, you know, doing things that matter.  And you'd better do it with grace too.

The actual level of socioeconomic status doesn't really matter.  The point is you have your societal peer group, and it's much easier to adapt to the norms of that group rather than migrate to another group.  If I, as a middle class person, try to have the value system of a wealth person, I look pretentious and arrogant.  Ditto for someone from poverty trying to emulate the middle class value system.  Someone from wealth trying to emulate the middle class is crass and gauche.  And so on.

This social penalty mechanic creates a perverse incentive for people to pursue maladaptive behaviors.  And since the values tend to come in a "cluster", if some nagging sense of loyalty or duty to someone or something keeps you devoted to one or two of your key "poverty" values, well Bob's your uncle.

Like all academic theories, this was all very interesting and it seemed at least somewhat valid in modeling the world at large, but it really offers few practical solutions in and of itself.

'Culture' is made up of millions of markers, shared between people of similar linguistic, geographic, religious, racial, and yes, socio-economic backgrounds. And as long as there has been poverty, substance abuse has followed it like a shadow. Anything to make the physical and mental stress and insecurity more bearable, if only for a little while. So sure, from an outsider's perspective, engaging in such behaviors seems irrational. But from within, they seem like the only reasonable thing to do.

And as for the last part of your question, it has been widely demonstrated that African-Americans are far more likely to be apprehended for drug use than their white counterparts, and receive harsher sentences. Unfortunately, driving/walking/sparking up while black is prone to get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than doing so while white.

I'd love to know where I could read through a similar type of quiz.  Anyone know of anything similar on the internet?

[Malloy]

Unfortunately, driving/walking/sparking up while black is prone to get you in a hell of a lot more trouble than doing so while white.

Well, if you knew you were more likely to be targeted when walking around, wouldn't you avoid that behavior if at all possible?  Or at least go to considerable lengths to make sure you weren't walking around?   

Man, thank FSM for you and for for the other posters on this thread.  It's nonsense like what you guys were replying to that makes the rest of the internet such a cesspool.  If I wanted to read vaguely racist commentary (meritocracy, dudes! Some people just belong on the bottom.  Hey-have you guys heard of objectivism?) and cocked up evidence-denying economic speculation, I'd be on one of those gold bug sites.

[Gin1984]

But it's not hard to imagine why that might be the case... if a large percentage of that Hispanic population were non-citizens (not saying undocumented, just non-citizens), the police demographics might not reflect their size.

Also, even if there were a lot of Hispanic police officers, even say, 5% of the cops being white and racist could be enough to cause quite a lot of trouble.

This is all true.  I was just presenting the possibility that it could have been more than racial profiling.  There's always the possibility of political pressure in one area versus another increases police harassment of all individuals.

Then I should point out that in the same year, in the same area, I never got pulled over. 

[Daley]

IP- I respect your opinion but where is the judgement in my belief that when you do something, something else happens?

If that's what you had actually stated, then you wouldn't be getting raked over the coals for what you posted by so many people. Instead, you posted these:

In place, I decided to study, play sports, work, not get people pregenant- you know, make some common sense decisions that helped my future.  To my peers deserve to have the quality of life I now enjoy? Most definately not- not because of some bitter resentment I have, but because CONSEQUENCES HAVE ACTIONS.  They choose to live that life.  Successful people usually make better choices over the course of their lives.  So in my mind there should NEVER be a flattening of the income curve.  There are people that NEED to be at the bottom because that is where their decisions have taken them.

Now do I believe that the majority of people on welfare and in poverty have made some decision to be there (through some action)- yes.

The implication of this line of thought is that all people deserve what they get for the choices made, both poor and rich (yourself included). That is where your stated approach is flawed and the conflict in your values comes from, as it is a philosophy of entitlement and passive judgment. You say that everybody deserves much worse than we have been given, yet that idea cannot coexist in a world-view where success is metered out based primarily on personal choices that entitle you to the station in life you live. Financial success is not solely a measure of right personal choices any more so than poverty is, and success is not distributed any more to the good and right thinkers than it is to the wrong ones. The spread of scumbaggery within the human race is pretty equal across the board, through all classes, creeds, and cultures... and the number of decent folk is usually outnumbered by the wretched.

The reality to this world is that privilege, opportunity and discrimination have as powerful, if not far greater an impact on success than personal choices. Your statements acknowledge this, but places the onus of the consequences upon success with free will. I am not stating and advocating any sort of dismissal of the value of personal responsibility and changing how you react to outside forces... long timers in this forum know I beat on that drum hard. We do control how we conduct ourselves in the situations we are placed, and if that was the only determining factor in our lives to how we live, what you said would be fine... but that isn't what you're saying. Not by a long shot. You've certainly backpedaled to a point where it appears that's what you're saying, but this is why I said your heart betrays your mind. I want to believe all the flowery things you've said about helping people, but I can't take it seriously as it's in conflict with a core value you've expressed and shown no repentance toward.

Why do you refuse to hold people accountable for their actions?
...
I am not trying to make any excuse for what I said.  Taking the bait about the race issue was my fault and I should have let it lie.
...
There was also a hint of malice and self righteousness in your post no?

...and here's the rub. I basically took your expressed approach and philosophy and held you personally accountable for your choices on talking points by focusing only on the negative. This is similar to your meritocratic approach and saying that self-determinism is the primary driving force to why poor people are poor. You don't account for the flip-side to the philosophy in how it applies to the rich as well, and you turn a blind eye to the privilege and external forces that allows so many to be successful in the first place. I quote your own words and use your own ideas to hold you accountable for your saying some unsavory things without giving you the benefit of your station in life, except you clearly didn't like it much. Now, how do you think the poor people that you try to help with your altruism feel about your life philosophy of earned success through self-determination?

Meritocracy is clearly logical and without malice or self righteousness... well, until you're on the receiving end of what's deemed socially negative, anyway.

[randymarsh]

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

I guess that would be the rational thing to do. But we're mostly talking about teenagers and young adults. I don't think most 18 year olds realize how much trouble a few grams of pot can cause until it actually happens. Let's hope they don't get caught while in college because now they've lost their financial aid until they complete a "treatment" program.

The "considerable lengths" necessary to not get caught are much higher for blacks than whites. White people: go out on the porch of your suburban/rural home. Black people: Leave the city.

As a side note, I suspect it's really demoralizing seeing your white friends do what they want but realize you shouldn't because you'll get in trouble. That's bad for motivation and if there's anything poor people (of any color) need, it's motivation.

[EMP]

My husband is Hispanic and we lived in an area with a large Hispanic population, in the year prior to us leaving he was pulled over three time while I was in the car alone.  We moved to buffalo where most people think he is Italian, and has not gotten pulled over once.  No other changes.  It was kind of a smack in my face, showing me that racism.

So despite the large Hispanic population, the police force wasn't also made up of a higher percentage of Hispanic officers?

from Fuck da Police by NWA

 I don't know if they fags or what
 Search a nigga down, and grabbin his nuts
 And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none
 But don't let it be a black and a white one
 Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
 Black police showin out for the white cop

I'm sure there's a little of this going on as well.

[SisterX]

I'm really glad I'm not the only one who was reminded of Dickens while reading this thread.  I almost expected someone to bust out with, "Well if he's going to die he'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!"
Bluecheez, did it never occur to you that some of your classmates might have been dealing not just with poverty, but with horrible situations that you, perhaps, weren't?  Things like abuse.  Because, you know, kids who are physically and sexually abused are far, far more likely to do drugs and become sexually active at younger ages.  (Read this: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm)
I think there's also a major difference, which hasn't been addressed so far, by growing up poor and growing up in poverty.  There's a difference between the two that many of the people who've claimed "I grew up poor!" have missed.  And, among those who would like to be the most stingy about social welfare, the genteel poor are seen as far more "deserving" of help than those in true, soul-crushing, systemic, multi-generational poverty.  You're also clearly not suffering from such things as illiteracy, you most likely weren't (and I'm just guessing) physically, mentally, and sexually abused.  You don't seem to be suffering from any mental illness more serious than what my mother describes at "Tight-ass Syndrome".  You don't have PTSD, or if you do then you've clearly got the resources to fight it because you're on this forum.  Not everyone does.  Have some compassion, and not just for those people you think are "deserving".
My eldest brother is a social worker.  It's been eye-opening to hear his stories of his clients.  One was 28, had made it partway through high school, and was so illiterate she could barely write her own name.  Not sign, she couldn't write that well, she could barely spell her own name.
Another client had Paranoid Personality Disorder.  He had visions of people whispering death threats to him constantly, thought the pack of gum he'd bought might have been poisoned, etc.  And there were no meds that could treat him.
One guy was schizophrenic and came into my brother's office complaining that "they" were spreading rumors about him, talking behind his back, shunning him, being generally horrible.  "They" turned out to be the voices in his head.  He was on medication already.
I also know someone who tried shrooms once, in her words "went crazy" for a few months because of some horrible reaction, and when she came out of it she was homeless.  She doesn't remember much of what happened during those months.  You can say "consequences have actions, and she chose to do something both dangerous and illegal" all you want, but many people choose to do drugs and don't have the same reaction that she did.  That's called bad luck.  Is she less deserving of help than those with "genuine" mental illnesses and handicaps stated above?
I have a cousin who was abused by her stepmom for a while, and none of the adults knew it.  (Being younger, I did not have the words for what I suspected was happening, though I did try to tell my mom.)  My cousin became bulemic, started doing drugs, got entangled with some asshole and got pregnant at 19.  Sure, some of these things were the consequences of her actions.  And she's smart, she should have known better!  But she didn't even grow up in poverty or even genteel poor.  Her dad is firmly middle class and yet, it's taken her years to pull herself out of the mess she got into as a teenager, all because of some stupid bitch abusing her during her middle school years.  Does that make her any less deserving of help in your eyes?
I think it's ridiculous that so many people are judging "poor people" without knowing or sympathizing with any of the circumstances which they know nothing about.  And if you think a few news articles are going to give you all the facts (yeah, that woman did drugs for a while--the horror!--but it didn't say if she had any mental illness? was she abused as a child? raped?) then you're being incredibly, and I think willfully, naive.  Shame on you for your harshness.

[tmac]

The "considerable lengths" necessary to not get caught are much higher for blacks than whites. White people: go out on the porch of your suburban/rural home. Black people: Leave the city.

As a side note, I suspect it's really demoralizing seeing your white friends do what they want but realize you shouldn't because you'll get in trouble. That's bad for motivation and if there's anything poor people (of any color) need, it's motivation.

This seems relevant.

http://breakingbrown.com/2013/07/levar-burton-offers-black-men-tutorial-on-how-to-avoid-being-shot-by-cops-video/

[rocksinmyhead]

I'm really glad I'm not the only one who was reminded of Dickens while reading this thread.  I almost expected someone to bust out with, "Well if he's going to die he'd better do it, and decrease the surplus population!"
Bluecheez, did it never occur to you that some of your classmates might have been dealing not just with poverty, but with horrible situations that you, perhaps, weren't?  Things like abuse.  Because, you know, kids who are physically and sexually abused are far, far more likely to do drugs and become sexually active at younger ages.  (Read this: https://www.childwelfare.gov/pubs/factsheets/long_term_consequences.cfm)
I think there's also a major difference, which hasn't been addressed so far, by growing up poor and growing up in poverty.  There's a difference between the two that many of the people who've claimed "I grew up poor!" have missed.  And, among those who would like to be the most stingy about social welfare, the genteel poor are seen as far more "deserving" of help than those in true, soul-crushing, systemic, multi-generational poverty.  You're also clearly not suffering from such things as illiteracy, you most likely weren't (and I'm just guessing) physically, mentally, and sexually abused.  You don't seem to be suffering from any mental illness more serious than what my mother describes at "Tight-ass Syndrome".  You don't have PTSD, or if you do then you've clearly got the resources to fight it because you're on this forum.  Not everyone does.  Have some compassion, and not just for those people you think are "deserving".
My eldest brother is a social worker.  It's been eye-opening to hear his stories of his clients.  One was 28, had made it partway through high school, and was so illiterate she could barely write her own name.  Not sign, she couldn't write that well, she could barely spell her own name.
Another client had Paranoid Personality Disorder.  He had visions of people whispering death threats to him constantly, thought the pack of gum he'd bought might have been poisoned, etc.  And there were no meds that could treat him.
One guy was schizophrenic and came into my brother's office complaining that "they" were spreading rumors about him, talking behind his back, shunning him, being generally horrible.  "They" turned out to be the voices in his head.  He was on medication already.
I also know someone who tried shrooms once, in her words "went crazy" for a few months because of some horrible reaction, and when she came out of it she was homeless.  She doesn't remember much of what happened during those months.  You can say "consequences have actions, and she chose to do something both dangerous and illegal" all you want, but many people choose to do drugs and don't have the same reaction that she did.  That's called bad luck.  Is she less deserving of help than those with "genuine" mental illnesses and handicaps stated above?
I have a cousin who was abused by her stepmom for a while, and none of the adults knew it.  (Being younger, I did not have the words for what I suspected was happening, though I did try to tell my mom.)  My cousin became bulemic, started doing drugs, got entangled with some asshole and got pregnant at 19.  Sure, some of these things were the consequences of her actions.  And she's smart, she should have known better!  But she didn't even grow up in poverty or even genteel poor.  Her dad is firmly middle class and yet, it's taken her years to pull herself out of the mess she got into as a teenager, all because of some stupid bitch abusing her during her middle school years.  Does that make her any less deserving of help in your eyes?
I think it's ridiculous that so many people are judging "poor people" without knowing or sympathizing with any of the circumstances which they know nothing about.  And if you think a few news articles are going to give you all the facts (yeah, that woman did drugs for a while--the horror!--but it didn't say if she had any mental illness? was she abused as a child? raped?) then you're being incredibly, and I think willfully, naive.  Shame on you for your harshness.

*applause* great post, thanks SisterX. so important to remember that aspect of it.

[Jamesqf]

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

I guess that would be the rational thing to do. But we're mostly talking about teenagers and young adults. I don't think most 18 year olds realize how much trouble a few grams of pot can cause until it actually happens. Let's hope they don't get caught while in college because now they've lost their financial aid until they complete a "treatment" program.

Guess I must have been a good deal smarter than the average 18 year old, then.  Which brings us back to the meritocracy thing, doesn't it?

The "considerable lengths" necessary to not get caught are much higher for blacks than whites. White people: go out on the porch of your suburban/rural home. Black people: Leave the city.

Now isn't that as nice a bit of (inadvertent?) racial profiling as we've ever seen?  Of course all black people live in cities, and all white people in suburbs, or on their rural estates :-)

[Jamesqf]

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

Probably the best response to your question was posted all the way back on page 1 of this thread:

Some years ago, I got to attend a presentation or two from a sociologist.  I can't do it justice in a relatively short bit of text on a forum, but basically her idea was that the socioeconomic status you grow up in helps cement some of your values, which changes your thinking in ways you don't realize sometimes.

In the interests of brevity, I won't quote that whole thing over again.  But it simply goes back to the meritocracy thing again.  Is craving acceptance from your peer group any different than spending all your money on consumer bling?  Aren't we here interested in going against that cultural meme?  So why should we not see, as that sociologist apparently doesn't, that the memes don't have to control you?  As you say

But I have to look in the mirror.  My own social strata won't regard me positively if I'm not employed and don't have formal education and don't use trendy websites or take expensive vacations or if I'm not technology savvy, etc.

But why do you care what your social strata thinks?  I mean, I get along just fine not using trendy websites (unless you consider MMM as trendy :-), not taking expensive vacations, and being almost totally ignorant of most consumer-level tech.

[PeteD01]

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

I guess that would be the rational thing to do. But we're mostly talking about teenagers and young adults. I don't think most 18 year olds realize how much trouble a few grams of pot can cause until it actually happens. Let's hope they don't get caught while in college because now they've lost their financial aid until they complete a "treatment" program.

Guess I must have been a good deal smarter than the average 18 year old, then.  Which brings us back to the meritocracy thing, doesn't it?

The "considerable lengths" necessary to not get caught are much higher for blacks than whites. White people: go out on the porch of your suburban/rural home. Black people: Leave the city.

Now isn't that as nice a bit of (inadvertent?) racial profiling as we've ever seen?  Of course all black people live in cities, and all white people in suburbs, or on their rural estates :-)

About 20% of whites live in cities and about 70% of African Americans live in cities. There are more whites living in cities than African Americans. But a white person is four times as likely to live outside of the city as in the city and an African American person is more than two times more likely to live in the city.
For whatever it's worth....

[galliver]

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

I guess that would be the rational thing to do. But we're mostly talking about teenagers and young adults. I don't think most 18 year olds realize how much trouble a few grams of pot can cause until it actually happens. Let's hope they don't get caught while in college because now they've lost their financial aid until they complete a "treatment" program.

Guess I must have been a good deal smarter than the average 18 year old, then.  Which brings us back to the meritocracy thing, doesn't it?

The "considerable lengths" necessary to not get caught are much higher for blacks than whites. White people: go out on the porch of your suburban/rural home. Black people: Leave the city.

Now isn't that as nice a bit of (inadvertent?) racial profiling as we've ever seen?  Of course all black people live in cities, and all white people in suburbs, or on their rural estates :-)

About 20% of whites live in cities and about 70% of African Americans live in cities. There are more whites living in cities than African Americans. But a white person is four times as likely to live outside of the city as in the city and an African American person is more than two times more likely to live in the city.
For whatever its worth....

By the by, since we're on the subject: http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/12/most_poor_people_in_america_are_white.html

The media tends to confuse "population X is disproportionately Y" and "population Y is mostly X" I found it enlightening.

[Gin1984]

My husband is Hispanic and we lived in an area with a large Hispanic population, in the year prior to us leaving he was pulled over three time while I was in the car alone.  We moved to buffalo where most people think he is Italian, and has not gotten pulled over once.  No other changes.  It was kind of a smack in my face, showing me that racism.

So despite the large Hispanic population, the police force wasn't also made up of a higher percentage of Hispanic officers?

from Fuck da Police by NWA

 I don't know if they fags or what
 Search a nigga down, and grabbin his nuts
 And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none
 But don't let it be a black and a white one
 Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
 Black police showin out for the white cop

I'm sure there's a little of this going on as well.

Ok, cool, someone understood that.  Anyone want to translate for me?

[Daley]

Ok, cool, someone understood that.  Anyone want to translate for me?

Even if there's a proportionate number of any ethnic class in the police force that is reflective of the ethnic mix within the community, there's a far greater likelihood of racial profiling and police brutality on the ethnic segment of the population committed by the same ethnic segment of the police force for the sake of gaining favor with their white comrades and superiors while in the field... or in layman's terms, selling out to the man.

I don't know if they fags or what
Search a nigga down, and grabbin his nuts
And on the other hand, without a gun they can't get none

They are implying that the police are masochistic homosexuals who can only get their jollies by assaulting black people as they otherwise couldn't do so with their own race without likely getting caught.

But don't let it be a black and a white one

A black officer paired with a white officer.

Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin out for the white cop

The black officer will show off for his white partner by treating one of his own with extreme prejudice and brutality, greater than what might have otherwise been experienced solely by an encounter with only white officers.

That is basically what NWA is implying with their lyrics, and it appears at least on first blush to be reflective of your husband's past experiences as well.

Edited for further clarity.

[Gin1984]

Ok, cool, someone understood that.  Anyone want to translate for me?

Even if there's a proportionate number of any ethnic class in the police force that is reflective of the ethnic mix within the community, there's a far greater likelihood of racial profiling and police brutality on the ethnic segment of the population committed by the same ethnic segment of the police force for the sake of gaining favor with their white comrades and superiors while in the field... or in layman's terms, selling out to the man.

But don't let it be a black and a white one

A black officer paired with a white officer.

Cause they'll slam ya down to the street top
Black police showin out for the white cop

The black officer will show off for his white partner by treating one of his own with extreme prejudice and brutality.

That is basically what NWA is implying with their lyrics, and it appears at least on first blush to be reflective of your husband's past experiences as well.

Ah, thank you. 

[Constance Noring]

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

Probably the best response to your question was posted all the way back on page 1 of this thread:

Some years ago, I got to attend a presentation or two from a sociologist.  I can't do it justice in a relatively short bit of text on a forum, but basically her idea was that the socioeconomic status you grow up in helps cement some of your values, which changes your thinking in ways you don't realize sometimes.

In the interests of brevity, I won't quote that whole thing over again.  But it simply goes back to the meritocracy thing again.  Is craving acceptance from your peer group any different than spending all your money on consumer bling?  Aren't we here interested in going against that cultural meme?  So why should we not see, as that sociologist apparently doesn't, that the memes don't have to control you?  As you say

But I have to look in the mirror.  My own social strata won't regard me positively if I'm not employed and don't have formal education and don't use trendy websites or take expensive vacations or if I'm not technology savvy, etc.

But why do you care what your social strata thinks?  I mean, I get along just fine not using trendy websites (unless you consider MMM as trendy :-), not taking expensive vacations, and being almost totally ignorant of most consumer-level tech.

Because the vast majority of human beings define themselves in terms of their social experience - their kin, peers, and others perceived to be of their tribe. It's a not a terribly rational and objective way to go about self-definition; constantly moving in reaction to those around us, but expecting people to be rational and objective even 50% of the time is a sucker's game.

You may be perfectly comfortable not caring about the opinion of your social strata. It may even be more comfortable for you than the alternative. But what is true for you may be utter falsehood for another, and we cannot dismiss the experiences of others simply because we find them to be nonsensical. We can't shake our heads, shrug our shoulders, and give up on entire swathes of humanity just because we can't relate to their thought processes and mores.

[libertarian4321]

Should we call whine-one-one and have them send a whambulance?  Maybe they can stop and pick up a whamburger and some french cries.

Perfect example of a really asshole thing to say.  Also not the least bit funny or creative.   

The rich and powerful want the middle class to shit on the poor, it's the whole divide and conquer thing.

Do you really think those with money sit around all day thinking of ways to screw the poor?

At worst, the rich ignore the poor.  They sure as heck aren't wasting time plotting against the poor.  There is no need to, as the poor are pretty good at self-destruction.

I suspect most "rich" people just want to be left the Hell alone.

[warfreak2]

Ok, cool, someone understood that.  Anyone want to translate for me?

RapGenius has you covered:

Don’t think that having a police officer be black means that he or she will treat minorities better. Cube points out that these officers will still mistreat kids in order to show off to their bosses, or simply because that’s the nature of the job. Read here for a troubling investigation of this phenomenon

[Jamesqf]

About 20% of whites live in cities and about 70% of African Americans live in cities. There are more whites living in cities than African Americans. But a white person is four times as likely to live outside of the city as in the city and an African American person is more than two times more likely to live in the city.
For whatever it's worth....

Isn't that the definition of stereotyping, though?  Because a significant number of Group X do something, claim that ALL members of the group must.

By the by, since we're on the subject: http://www.theroot.com/articles/culture/2013/12/most_poor_people_in_america_are_white.html

Another good point.  And from my own experience, I can't see all that much difference between "Driving While Black" and driving while poor & white.  My opinion is that cops, whether they're black, brown, or white, only care about two colors: blue and green.

You may be perfectly comfortable not caring about the opinion of your social strata. It may even be more comfortable for you than the alternative. But what is true for you may be utter falsehood for another, and we cannot dismiss the experiences of others simply because we find them to be nonsensical. We can't shake our heads, shrug our shoulders, and give up on entire swathes of humanity just because we can't relate to their thought processes and mores.

Why not?  Don't we do just this in many circumstances?  Indeed, when we do try to help (or to be neutral, change attitudes) in ways that might actually have some chance of success, isn't that almost always dismissed as cultural imperialism?

It's really nothing more than the crab bucket again.  In what is mostly a meritocracy, you still have a number of people who find themselves in comfortable positions because of someone else's merits (usually parents).  They can recognize, if only subconsciously, that they have no particular merit themselves, and try to make themselves feel better by denying the possibility of merit in others.  Reduce everyone to the least common denominator, and they're no longer below average.

[randymarsh]

So let me ask a possibly impolite question: if you knew that you were being targeted because of some behaviorial stereotype, say marijuana smoking, wouldn't you avoid the behavior if at all possible?  Or at least, go to considerable lengths to make sure you didn't get caught?

I guess that would be the rational thing to do. But we're mostly talking about teenagers and young adults. I don't think most 18 year olds realize how much trouble a few grams of pot can cause until it actually happens. Let's hope they don't get caught while in college because now they've lost their financial aid until they complete a "treatment" program.

Guess I must have been a good deal smarter than the average 18 year old, then.  Which brings us back to the meritocracy thing, doesn't it?

The "considerable lengths" necessary to not get caught are much higher for blacks than whites. White people: go out on the porch of your suburban/rural home. Black people: Leave the city.

Now isn't that as nice a bit of (inadvertent?) racial profiling as we've ever seen?  Of course all black people live in cities, and all white people in suburbs, or on their rural estates :-)

You want to call black kids getting stopped and frisked while white kids walk on by a meritocracy?

A black person is more likely to live in the city and therefore more likely to be caught due to increased police interaction.

[libertarian4321]

Doing something illegal is still illegal... Don't try and shift the blame.  They made the choice to go against the law (even though I feel it should not be illegal I still don't do it only because of the inconvienient law).

External factors are our trials and tribulations.  Nothing is thrown at us that we can't handle- the only changing factor is how we decide to act in our times of trial.  They help us to grow strong and overcome things we never thought were possible.  People need to focus on bettering themselves through hardwork and good choices- not on propping up those who continuously choose to make the wrong choices- again a wrong choice is relative- for them it could be the right one and they are exactly where they belong/want to be.

Could it be possible that blacks are 4x-8x more likely to be arrested for weed because 4x-8x more blacks are CHOOSING to smoke weed?  I don't know the answer just saying it could be possible.

If we just end the expensive, failed, and probably racist "War on Drugs" we could eliminate this particular problem.

[warfreak2]

Isn't that the definition of stereotyping, though?  Because a significant number of Group X do something, claim that ALL members of the group must.

Nobody made that claim?

And from my own experience, I can't see all that much difference between "Driving While Black" and driving while poor & white.

How do you have experience of both "driving while black" and "driving while poor and white"?

[Jamesqf]

You want to call black kids getting stopped and frisked while white kids walk on by a meritocracy?

Nope.  But I want to see experimental controls that exclude everything but skin color before I say that it's skin color that gets them stopped.  Suppose we look at arrest rates of poor white urban skinheads, outlaw bikers, or whatever the current equivalents to black ghetto culture would be: don't you suppose they get stopped for what they (and I) would see a 'no reason'.   As you yourself say:

A black person is more likely to live in the city and therefore more likely to be caught due to increased police interaction.

Now is the increased chance of being caught a result of being black, or of living in a city?  Certainly it's not that difficult for me, a rural dweller, to find places where I'm five or ten miles from the nearest human, let alone cop, which would certainly decrease my chance of getting caught at anything I wanted to do.

How do you have experience of both "driving while black" and "driving while poor and white"?

(Sigh) Obviously, I read accounts of other people's experiences of DWB, compare them to my own experiences of 'Driving While Poor', and see that they're not all that different.

[Constance Noring]

Should we call whine-one-one and have them send a whambulance?  Maybe they can stop and pick up a whamburger and some french cries.

Perfect example of a really asshole thing to say.  Also not the least bit funny or creative.   

The rich and powerful want the middle class to shit on the poor, it's the whole divide and conquer thing.

Do you really think those with money sit around all day thinking of ways to screw the poor?

At worst, the rich ignore the poor.  They sure as heck aren't wasting time plotting against the poor.  There is no need to, as the poor are pretty good at self-destruction.

I suspect most "rich" people just want to be left the Hell alone.

With great income comes great social responsibility.

[libertarian4321]

Should we call whine-one-one and have them send a whambulance?  Maybe they can stop and pick up a whamburger and some french cries.

Perfect example of a really asshole thing to say.  Also not the least bit funny or creative.   

The rich and powerful want the middle class to shit on the poor, it's the whole divide and conquer thing.

Do you really think those with money sit around all day thinking of ways to screw the poor?

At worst, the rich ignore the poor.  They sure as heck aren't wasting time plotting against the poor.  There is no need to, as the poor are pretty good at self-destruction.

I suspect most "rich" people just want to be left the Hell alone.

With great income comes great social responsibility.

What do you mean by "social responsibility?"

Do you mean just being a good person- being kind to others/not harming them, taking care of your family, being a productive citizen, hopefully donating time and money to charity, etc. 

Or by "social responsibility" do you mean that a person who has money (though he may not necessarily have a high income) must be forced to have some of his money forcefully confiscated and spent as some bureaucrat/politician sees fit?

[MrFancypants]

Do you really think those with money sit around all day thinking of ways to screw the poor?

At worst, the rich ignore the poor.  They sure as heck aren't wasting time plotting against the poor.  There is no need to, as the poor are pretty good at self-destruction.

I suspect most "rich" people just want to be left the Hell alone.

With great income comes great social responsibility.

huh?

[MDM]

With great income comes great social responsibility.

Catchy phrase, but do you really believe it?  If so...why?

Assuming we are talking about legal, ethical income, people with "great" incomes have achieved them because they provided something of value (e.g., surgical skills, innovative thinking, etc.) that others were willing to pay for.  Why are those people then "responsible" for doing anything more?

[Gin1984]

You want to call black kids getting stopped and frisked while white kids walk on by a meritocracy?

Nope.  But I want to see experimental controls that exclude everything but skin color before I say that it's skin color that gets them stopped.  Suppose we look at arrest rates of poor white urban skinheads, outlaw bikers, or whatever the current equivalents to black ghetto culture would be: don't you suppose they get stopped for what they (and I) would see a 'no reason'.   As you yourself say:

A black person is more likely to live in the city and therefore more likely to be caught due to increased police interaction.

Now is the increased chance of being caught a result of being black, or of living in a city?  Certainly it's not that difficult for me, a rural dweller, to find places where I'm five or ten miles from the nearest human, let alone cop, which would certainly decrease my chance of getting caught at anything I wanted to do.

How do you have experience of both "driving while black" and "driving while poor and white"?

(Sigh) Obviously, I read accounts of other people's experiences of DWB, compare them to my own experiences of 'Driving While Poor', and see that they're not all that different.

Did you read my experience?  The only difference is that the people in this area think my husband is white.  Pretty damning, IMO.

[EMP]

Should we call whine-one-one and have them send a whambulance?  Maybe they can stop and pick up a whamburger and some french cries.

Perfect example of a really asshole thing to say.  Also not the least bit funny or creative.   

The rich and powerful want the middle class to shit on the poor, it's the whole divide and conquer thing.

Do you really think those with money sit around all day thinking of ways to screw the poor?

At worst, the rich ignore the poor.  They sure as heck aren't wasting time plotting against the poor.  There is no need to, as the poor are pretty good at self-destruction.

I suspect most "rich" people just want to be left the Hell alone.

I don't think they're actively malicious.  I think, instead, they view the poor as being less human than themselves.  Or that their vision is so narrowly defined, by the insulation their wealth provides, that they are blind (willfully or not) to the plight of others. 

[MrFancypants]

I don't think they're actively malicious.  I think, instead, they view the poor as being less human than themselves.  Or that their vision is so narrowly defined, by the insulation their wealth provides, that they are blind (willfully or not) to the plight of others.

I read a study a while back that suggested that humans in general only have the ability to recognize something like another 100 people as individual, unique people.  Basically what this means is that you likely don't recognize the garbage man as another human being, but just as some random function of society that you pay to remove your waste.

Rich people aren't any different.  I don't think they view the poor as being less human than themselves.  Some might, sure, the same as there are racist people who hate whole segments of the population for no reason other than that they're different.  What I'm saying is that I doubt most wealthy people give poor people a second thought.

[matchewed]

You want to call black kids getting stopped and frisked while white kids walk on by a meritocracy?

Nope.  But I want to see experimental controls that exclude everything but skin color before I say that it's skin color that gets them stopped.  Suppose we look at arrest rates of poor white urban skinheads, outlaw bikers, or whatever the current equivalents to black ghetto culture would be: don't you suppose they get stopped for what they (and I) would see a 'no reason'.   As you yourself say:

A black person is more likely to live in the city and therefore more likely to be caught due to increased police interaction.

Now is the increased chance of being caught a result of being black, or of living in a city?  Certainly it's not that difficult for me, a rural dweller, to find places where I'm five or ten miles from the nearest human, let alone cop, which would certainly decrease my chance of getting caught at anything I wanted to do.

How do you have experience of both "driving while black" and "driving while poor and white"?

(Sigh) Obviously, I read accounts of other people's experiences of DWB, compare them to my own experiences of 'Driving While Poor', and see that they're not all that different.

James would you agree that there are just as many poor white people as poor black people in NYC? Given that wouldn't things like Stop and Frisk be equally distributed amongst race? Because there are statistics that show that being a black or latino male in NYC means you have an increased chance of being stopped, no need for a controlled experiment.

http://www.nyclu.org/news/new-nyclu-report-finds-nypd-stop-and-frisk-practices-ineffective-reveals-depth-of-racial-dispar



Furthermore Brooklyn's demographics have black people at 36% of the population of Brooklyn. Yet black people constituted nearly 70% of the stops for the 75th precinct in Brooklyn.

You're proposing that within one precinct that black people are predominantly poor rather than being stopped because they're black? Well that may not be true. There may be as many poor white people in Brooklyn as black people. (Full disclosure questionable source as I can't find corroborating evidence. Feel free to toss it out but also remember that the numbers for poor white people is definitely not so low as to constitute such a low amount of stops for white people. After all 28% of white kids are in low income in Brooklyn.)

[Jamesqf]

Did you read my experience?  The only difference is that the people in this area think my husband is white.  Pretty damning, IMO.

No, another difference is that you moved from San Jose to Buffalo (IIRC).  Could be that cops in that area treat everyone differently.

To veer off topic a bit (as though we haven't already), maybe the reason people in that area think your husband is white is because to them he IS.  (And should be, by any rational definition.)  I grew up not all that far from there, and there were many Hispanic-surnamed families - Castro, Diaz, Garcia, Suarez, etc - who'd been living there for generations (as had everyone else), and had of course intermarried with everyone else, so that an Hispanic surname was of no more account than an English, Irish, French, or middle European one.  The whole Hispanic as a different racial/ethnic grouping is a fairly recent creation, started in the Southwest.

James would you agree that there are just as many poor white people as poor black people in NYC?

I don't know, but will accept it as a working hypothesis.

Given that wouldn't things like Stop and Frisk be equally distributed amongst race?

You're leaving out cultural variables.  Suppose we look at poor white city dwellers, and consider how arrest/stop & frisk incidents are distributed between the general population and fringe groups who use dress and other signals to proclaim that they put themselves outside the mainstream?  Wouldn't you expect to find that those groups have disproportionately higher rates?  So now you have an urban black culture which uses the same sort of signals to proclaim that they're outsider: why is it surprising when they are treated that way?  As has been said, actions have consequences.

That circles back close to where we started.  If you are a person who knows (or believes) that their race or whatever is going to attract police attention, why would you not try to minimize the risk, or at least the consequences?  If I go backpacking in bear country, do I leave my food out to attract them?  Or (as I have seen done) do I deliberately put out bait to tease them?  If I'm dumb enough to do this, do I have any business complaining when the bear tries to eat me?

[warfreak2]

James would you agree that there are just as many poor white people as poor black people in NYC?

Oh, James has already pre-empetively defined that the black people being stopped-and-frisked must be compared not to white people, but to skinheads. Because, as you know, racism is so incredibly, impossibly rare that it can't ever explain statistical differences between the experiences of white and black people; the difference must be because of gang membership.

[warfreak2]

If I go backpacking in bear country, do I leave my food out to attract them?  Or (as I have seen done) do I deliberately put out bait to tease them?  If I'm dumb enough to do this, do I have any business complaining when the bear tries to eat me?

Are you really comparing police officers with metaphorical bears who, by nature, hunt for metaphorical meat (black people)? While simultaneously maintaining that the police are not racist?

[matchewed]

Did you read my experience?  The only difference is that the people in this area think my husband is white.  Pretty damning, IMO.

No, another difference is that you moved from San Jose to Buffalo (IIRC).  Could be that cops in that area treat everyone differently.

To veer off topic a bit (as though we haven't already), maybe the reason people in that area think your husband is white is because to them he IS.  (And should be, by any rational definition.)  I grew up not all that far from there, and there were many Hispanic-surnamed families - Castro, Diaz, Garcia, Suarez, etc - who'd been living there for generations (as had everyone else), and had of course intermarried with everyone else, so that an Hispanic surname was of no more account than an English, Irish, French, or middle European one.  The whole Hispanic as a different racial/ethnic grouping is a fairly recent creation, started in the Southwest.

James would you agree that there are just as many poor white people as poor black people in NYC?

I don't know, but will accept it as a working hypothesis.

Given that wouldn't things like Stop and Frisk be equally distributed amongst race?

You're leaving out cultural variables.  Suppose we look at poor white city dwellers, and consider how arrest/stop & frisk incidents are distributed between the general population and fringe groups who use dress and other signals to proclaim that they put themselves outside the mainstream?  Wouldn't you expect to find that those groups have disproportionately higher rates?  So now you have an urban black culture which uses the same sort of signals to proclaim that they're outsider: why is it surprising when they are treated that way?  As has been said, actions have consequences.

That circles back close to where we started.  If you are a person who knows (or believes) that their race or whatever is going to attract police attention, why would you not try to minimize the risk, or at least the consequences?  If I go backpacking in bear country, do I leave my food out to attract them?  Or (as I have seen done) do I deliberately put out bait to tease them?  If I'm dumb enough to do this, do I have any business complaining when the bear tries to eat me?

So why is white poor culture considered non fringe yet poor black culture considered fringe? Could it perhaps be that a white majority culture has demonized a black minority culture? And that your last paragraph could be summed up with "if they'd just be more white culture like and less black culture like they wouldn't be targeted as much". You're also equating the police force, a force of humans with an ability to be discerning if they so choose, with the instinctual actions of a bear. They don't get a pass like that. Why do you think they do? Why are you putting the onus on the people getting persecuted? Let's even write off that analogy and use another more appropriate analogy as it involves two human agencies. Do you think that people are (insert crime against them here) because of how they (insert behavior or dress here)? Maybe they shouldn't bait the people that perform (insert crime against them here) or whatever would attract a (insert crime against them here)ist attention?

If we'd all just fall in line with our clothing and music choice we'd never get arrested. And while we're at it please dance at arms length, no skirts above the knees, and stop feeding the damn bears.

[EMP]

I don't think they're actively malicious.  I think, instead, they view the poor as being less human than themselves.  Or that their vision is so narrowly defined, by the insulation their wealth provides, that they are blind (willfully or not) to the plight of others.

I read a study a while back that suggested that humans in general only have the ability to recognize something like another 100 people as individual, unique people.  Basically what this means is that you likely don't recognize the garbage man as another human being, but just as some random function of society that you pay to remove your waste.

Rich people aren't any different.  I don't think they view the poor as being less human than themselves.  Some might, sure, the same as there are racist people who hate whole segments of the population for no reason other than that they're different.  What I'm saying is that I doubt most wealthy people give poor people a second thought.

I think there's plenty of evidence in just this thread to suggest that the poor are being viewed as less smart, less hardworking, less determined, less worthy, etc.  Rather than equally human and subject to the flaws and foibles as the rest of us. 

But I don't think we really disagree.