When crime rates are taken into account, those studies show very little.

what's the universe of people questioned as part of the PPCS? — Benkei

Depends on the survey.

most of them are based on rates not totals, so that's a swing and a miss.

and in any case you would have to actually show that the math works out as you claim (that the disparities disappear when accounting for rates rather than totals)- that's far too vague and non-specific a criticism to count as a meaningful rebuttal to serious academic studies of the topic, even if it were true (which it isn't). If you have any specific or substantive replies to these or similar studies, let me know, otherwise there's not much else to say here.

Simpson's paradox. Look it up.

Wrong. So you put out a blurb referencing a survey, which I then look up and read, share with you, you allege I haven't read and then you don't even now the universe of respondents after I literally quoted it word for word from the latest survey? Disingenuous much?

Edit: again, what's the universe of respondents?

I think a better question is does systemic racism exist in countries or systems with a racial majority? I'd say probably. People are people they just look different. I'd say it's a universal biological inclination toward the familiar or aversion to the unfamiliar that plays a major role. Experience. A majority in a country that has been oppressed before is likely to be oppressed again. In a connected and diverse world this may be done more subtly. Targeting a groups weaknesses or inclinations in order to groom them to essentially destroy themselves. Violent rap music, for example. It sounds good. It's exciting. It's cool and as a minority youth it's a powerful and sometimes even wise father figure I can look up to and respect, especially if I lack one.

Again, everyone is a minority somewhere. The world was a tough place not that long ago. You can see it even today.

most of them are based on rates not totals — Enai De A Lukal

That is not how it works, but you seemed to have already understood this:

and in any case you would have to actually show that the math works out as you claim (that the disparities disappear when account for rates rather than totals) — Enai De A Lukal

I would have to show no such thing, since I assert nothing other than that the data the people claim to exist does not seem to be there. Those who wish to conclude from studies such as the ones you linked that systemic racism exists need to provide proof.

Actually it is how it works. The studies are rates of police violence by race/ethnicity, not totals. And yes, if you assert, as you did above, that the cited studies do not show what they claim to show, then you absolutely need to back that assertion up, in this case by showing why the data doesn't entail the conclusions the authors claim. Sort of how this whole thing works. If you're unable/unwilling to meet your burden of proof, that's your prerogative. But it means you've effectively retracted your claim.

And in any case you do not appear to be serious about the discussion, as evidenced by your refusal to engage in any way with studies showing precisely what you claimed (without evidence) that there was no evidence for (an amusing irony, btw).

Wrong. So you put out a blurb referencing a survey, which I then look up and read, share with you, you allege I haven't read and then you don't even now the universe of respondents after I literally quoted it word for word from the latest survey? Disingenuous much? — Benkei

No, simply not a native English speaker.

Please make your point about the study, if you have one.

Actually it is how it works. The studies are rates of police violence by race/ethnicity, not totals. And yes, if you assert, as you did above, that the cited studies do not show what they claim to show, then you absolutely need to back that assertion up, in this case by showing why the data doesn't entail the conclusions the authors claim. Sort of how this whole thing works. If you're unable/unwilling to meet your burden of proof, that's your prerogative. But it means you've effectively retracted your claim. — Enai De A Lukal

Obviously if certain ethnicities are overrepresented in certain crimes like homocide, that needs to be taken into account when judging the numbers, even when it is a 'rate'.

And the claim here is that systemic racism exists in the USA, and you will need more than statistics without context to make that claim. That is essentially what I (and Larry Elder in the video) take issue with.

And in any case you do not appear to be serious about the discussion, as evidenced by your refusal to engage in any way with studies showing precisely what you claimed (without evidence) that there was no evidence (amusing irony, btw). — Enai De A Lukal

I actually tried to access the studies, but was greeted by a pay wall.

I already did. You cannot infer what you wanted to infer about systemic racism within the police in their interactions with suspects from the way police treat victims. That's not an issue with the study, it's an issue with using the study for a conclusion it doesn't support.

Obviously if certain ethnicities are overrepresented in certain crimes like homocide, that needs to be taken into account when judging the numbers, even when it is a 'rate'. — Tzeentch

You need to be careful with this too due to Simpson's paradox.

In any case, I think it's irrelevant as to the question if there is systemic racism in the US. We know blacks are disproportionaly killed and incarcerated in the US. Let's assume the police are not biased. Let's assume the criminal justice system is fair. Blacks are still disproportionally killed and incarcerated. So either that's

a) due to race essentialism because blacks have a propensity for crime, or
b) something about the way society works or has worked causing the disparity (eg. systemic racism).

You cannot infer what you wanted to infer about systemic racism within the police in their interactions with suspects from the way police treat victims. That's not an issue with the study, it's an issue with using the study for a conclusion it doesn't support. — Benkei

I make little in the way of conclusions, other than that numbers often quoted to prove systemic racism, such as various statistics related to police bias, do not seem to prove much when put into context. This is the point that was made in the video I linked.

You need to be careful with this too due to Simpson's paradox. — Benkei

Everyone needs to be careful with statistics, and in my experience many who partake in this sort of debate misuse statistics to a criminal extent.

In any case, I think it's irrelevant as to the question if there is systemic racism in the US. We know blacks are disproportionaly killed and incarcerated in the US. Let's assume the police are not biased. Let's assume the criminal justice system is fair. Blacks are still disproportionally killed and incarcerated. So either that's

a) due to race essentialism because blacks have a propensity for crime, or
b) something about the way society works or has worked causing the disparity (eg. systemic racism). — Benkei

I don't think those are the only two options, and this type of binary thinking (e.g. "you must agree systemic racism exists or you must be a racist") is typical for this debate. It's polarizing, but most of all it's anti-intellectual, since reality is almost universally more complicated than we like to assume.

PragerU, are you serious

Show some maturity of mind and judge the man on what he says rather than his affiliation.

Anyone who cites Prager U disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously, ever.

An apt display of simple-mindedness. From a moderator, no less. Bravo!

What's actually misused in these debates is the inability for people to make a coherent argument and instead of that post videos from which their interlocutors are apparently to derive their point. I'm not playing it again because I already did that with your previous video and apparently inferred the wrong point. Time for you to make an effort then.

Let's go back a few steps. Are blacks disproportionality killed by police and incarcerated in the US or not?

What's the cause or causes according to you if not one of the two options I provided?

I don't think those are the only two options, and this type of binary thinking (e.g. "you must agree systemic racism exists or you must be a racist") is typical for this debate. It's polarizing, but most of all it's anti-intellectual, since reality is almost universally more complicated than we like to assume. — Tzeentch

↪Tzeentch PragerU, are you serious — darthbarracuda

Anyone who cites Prager U disqualifies themselves from being taken seriously, ever. — StreetlightX

I think Coleman Hughes usually makes quite good remarks and isn't the Prager U type staunch conservative with a conservative agenda. But of course this is the typical response at the present: "Ah! You referred to those people, Eff you! I'll ignore you." Are the stats false? I don't think they are.

Let's go back a few steps. Are blacks disproportionality killed by police and incarcerated in the US or not? — Benkei

Yes.

But then again there is disproportionately more crime done by African Americans than by whites. Of course in a similar way we could argue that in any country (yours or mine) it's the poor that are disproportionately the "customers" of the police as seldom is it the rich people mugging people or stealing things.

Oh look, another person to no longer take seriously. Ah well.

What's actually misused in these debates is the inability for people to make a coherent argument and instead of that post videos from which their interlocutors are apparently to derive their point. — Benkei

Full disclosure, I'm not an expert. So why not let someone who knows a lot more about these issues than I do make the point better than I ever could? The videos I linked were quite clear, in my opinion. But fair enough, since you seem genuine I'll make an effort.

Are blacks disproportionality killed by police and incarcerated in the US or not? — Benkei

This is what the data shows.

What's the cause or causes according to you if not one of the two options I provided? — Benkei

Likely, there are many underlying causes and I don't pretend to know the exact cause.

The higher crime rates are almost certainly linked to the higher poverty/lower income rates among African-Americans.

The question then becomes, where does the income disparity come from?

According to Thomas Sowell, a lot of this can be attributed to failed government policy. Programs like the welfare state and affirmative action did more to hurt the communities they were intended to support. Unintended effects were, for example, the subsidizing of poor life choices. African-American communities were hit especially hard by these government failures.

Furthermore, he questions the link between systemic racism and the current situation by pointing out that in the past, when systemic racism was real, overt and widespread, African-American families were doing better in many ways than they do now. (marriage/divorce rates, unemployment, illegitimacy rates, etc., mostly indicators of stable family life).

The question then becomes, where does the income disparity come from?

According to Thomas Sowell, a lot of this can be attributed to failed government policy. Programs like the welfare state and affirmative action did more to hurt the communities they were intended to support. Unintended effects were, for example, the subsidizing of poor life choices. African-American communities were hit especially hard by these government failures. — Tzeentch

Let's assume this is all true. This is different from systemic racism because...? Or do you agree there's systemic racism but think people are not clear on the causes yet?

Yes.

But then again there is disproportionately more crime done by African Americans than by whites. Of course in a similar way we could argue that in any country (yours or mine) it's the poor that are disproportionately the "customers" of the police as seldom is it the rich people mugging people or stealing things. — ssu

And they are disproportionally poor because...?

This is different from systemic racism because...? — Benkei

Because it has nothing to do with beliefs of racial superiority or inferiority. They're circumstances that came about, some explainable through history, some explainable by well intentioned but faulty policy, some explainable through human nature, others explainable by randomness. I don't believe any of these things were meant to purposely hurt African-American communities (but if you suspect as much, I suggest turning your suspicions towards the Democratic Party).

I believe this is all relevant: Housing discrimination in the US, Decades-Old Housing Discrimination Case Plagues Donald Trump

And they are disproportionally poor because...? — Benkei

You know the various reasons, starting from slavery and the people that call even their own poor "trash".

Yet it's a complex issue and not to be dealt with a religious lithurgy.

Let's assume this is all true. This is different from systemic racism because...? Or do you agree there's systemic racism but think people are not clear on the causes yet? — Benkei

Part of Sowell's criticism on failed programs are quite similar how in general welfare programs don't eradicate povetry.

I like Baldwin. Especially what he says here.

Quote (7:15-8:02):

"I have said in effect that white men must give up what is in effect a crutch. So must I. This is entirely true. There is something very safe about being a Negro, in a way, because you can blame anything that happens to you on it. And this is the worst thing about being a Negro - quite apart now from New Orleans, race riots, lynching, etc. etc. The worst thing about it is at one point, somewhere in yourself, you need to realize that, "Alright, you are a Negro and this is all true - but before that you are a Man, and your life is in your hands." You are responsible for what happens to you. You cannot blame anybody for it. There is no point. There is no one to blame."

A man ahead of his time, though sometimes overly verbose and preachy. From the way he speaks I sometimes inferred that he found it inconceivable for a Caucasian to not be racist. Regrettable, but perhaps a sign of the times.

This totally misses the point. Systemic racism is not about "intent" or people "purposefully" doing things now to disadvantage blacks. Let's say yesterday it was legal to take all your shit and today we're like "oh, let's be buddies and be equal" but you still can't have your shit back. Are we really equal? Or did I get a nice headstart thanks to your old shit?

Without actively undoing past injustices the new rules of today perpetuate the historic injustices and thereby the new rules while they apply to us equally disproportionally affect you negatively while benefitting me positively because they don't force me to pay reparations.

So even if police brutality statistics can be squarely traced back to the socio-economic circumstances of black people and higher crime rates today then they are there because the system did not and never did anything to make black people equal. That's, in my view, still a form of systemic racism as I consider any social organisation that disregards how we got here as not taking into account history and such things as inheritance inequality. In other words, it's not enough for a system not be racist, you need to be actively anti-racist. This is why I have likened systemic racism as an emergent property before in this and the other thread.

Or put differently, even if the social rules were a perfect model of fairness, if you put rubbish in, you get rubbish out.

I don't think people who never partook in slavery owe anything to people who were never slaves. Notions that such would be the case have no place in a free society. In fact, putting people in historical categories based on nothing other than their skin color is, ironically, quite racist. To then distribute some type of shared blame and entitlements based on generalizations of literally millions of people, is foolish.

Not to mention, the US government has already tried this through various programs and they have all had adverse effects, mostly benefiting those who didn't really need it and destroying the chances of those that did.