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.

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 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).

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).

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

Depends on the survey.

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

I recommend you read some of the reports before making assumptions about their faulty methodology.

Yes.

There seems to be little evidence to suggest any racial disparity in police violence.

Please respond.

Please watch this and share your thoughts.

One (man or woman) who dresses up with the intention to sexually entice others is in the first place objectifying themselves. That they are then also objectified by the beholder is the natural consequence.

After all, wouldn't the choice for such dress imply we seek to exchange the enticement of the other for whatever attention, drinks, sexual favors. One is using their body as currency to get what it is they want.

Of course, wanting to look 'good' and wanting to look 'sexy' aren't necessarily one and the same.

Comments, please.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPaBXcEVpOE

James Baldwin makes two points in the fragment between 7:14-8:04.

Baldwin thereby shows a sense of self-awareness that is utterly lacking in today's protests.

This was never the subject of discussion. You're dodging the point.

It's so fucking stupid. — StreetlightX

Solid argumentation.

I'm guessing the two of you were told something you didn't like to hear, and now feel the need to resort to... whatever this is?

Why would Morgan Freeman think it is worth our all changing our language for the sake of a few nutters? — unenlightened

Because he understands that all of this chasing ghosts is putting more and more emphasis on skin color. It polarizes. It makes people more aware of race.

In fact, I'm convinced that continuously telling people they or others are secretly racist would sooner create racists than solve any problems.

It's saying "Look, those people over there may seem nice, but secretly they hate you and they're the reason you cannot get a job/didn't finish school, etc."

Converse it's saying "You may think you're not racist, but <insert statistic without context here> shows that you are. Not only that, everyone around you, they're racist too! And everything you worked for in life? All paid for by racism!"

Of course, "racism" in this context only applies to the "black vs. white"-narrative. Never mind all the racism perpetrated by people of all colors, because apparently that doesn't matter.

This current 'black vs. white' nonsense does nothing but create racial tensions where there were none. It serves to polarize and it has nothing to do with justice. It manipulates people by telling them exactly what they want to hear, while holding up the carrot of moral superiority. The only question we should be asking is who profits from a polarized society filled with hatred for the other?

What would convince you? Not media, obviously. Statistics? Is there something short of a declaration of white supremacy? — unenlightened

Not really.

Somehow racism is poorly hidden, and those racists I have met in my life often had no problem telling me so.

An event occurs, and the immediate conclusion is that it must be because of racism. What if the skin colors of those involved had nothing to do with any of it?

Media loves to frame things to fit a narrative. Media loves outrage, because outrage draws attention. It's all about language, because it so deviously manipulates us.

Beautiful words by Morgan Freeman, and I couldn't agree more.

Sadly, media, politicians and other interest groups seem all to keen on promoting a 'black vs. white' narrative. They get away with it, because gullible people like being told what they want to hear.

Racism exists everywhere, sadly, in people of all colors.

Whether there exists 'systemic racism' is, as far as I am concerned, up for debate. I'm not convinced either way. There's a saying that goes "Whatever you feed will grow," and it seems to me that by telling everyone they're racist, and by labeling incidents as racist incidents prior to this being proven, one creates a climate of self-fulfilling prophecy.

Both the news and the social sciences have been treading extremely thin ice in this regard, and seem much more interested in forwarding political narratives than abiding by the rigorousness and neutrality that these fields demand.

But look also at the other side of the equation, other words beginning with "philo-" that mean "love of..." something, not something "...of love":

Philodemic, people-loving.

Philography, love of writing.

Philogyny, love of women.

Philomuse, a lover of the muses.

Philomusical, music-loving.

Philolexian, discourse-loving.

Philomathy, love of learning.

Philopolemic, war-loving.

Philoprogenitive, offspring-loving.

Philoxeny, love of strangers.

Philozoic, animal-loving. — Pfhorrest

I had not considered this, and it is compelling.

I can rest easy now!

Or “philately”, which is “love of stamps”*, not “stamps of love”.

* “atelos” is not literally the Greek word for “stamp” but is apparently the closest idiomatic translation. — Pfhorrest

This word is of modern origin, thus of little use.

Consider also “philanthropy”, which is “love of man”, not “man(liness?) of love”. — Pfhorrest

A fair example, but I am not convinced.

If you can share a word that ends with -sophy, that would be translated in a way akin to "x of knowledge" rather than "knowledge of x", I will seriously reconsider my position.

"Aristotle calls the science of metaphysics by no less than three names. Sometimes he calls it First Science, πρώτη φιλοσοφία [proto philosophia], φιλοσοφία being his regular name for science.... Sometimes he calls it Wisdom, σοφία, with the implication that this is the thing for which φιλοσοφία, science, is the search." (An Essay on Metaphysics, p. 5.) — tim wood

Honestly, considering Aristotle never seemed to truly 'get' the concepts of his teacher Plato, I'm not sure if he's the one to refer to in this context. I've heard it argued (though the source eludes me) that while western philosophy often claims Greek philosophy as its forebear, it would be more accurate to label Aristotle as such (western philosophy being essentially Aristotelean, rather than Greek), and western philosophy never seemed to quite 'get' Plato either.

Just so! Word order in Greek, it being an inflected language, can be arbitrary.

The denotive and connotative fields of Greek and English words - as with any two languages - are not the same. You get, then, a degree of freedom in translation. But best to stay within the bounds of the shared parts of the fields, lest exegesis turn to eisegesis. — tim wood

Fair.

No argument here. You can make any point you like, but a mistaken reliance on a mistranslation means the point is yours alone nor supported as you might think. — tim wood

Fair also. Though I'd say that ascribing the apparent disconnect between the wording and the meaning of the word 'philosophy' to randomness is also not very convincing.

I don't see how anything I've put forward so far conflicts with that.

Whatever you like. — tim wood

This isn't about what I like. It's about the fact that, linguistically, philosophy (or φιλοσοφία) does not translate into 'lover of wisdom', but into 'wisdom of love'. To be more exact, 'love' in the sense of 'brotherly love' (φιλία), rather than erotic love (ἔρως) (also weird, considering modern usage).

Both had a profound meaning in Greek wisdom literature (which is where the word 'φιλοσοφία' originates, as far as we know), for example in Plato. 'Brotherly love' or 'compassion' also plays a central role in Buddhism. Ancient Greek philosophy and Buddhism both originate roughly from the same time period, the 6th century BC. This seems significant somehow.

At any rate, I'm not familiar with the English linguistical terms, but it seems the 'subject' and the 'adjective' have been swapped around for no apparent reason.

A body of belief or theory about love.

A teaching about love.

Better?

PS:

Anthrosophy:

(archaic, as used before Rudolf Steiner) Knowledge or understanding of human nature.

Had it meant 'love of wisdom' shouldn't it have been called something like sophiophilia?

What about its Greek origins and the role of love in, for example, Plato?

Doesn't philosophy mean 'wisdom of love'?

Maybe it was coincidental. Maybe it was not. The only way to tell with any certainty is to repeat the 'experiment' and remain as objective as possible.

This hypothetical person should not care about what others think. After all, it is his experience and not theirs. He alone knows what his experience was like and can gauge its genuineness.

Most (if not all) of us spend our entire lives being wrong about everything. There is no reason to let a hundred, or even a thousand of such opinions have any bearing on our personal experiences.

Life needs to eat other life to sustain itself. Whether it be plants, trees, animals, fungi, etc. Whether it be in the form of actually consuming them, or by claiming their habitats.

Taking a moral position based on valuing one type of life above another seems shaky to me. With that said, there's a point to be made that in the practice of sustaining ourselves, we should seek to minimize the suffering we impose on other lifeforms.

That sounds very familiar. I've often used the exact words of 'everything will be alright' to describe my experience to myself. Though, I cannot say I ever experienced any type of communication.

So it seems to me that you would already have some assumptions that you are basing your interpretation of the experience on. If you already believe in spirituality, mysticism, supernatural, etc. (name your favorite anthropomorophic buzz-word that makes humans special), then you are likely to interpret some ineffable experience as such. — Harry Hindu

While this is certainly true, mystical experiences also happen to individuals who are not primed in any way.

Say praxis obtained some insight into himself (obtained knowledge about himself) using mysticism as a means (whatever that really means we'll ignore for the moment). Could you, Tzeentch, or I use the same means to obtain the same insight into praxis? What method would we use to gain the same insight into praxis? It seems to me that, logically, we'd have to use the same method to obtain the same knowledge, but will we? Why, or why not? — Harry Hindu

In some cases yes, in other cases perhaps not.

First, lets talk about insight. Not every person is capable of understanding quantum physics, and to do so one cannot just read a single book about quantum physics and expect to be an expert. Truly understanding physics is a long process, perhaps even a lifelong quest. It is insight stacked upon insight. Mysticism works somewhat similar, yet people who dismiss mystical philosophies as nonsense will scarcely read more than a single Wikipedia page, if they bother to read anything about it at all.
Additionally, mindset is important. Someone who is either consciously or subconsciously convinced that mysticism is nonsense, will probably never gain any insight into it. This is due to the intangible nature of many things mysticism deals with, and the lack of 'hard' evidence. One must a least be willing to consider the plausibility of the things they read. I guess it is comparable to psychology in this sense.

Secondly, mystical experiences. Even though methods have been conceived to produce mystical experiences through practice or, for example, drugs, this has proven problematic for a few reasons. Some persons will not experience anything despite a lifetime of dedication. Others may want to experience something so badly that they may start to deceive themselves. Drug-induced experiences will, in my mind, always remain a question mark in regards to their genuineness.

I can't speak for other people. I don't consider myself a 'mystic' nor a practitioner of mysticism. I do find certain philosophies appealing, which may be considered mystical, like Taoism, Buddhism, (Neo)Platonism. These have greatly contributed to my personal happiness and, dare I say, have made me a better person in general. As for knowledge, I know nothing about that.

So you have a problem with people who are not knowledgeable but pretend that they are? Fair enough. What does this have to do with mysticism, though? I find these types of people everywhere I go.