Uncomfortable Conversations with a Black man

[Thermal]

Good lord, that's looniness on the order of "white women's tears." (If you don't know, Google it, you won't regret it.)

LOL, my wife and daughters do this when they are losing an argument. "How can you be so cruel?" when all I asked was why they wouldn't turn on the exhaust fan when showering.

 

[varwoche]

That would be up to you. I would not be prepared to comment on the CONTENT of the video unless I have seen it. For mine, that is just a given minimum standard for any debate.

My objection, however, is the knee-jerk criticism of the OP for not presenting everything on a silver platter for the potential viewer, and then, as Mumbles said the preening about how great they are for not watching a video, in a thread about the video.

Err, did you actually read the OP?

I don't subscribe to this one bit. I expect explanations. But unlike you, I'm mindful that mileage varies, and I try not to play hall monitor.

 

[TragicMonkey]

LOL, my wife and daughters do this when they are losing an argument. "How can you be so cruel?" when all I asked was why they wouldn't turn on the exhaust fan when showering.

How is it possible to not turn on the exhaust fan? Ugh! Unless they take exclusively cold showers...I feel sick just thinking about the humidity in there, and how it encourages mildew.

 

[Thermal]

How is it possible to not turn on the exhaust fan? Ugh! Unless they take exclusively cold showers...I feel sick just thinking about the humidity in there, and how it encourages mildew.

I used mildew resident paints and other measures to keep it clean, but they all seem to like the cloud of steam effect. Kind of like a sauna, I suppose. I first wired the fan to come on with the light so they had no choice, but daytime showers made that useless. I really need to get a fan with an automatic humidistat but that seems like a lot of work

 

[Ron Obvious]

How is it possible to not turn on the exhaust fan? Ugh! Unless they take exclusively cold showers...I feel sick just thinking about the humidity in there, and how it encourages mildew.

Oh, the humidity! :

 

[ponderingturtle]

You are saying the reason blacks commit so much crime against fellow blacks is it is the police's fault.

Can you expand on this logic?

It is actually really simple, the cop who harrassed/beat you for no good reason is not someone you will go to with information about a crime. By fostering antagonism against the community they make effective law enforcement more difficult with their heavy handed actions.

 

[ponderingturtle]

FIrst: commenting on a video is one matter, preeneing about how great you are for not watching a video, in a thread about the video, is being proud of one's ignorance.

Second - dude was not in a bike crash, it's an analogy for not listening at all when someone warns you about oncoming trouble. Tupac makes a similar point in this video starting at 1:15 in...

Sure but it is a bad analogy because of how controllable a bike is. A train would be a much better metaphor as it can't swerve or stop and stopping in the railroad crossing is going to end badly if you don't pay attention to the warning signs.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Regardless, the video host said outright that he doen't like riots.

But.

If you repeatedly and pointedly ignore or encourage people that, again and again, shout about their urgent issues, with increased frequency and anger, sooner or later you'll end up with a riot.

It's not a surprise that almost every riot in recent memory has been sparked by the exact same thing that sparked them in the days of MLK Jr. - namely, an out of control police force that's openly violent and disrespectful, people that at best live paycheck to paycheck (again, "I've got a job!" isn't enough here), and when people finally protest, authorities scream and inflict mass violence - often on people who were at most just marching down the street, or who weren't even doing that.

Well that or sports or pumpkins, white riots count too. But rioting because your sports team won seems to be rather acceptable to most Americans.

 

[smartcooky]

If you criminalize something that a lot of people like to or basically have to do and that isn’t really very offensive or harmful to most of the community, (messing with people for possessing marijuana, suspending drivers licenses for minor infractions and then piling on driving with suspended license charges etc, etc) and then the cops spend all their time essentially bothering everyday joes, then.

Yeah the community stops wanting or trusting the police’s help with the serious crime that the police ought to be concerned with. Not least because the perception, and sometimes the reality, is that police don’t expend much effort on serious crime as compared to harassing people in general.

Police do this because its easier to just dish out traffic tickets for minor infractions, and citations for minor drug possession and then pile on extra charges to make them into crimes. They can also make money at it using "civil forfeiture"

https://ij.org/report/policing-for-...ate-protections-nebraska-troopers-seize-cash/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture

https://amp.flipboard.com/@WashPost...OFg:a:234908068-767ee18584/washingtonpost.com

Doing actual police work to catch murderers, burglars, fraudsters etc well that is harder, and it COSTS money, with no way to get it back.

The so called "war on drugs" was never anything more that a war on poor people because apart from a few cases where the cops got lucky with an inside tip and made a big drug bust, the drug lords were able continue to go about their work unfettered.

 

[TomB]

You are saying the reason blacks commit so much crime against fellow blacks is it is the police's fault.

Can you expand on this logic?

No, he's not.

Crime follows poverty. So impoverished areas tend to have higher crime rates. When an impoverished area is white, you have white on white crime. when the neighborhood is black, you have black on black crime. Criminals don't choose their targets because of race. Since most interpersonal conflicts are local, the perpetrators and victims tend to come from the same neighborhoods and look the same.

Now, in the poor white areas, people have some level of trust in the police. At least to the point of being reasonably confident that if they call the police that they won't themselves be treated as criminals, arrested, or worse. But that trust isn't there in minority communities. Which is why the police need to be reformed before people in those areas will trust them enough to help address crime.

 

[smartcooky]

No, he's not.

Crime follows poverty. So impoverished areas tend to have higher crime rates. When an impoverished area is white, you have white on white crime. when the neighborhood is black, you have black on black crime. Criminals don't choose their targets because of race. Since most interpersonal conflicts are local, the perpetrators and victims tend to come from the same neighborhoods and look the same.

Now, in the poor white areas, people have some level of trust in the police. At least to the point of being reasonably confident that if they call the police that they won't themselves be treated as criminals, arrested, or worse. But that trust isn't there in minority communities. Which is why the police need to be reformed before people in those areas will trust them enough to help address crime.

This pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

Black people aren't more likely to commit crimes than white people because they are black, they are more likely to commit them because they poor, and black people are more likely to be poor. The reasons they are more likely to be poor that is the issue which needs addressing, and among those reasons are the way society treats them, and the way society disadvantages them - a society that is mostly controlled by the white population.

 

[Thermal]

This pretty much sums it up in a nutshell.

Black people aren't more likely to commit crimes than white people because they are black, they are more likely to commit them because they poor, and black people are more likely to be poor. The reasons they are more likely to be poor that is the issue which needs addressing, and among those reasons are the way society treats them, and the way society disadvantages them - a society that is mostly controlled by the white population.

*glances at Appalachia*

 

[smartcooky]

*glances at Appalachia*

Well, we are talking about civilization here, not the back-blocks of Hicktown USA where they suffer form the "resource curse". I also doubt there would be much "black on black" crime there due to insufficient potential perps and victims. As I said, this kind of crime is about poor people, not black people, so that probably applies there as well.

 

[Ron Obvious]

Well, we are talking about civilization here, not the back-blocks of Hicktown USA where they suffer form the "resource curse". I also doubt there would be much "black on black" crime there due to insufficient potential perps and victims. As I said, this kind of crime is about poor people, not black people, so that probably applies there as well.

I don't see how any of this addresses his point, which I assume is: if poverty is the leading or at least major cause of crime and violence, why isn't there more crime and violence in the extremely poor white area of Apalachia?

 

[Thermal]

Well, we are talking about civilization here, not the back-blocks of Hicktown USA where they suffer form the "resource curse". I also doubt there would be much "black on black" crime there due to insufficient potential perps and victims. As I said, this kind of crime is about poor people, not black people, so that probably applies there as well.

Right, but my argument is really that poverty=crime is a little oversimplified. I think the problem is more complex and multi-faceted, although being broke surely contributes heavily.

I still think lack of realistic opportunities is the biggest problem. Poor school systems that roadblock being prepared for higher education being the single biggest contributor.
My wife is Child Study Team in a poor district where tan lines are not an issue if you catch my drift. Graduating on a grade school reading level is a real thing, and a show stopper career wise, barring a few who are exceptionally driven.

Eta: regarding your intro about "we are talking about civilization here", I was unaware of a geographical constraint to the discussion. Have you throttled it down to predominantly black urban areas or something? I missed the memo.

Also, Appalachia is home to 25 million Americans and runs through 13 states, encompassing all of West Virginia. Not exactly a small town anomaly.

 

[bluesjnr]

I don't see how any of this addresses his point, which I assume is: if poverty is the leading or at least major cause of crime and violence, why isn't there more crime and violence in the extremely poor white area of Apalachia?

Here you go smartcooky, have at it.

 

[MRC_Hans]

Unfortunately he lost my sympathy a short way into the first video with a story about how he as a black man cycling shouts at a white girl running in front of him to get out of his way. She fails to do so, and he rides into her. No recognition that a person on a bike coming from behind has the responsibility to avoid the collision. No recognition of how scared the girl must have been to have him land on her. He assumes she did not hear him because she had head phones in, but she might also have been deaf, a complete lack of awareness of invisible disability, and the need of the able bodied to accommodate the less abled. No recognition that as a man he somehow felt entitled to the right of way and women should give way to him.

Yes, that part was where he lost me, too.

Hans

 

[Mumbles]

Police do this because its easier to just dish out traffic tickets for minor infractions, and citations for minor drug possession and then pile on extra charges to make them into crimes. They can also make money at it using "civil forfeiture"

https://ij.org/report/policing-for-...ate-protections-nebraska-troopers-seize-cash/

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/12/1/16686014/phillip-parhamovich-civil-forfeiture

https://amp.flipboard.com/@WashPost...OFg:a:234908068-767ee18584/washingtonpost.com

Doing actual police work to catch murderers, burglars, fraudsters etc well that is harder, and it COSTS money, with no way to get it back.

The so called "war on drugs" was never anything more that a war on poor people because apart from a few cases where the cops got lucky with an inside tip and made a big drug bust, the drug lords were able continue to go about their work unfettered.

To be honest:

Back in the 60s-90s, a lot of black people would be fine with arresting weed users as well - buying into the "gateway drug" myth that it would lead to heroin or, later on, crack, which people *really* hated. This is part of why Biden can, correctly, say that the 1994 crime bill was a mistake, and that many black people wanted it. Both are true.

And there were many more arguments on how to deal with crime - more black police (the idea being that they would be either unburdened by white supremacism, or that they would at least not be completely unconcerned by violent crime and less likely to be openly hostile to black people in general) would lead to action against violent crime. But if police concentrate on that instead of violence, there's a major problem - particularly once the violent criminals organize and threaten potential witnesses.

But what's false - and what anyone should have recognized as false *immediately* - is that black people "don't talk about" their own kids shooting and killing each other.

 

[theprestige]

I don't see how any of this addresses his point, which I assume is: if poverty is the leading or at least major cause of crime and violence, why isn't there more crime and violence in the extremely poor white area of Apalachia?

More crime and violence than what?

I think a lot of it is going to be about population density. Poor rural areas are going to have more crime than rich rural areas. But I bet they're going to have less crime per capita than correspondingly poor urban areas simply because there's lower population density.

Pure conjecture, I admit. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised that if you controlled for population density, poor rural blacks end up having a lower crime rate than poor rural whites.

 

[Thermal]

More crime and violence than what?

I think a lot of it is going to be about population density. Poor rural areas are going to have more crime than rich rural areas. But I bet they're going to have less crime per capita than correspondingly poor urban areas simply because there's lower population density.

Pure conjecture, I admit. But I wouldn't be surprised if it's the case. Honestly I wouldn't be surprised that if you controlled for population density, poor rural blacks end up having a lower crime rate than poor rural whites.

I'd add that urban areas throw blatant wealth disparity into higher contrast, too. A poor urban Have-Not has the Haves right in his face daily. Appalachians might feel like they are all in it together.