Current Events > New York Times: Don't let your black children be friends with whites

(+) Yeah! (+)

That_Happened posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

you can decide an entire group of people aren't worthy to be friends with and tell your children to be cautious, suspicious and distrustful of those people and not hate them?

so when the store owner sees a black guy walk in and decides because he has black skin that he should be cautious, suspicious and distrustful, he isn't being racist?

What the writer is saying is very different from what you're saying.

To him, being cautious is "You can be friendly to white people, but don't become friends unless they show they genuinely care about you and will support you on important racial issues."

You're trying to spin it into "Secretly hate all white people and always be ready that they're about to screw you over."

you say I am spinning it when all I did was take his actual words

I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust.

this is literally what many white people who are racist do to black people

the one spinning the article is you
---

Capn Circus posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

The Admiral posted...

The problem is that 70% of them don't stick around

Kind of hard to stick around when black men are being murdered, unfairly targeted for small misdemeanors, or trying to find work so that they can feed their children.

If this is why 72% of black kids are in broken homes, why were only 26% of black kids growing up in broken homes in 1965? Is America more racist now than it was before the Civil Rights Act was signed?

Very good point. Time for the gymnastics practice to begin

I call dibs on coach. :3
---

Mal_Fet posted...

If this is why 72% of black kids are in broken homes, why were only 26% of black kids growing up in broken homes in 1965? Is America more racist now than it was before the Civil Rights Act was signed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/mass-incarceration-has-become-the-new-welfare/404422/

50 years ago policymakers and pundits refused to heedor willfully misreadDaniel Patrick Moynihans dire warnings about the dissolution of the Negro family and his rather inchoate case for national action. Rather than redressing the problem of racism and Negro poverty, instead they turned to the expansion of a criminal justice system in the name of law and order.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

No one has ever claimed that the Civil Rights Acts addressed everything.
---

The Admiral posted...

Those are the equivalent of the D'Brickashaws and Shaniquas that it uses to claim fake prejudice, and those names are not used because it wouldn't support their desired narrative.

Why is DBrickashaw and Shaniqua a crazy name? They're perfectly fine names.
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

you say I am spinning it when all I did was take his actual words

I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust.

It's too bad your attention span doesn't allow you to read more than a 2 paragraphs. If only you knew how to read 3 paragraphs.

Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship.

And if your butterfly-length attention span allowed you to read entire articles, you would have seen this:

Indeed, even in Donald Trumps America, I have not given up on being friends with all white people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and childrens godparents variety, many are white. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the presidents travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.

So yes, I am giving you the actual message of the entire article, and you are spinning it based on a small snippet in the 2nd paragraph.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

The Admiral posted...

Those are the equivalent of the D'Brickashaws and Shaniquas that it uses to claim fake prejudice, and those names are not used because it wouldn't support their desired narrative.

Why is DBrickashaw and Shaniqua a crazy name? They're perfectly fine names.

Stop. Regardless of whether or not they're "crazy", they are unusual (when compared to standard American names).
---

That_Happened posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

you can decide an entire group of people aren't worthy to be friends with and tell your children to be cautious, suspicious and distrustful of those people and not hate them?

so when the store owner sees a black guy walk in and decides because he has black skin that he should be cautious, suspicious and distrustful, he isn't being racist?

What the writer is saying is very different from what you're saying.

To him, being cautious is "You can be friendly to white people, but don't become friends unless they show they genuinely care about you and will support you on important racial issues."

You're trying to spin it into "Secretly hate all white people and always be ready that they're about to screw you over."

^This. I don't have to agree lock step with my friends but I'll be damned if I constantly have to explain my humanity to them.
---

To him, being cautious is "You can be friendly to white people, but don't become friends unless they show they genuinely care about you and will support you on important racial issues."

Open question

So does that mean cops should be "cautious" because of skin color in situations when dealing with a suspect?
---

Apparently most of CE has never read an op-ed piece and doesn't know what they're for or what they mean
---

Bloodychess posted...

So does that mean cop should be "cautious" in certain situations when dealing with a suspect?

I would expect a policeman's level of caution to be comparable with the level of crime in their neighborhood. I would advise ANYONE living in a shitty area to comply with police demands if they wanted to avoid misunderstandings. They may not like it but they're not really in control in that situation, and I would think their main hope would be to get out alive.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Apparently most of CE has never read an op-ed piece and doesn't know what they're for or what they mean

They're so a newspaper can report on something without having legal culpability for the things said. Do I win a prize?

Of course it's an op-ed piece, but they still have to go through an editor, and the paper still needs to decide which pieces to publish and which to not. Pretending like they have "no say" in what is written is stupid.
---

That_Happened posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

you say I am spinning it when all I did was take his actual words

I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust.

It's too bad your attention span doesn't allow you to read more than a 2 paragraphs. If only you knew how to read 3 paragraphs.

Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship.

And if your butterfly-length attention span allowed you to read entire articles, you would have seen this:

Indeed, even in Donald Trumps America, I have not given up on being friends with all white people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and childrens godparents variety, many are white. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the presidents travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.

So yes, I am giving you the actual message of the entire article, and you are spinning it based on a small snippet in the 2nd paragraph.

He has white friends who went out of there way to prove they are his best friends.

That doesn't negate that his mentality as he actually literally stated word for word is that when he sees a random white person he automatically is cautious, suspicious and distrusting.

Cause that store owner can have black friends who proved that they aren't "like the rest" in his opinion. Did you not think this through?

When a random black man walks in his store he is distrustful, suspicious, and cautious.

"But that is OK!" according to YOU.
Because some black people who went out of their way to prove they don't fit into his prejudice are his very good friends!

why do you wan to spin this article?
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

If this is why 72% of black kids are in broken homes, why were only 26% of black kids growing up in broken homes in 1965? Is America more racist now than it was before the Civil Rights Act was signed?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_on_drugs

https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/09/mass-incarceration-has-become-the-new-welfare/404422/

50 years ago policymakers and pundits refused to heedor willfully misreadDaniel Patrick Moynihans dire warnings about the dissolution of the Negro family and his rather inchoate case for national action. Rather than redressing the problem of racism and Negro poverty, instead they turned to the expansion of a criminal justice system in the name of law and order.

http://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/color-of-justice-racial-and-ethnic-disparity-in-state-prisons/

No one has ever claimed that the Civil Rights Acts addressed everything.

So your answer is "yes, we are more racist today than we were in 1965". Great.

Also, the war on drugs, specifically the war on crack, was an effort began by black politicians in response to how crack was destroying their cities. Crack, by the way, confers the same exact penalty as the similarly-dangerous drug Meth, which is used primarily by white people. Where's the racism here?

Also, the disparity in prison populations isn't evidence of racism either considering how black men commit 50% of homicides. And you should be happy that they're in jail, since their victims are overwhelmingly also black.

So still no racism. Where is it?
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

That doesn't negate that his mentality as he actually literally stated word for word is that when he sees a random white person he automatically is cautious, suspicious and distrusting.

Cautious, suspicious, and distrusting of what? Be specific.
---

That_Happened posted...

Stop. Regardless of whether or not they're "crazy", they are unusual.

YOU were the one that had to get in on 'crazy' and tried to use hippy names as examples of 'crazy' white-names, not just unusual.

But DBrickashaw and Shaniqua are not crazy names. They are COMMON names that anyone with a basic familiarity of black culture would know. They are no more 'unusual' than Rockefeller or Mortimer.
---

Bloodychess posted...

Open question

So does that mean cops should be "cautious" because of skin color in situations when dealing with a suspect?

First your analogy doesn't work because the situations are unequal, the impacts vastly different, the power dynamics completely different, and the expectations with regards to favorable and unfavorable outcomes are different. 'Caution' in one situation is guarded but civil interaction that can become warmer as trust develops. 'Caution' in the other situation is strategic de-escalation where violent, potentially lethal force is authorized.

Second. Irrelevant. What does this have to do with the trust deficit widening between white people and people of the global majority?
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

That_Happened posted...

Stop. Regardless of whether or not they're "crazy", they are unusual.

YOU were the one that had to get in on 'crazy' and tried to use hippy names as examples of 'crazy' white-names, not just unusual.

Admiral said "crazy" and used hippie names. Not me. Try to keep up please.

But DBrickashaw and Shaniqua are not crazy names. They are COMMON names that anyone with a basic familiarity of black culture would know. They are no more 'unusual' than Rockefeller or Mortimer.

...Rockefeller and Mortimer are uncommon names as well, and would likely be discriminated against on resumes as well. Also, DBrickashaw is ridiculously uncommon. There's no argument for that one.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

They are COMMON names that anyone with a basic familiarity of black culture would know.

Jesus Christ.

http://howmanyofme.com/search/

Based on the U.S. census:

There are fewer than 1,630 people in the U.S. with the first name Dbrickashaw.

There are 1,630 people in the U.S. with the first name Shaniqua. Statistically the 4019th most popular first name.

There is nothing "common" about those names by any definition. Stop with your bullshit.
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

But DBrickashaw and Shaniqua are not crazy names. They are COMMON names that anyone with a basic familiarity of black culture would know.

Even with google, I can't seem to find a D'Brickashaw that isn't D'Brickashaw Ferguson, aka the only guy anyone has ever heard of named D'Brickashaw.
---

Mal_Fet posted...

So your answer is "yes, we are more racist today than we were in 1965". Great.

Also, the war on drugs, specifically the war on crack, was an effort began by black politicians in response to how crack was destroying their cities. Crack, by the way, confers the same exact penalty as the similarly-dangerous drug Meth, which is used primarily by white people. Where's the racism here?

Also, the disparity in prison populations isn't evidence of racism either considering how black men make up 50% of the homicide rate. And you should be happy that they're in jail, since their victims are overwhelmingly also black.

So still no racism. Where is it?

Here's the fucking difference. We saw the same type of violence perpetrated by white groups - Irish, Italian Mafia, Russians, Polish, Chinese gang wars, etc., etc., etc. The difference is that those groups weren't systematically excluded from society once it was over. The proceeds from those gang activities were put into the political system - drug and racketeering money that funded Irish unions, Irish politicians, Italian, etc., etc., etc. Tammeny Hall. All that money went straight back to their Irish/Italian/Polish/Slavic communities.

Black communities however, never got that same treatment. All that money and human capital that blacks gave up, it never went back to their communities. It was taken and used to subsidize the white majority.
---

That_Happened posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

That doesn't negate that his mentality as he actually literally stated word for word is that when he sees a random white person he automatically is cautious, suspicious and distrusting.

Cautious, suspicious, and distrusting of what? Be specific.

the store owner obviously has a prejudice based on anecdotal evidence that people will rob his store

grab some goods and take off with them

so he like the man in the article might meet some black people that break his prejudice
maybe one night an older black man saw some people trying to break into his store and scared them off and the store owner became be friends with him because he helped his interests

they are as he might say "the good ones"

same goes with the author of this article

he made his own subset of good white people: " marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the presidents travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency."

so if you are white and a non-activist, you are bad just like how the store owner sees black people in his racist view because of his anecdotal evidence
---

darkphoenix181 posted...

That_Happened posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

That doesn't negate that his mentality as he actually literally stated word for word is that when he sees a random white person he automatically is cautious, suspicious and distrusting.

Cautious, suspicious, and distrusting of what? Be specific.

the store owner obviously has a prejudice based on

No. Stop. Don't pivot, and answer my question.

The author suggests in the 2nd paragraph that he may be cautious, suspicious, and distrusting of what specifically? Fill in the blank.

so if you are white and a non-activist, you are bad just like how the store owner sees black people in his racist view because of his anecdotal evidence

This is incorrect. Try again. He's not comparing white people to criminals. What specifically is he cautious of white people about? That they might...what?
---

s0nicfan posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Apparently most of CE has never read an op-ed piece and doesn't know what they're for or what they mean

They're so a newspaper can report on something without having legal culpability for the things said. Do I win a prize?

Of course it's an op-ed piece, but they still have to go through an editor, and the paper still needs to decide which pieces to publish and which to not. Pretending like they have "no say" in what is written is stupid.

They're so a newspaper can publish incendiary conversation starters like this topic has successfully brewed.

Op eds are the literary equivalent of your bombastic uncle Jimmy saying "well women need to know their place!" at the bar, which he says only with the intent of stirring up some shit, knowing that half a dozen women just heard him say it.

Yes, at the very least some of the opinions will have been endorsed by the paper. But it's not unusual to have contrary opinions to the newspaper's general slant published as well.
---

That_Happened posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

That_Happened posted...

darkphoenix181 posted...

That doesn't negate that his mentality as he actually literally stated word for word is that when he sees a random white person he automatically is cautious, suspicious and distrusting.

Cautious, suspicious, and distrusting of what? Be specific.

the store owner obviously has a prejudice based on

No. Stop. Don't pivot, and answer my question.

The author suggests in the 2nd paragraph that he may be cautious, suspicious, and distrusting of what specifically? Fill in the blank.

no one pivoted

stop with your language to try to belittle my answers

you asked an ambiguous statement and I answered it as I thought you had asked it

people saying shit like "stop pivoting" are trying to be rhetorical in absence of a good argument

but I will answer you question despite how OBVIOUS it is

Donald Trumps election has made it clear that I will teach my boys the lesson generations old, one that I for the most part nearly escaped. I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust. Much sooner than I thought I would, I will have to discuss with my boys whether they can truly be friends with white people.

in general, be distrusting of white people
he didn't discuss any particular specific area
it is literally in general

now lets look deeper

It is certainly not the neo-Nazis marching on Charlottesville; we have seen their type before. Rather, what has truly broken my heart are the ranks of Mr. Trumps many allies and apologists.

Mr. Trumps supporters are practiced at purposeful blindness. That his political life started with denying, without evidence, that Barack Obama is American that this black man could truly be the legitimate president is simply ignored. So, too, is his history of housing discrimination, his casual conflation of Muslims with terrorists, his reducing Mexican-Americans to murderers and rapists. All along, his allies have watched racial pornography, describing black America as pathological. Yet they deny that there is any malice whatsoever in his words and actions. And they dismiss any attempt to recognize the danger of his wide-ranging animus as political correctness.

But the deepest rift is with the apologists, the good Trump voters, the white people who understand that Mr. Trump says unfortunate things but support him because they like what he says on jobs and taxes. They bristle at the accusation that they supported racism, insisting they had to ignore Mr. Trumps ugliness. Relying on everyday decency as a shield, they are befuddled at the chill that now separates them from black people in their offices and social circles. They protest: Have they ever said anything racist? Dont they shovel the sidewalk of the new black neighbors? Surely, they say, politics a single vote does not mean we cant be friends.

he even says the issue isn't the neo nazis

the issue he has most are with white people who dismiss the malice of Trump rhetoric
even more he dislikes the white people who support Trump while disliking his comments because of the economy

so all in all he says: distrust white people because they might be someone who thinks Trump is not that bad
only be friends with them after it is proven they will go out and protest
---

Were_Wyrm posted...

Separate but equal, sounds reasonable.

Yeah. The kind of shit that gave rise to the Civil Rights Movement in the first place.

darkphoenix181 posted...

the issue he has most are with white people who dismiss the malice of Trump rhetoric
even more he dislikes the white people who support Trump while disliking his comments because of the economy

so all in all he says: distrust white people because they might be someone who thinks Trump is not that bad
only be friends with them after it is proven they will go out and protest

Now you're getting closer. Here's a direct quote from the article:

"Of course, the rise of this president has broken bonds on all sides. But for people of color the stakes are different. Imagining we can now be friends across this political line is asking us to ignore our safety and that of our children, to abandon personal regard and self-worth. Only white people can cordon off Mr. Trumps political meaning, ignore the unpleasantness from a position of safety."

The deepest rift is with the apologists, the good Trump voters, the white people who understand that Mr. Trump says unfortunate things but support him because they like what he says on jobs and taxes. They bristle at the accusation that they supported racism, insisting they had to ignore Mr. Trumps ugliness. Relying on everyday decency as a shield, they are befuddled at the chill that now separates them from black people in their offices and social circles.

He is cautious of being friends with white people (specifically white Trump supporters) because in his mind so many of them voted to put his safety, and his childrens' safety, at risk. They tried to minimize all the terrible things that Trump said about (and done to) minority groups, and placed more importance on things like jobs.

It's not the same as a clerk being robbed by black people and then thinking they're all criminals. His worry is that white conservatives may be friendly to him but they won't actually care enough about him to side with him on important racial issues. And their votes say exactly this.
---

now you probably were hoping I would dwell on this passage

or you would dwell on it

Meaningful friendship is not just a feeling. It is not simply being able to share a beer. Real friendship is impossible without the ability to trust others, without knowing that your well-being is important to them. The desire to create, maintain or wield power over others destroys the possibility of friendship. The Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.s famous dream of black and white children holding hands was a dream precisely because he realized that in Alabama, conditions of dominance made real friendship between white and black people impossible.

and I would agree

meaningful friendship is indeed that

however, that doesn't negate what he said before

he said

I will teach them to be cautious, I will teach them suspicion, and I will teach them distrust

there is a degree of trust you can give to a stranger

you would not expect a stranger to treat you like your best friend would

but that doesn't mean you should do what this man suggests to them

back to the store owner, a white man walks into his store and he isn't distrusting and cautious of him

does that mean he generally believes this white man would go out and protest for his well being? no
that he believes the white man would try to attack a man robbing his store? no

he just doesn't distrust the man
---

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

Mal_Fet posted...

So your answer is "yes, we are more racist today than we were in 1965". Great.

Also, the war on drugs, specifically the war on crack, was an effort began by black politicians in response to how crack was destroying their cities. Crack, by the way, confers the same exact penalty as the similarly-dangerous drug Meth, which is used primarily by white people. Where's the racism here?

Also, the disparity in prison populations isn't evidence of racism either considering how black men make up 50% of the homicide rate. And you should be happy that they're in jail, since their victims are overwhelmingly also black.

So still no racism. Where is it?

Here's the fucking difference. We saw the same type of violence perpetrated by white groups - Irish, Italian Mafia, Russians, Polish, Chinese gang wars, KKK, etc., etc., etc. Crime and violence rates were so much worse when it was white ethnic communities that were committing the crimes. The difference is that those groups weren't systematically excluded from society once it was over. The proceeds from those gang activities were put into the political system - drug and racketeering money that funded Irish unions, Irish politicians, Italian, etc., etc., etc. Tammeny Hall. All that money went straight back to their Irish/Italian/Polish/Slavic communities.

Black communities however, never got that same treatment. All that money and human capital that blacks gave up, it never went back to their communities. It was taken and used to subsidize the white majority.

Wait, you're claiming that the reason black people are oppressed because black criminals didn't donate enough to their people in charge? And you're trying to sneak "chinese gangs" in there as if that were ever a thing or that asians didnt have similar exclusionary practices levied againt them?
---

GregShmedley posted...

pinky0926 posted...

s0nicfan posted...

pinky0926 posted...

Apparently most of CE has never read an op-ed piece and doesn't know what they're for or what they mean

They're so a newspaper can report on something without having legal culpability for the things said. Do I win a prize?

Of course it's an op-ed piece, but they still have to go through an editor, and the paper still needs to decide which pieces to publish and which to not. Pretending like they have "no say" in what is written is stupid.

They're so a newspaper can publish incendiary conversation starters like this topic has successfully brewed.

Op eds are the literary equivalent of your bombastic uncle Jimmy saying "well women need to know their place!" at the bar, which he says only with the intent of stirring up some shit, knowing that half a dozen women just heard him say it.

Yes, at the very least some of the opinions will have been endorsed by the paper. But it's not unusual to have contrary opinions to the newspaper's general slant published as well.

@pinky0926

Can My Children Be Friends With Black People?

Regardless of context, do you believe an op-ed with this title would be published?

I actually could see an op-ed with that title on something like Huffington Post, depending on what the article said.

GregShmedley posted...

@pinky0926

Can My Children Be Friends With Black People?

Regardless of context, do you believe an op-ed with this title would be published?

I definitely think there's something to be said about the irresponsibility of throwing around sensational clickbaity article titles, and that it's obvious that the newspaper's goal here is to cause a stir rather than report. I'm not going to defend that position.

That said, you should go into an op ed without the assumption that the newspaper endorses anything that is written. Nor should you think the title reflects the entire nature of the argument. It's as old as print to have titles like that in op ed pieces, which cause a visceral reaction only to later downplay the intention in the piece.

See for example what the other side of the fence is doing right now in the op-ed space:

WWII Veteran and Purple Heart recipient: You're never too old to serve
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/13/wwii-veteran-and-purple-heart-recipient-youre-never-too-old-to-serve.html

Hey, NFL owners, tired of half-empty stadiums? This isnt hard. Tell your players to stand up for America
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/11/13/hey-nfl-owners-tired-half-empty-stadiums-this-isn-t-hard-tell-your-players-to-stand-up-for-america.html

Inflammatory remarks like you'd hear down at the pub, then backed by an opinion piece which fleshes out the reasons for such a wild claim.

If you're upset that an op-ed reflects poorly on a newspaper, maybe the issue is that you're unfamiliar with op-eds.
---

I don't get how anyone can make claims of black people being "systematically excluded" from our society when our society elected one as our LEADER, and did it TWICE.
---

pinky0926 posted...

Inflammatory remarks like you'd hear down at the pub, then backed by an opinion piece which fleshes out the reasons for such a wild claim.

If you're upset that an op-ed reflects poorly on a newspaper, maybe the issue is that you're unfamiliar with op-eds.

Being the visceral reaction that this article has gotten I'd say it was generally effective in doing what headline writing is supposed to do, and that's grab the readers attention. The problem arises that like with much of headline writing, it predisposes people to formulate an opinion on the article without actually reading it and likewise it'll turn off plenty from bothering to read it.

Like, I doubt many people here who commented on it actually bothered to read it before reacting. That's not to claim the headline or the article is valid, and I absolutely have issues with it, but I suppose it's a matter of what kind of reaction you're looking for when you write.
---

r4X0r posted...

I don't get how anyone can make claims of black people being "systematically excluded" from our society when our society elected one as our LEADER, and did it TWICE.

This is little more than "I'm not racist, I have black friends" in a political context. Do you think prejudice towards Muslims went away when Sadiq Khan was elected mayor of London?

When Obama was elected one of the biggest criticisms of him as a person was that he was a secret Muslim and that he wasn't even born in America. Not on the basis of any compelling evidence but simply because of his weird sounding name. That should tell you something about his election to leadership and the the racism present in that event.
---

hollow_shrine posted...

Bloodychess posted...

Open question

So does that mean cops should be "cautious" because of skin color in situations when dealing with a suspect?

First your analogy doesn't work because the situations are unequal, the impacts vastly different, the power dynamics completely different, and the expectations with regards to favorable and unfavorable outcomes are different. 'Caution' in one situation is guarded but civil interaction that can become warmer as trust develops. 'Caution' in the other situation is strategic de-escalation where violent, potentially lethal force is authorized.

Second. Irrelevant. What does this have to do with the trust deficit widening between white people and people of the global majority?

First, a person is making a decision on how to interact with another based solely on the color of their skin. You can throw in as many words as you want, but that's what it simply boils down to in both cases.

Second, you really think that widening trust deficit has no impact on a cops job?
---

The Great Muta 22 posted...

Being the visceral reaction that this article has gotten I'd say it was generally effective in doing what headline writing is supposed to do, and that's grab the readers attention. The problem arises that like with much of headline writing, it predisposes people to formulate an opinion on the article without actually reading it and likewise it'll turn off plenty from bothering to read it.

Well I mean, yes. People will have opinions about opinion pieces they just read. I'd say this is an issue with the clickbait world we live in and not so much The New York Times. You'd struggle to find any journal these days that doesn't try to create a sensation in a title, just for the purpose of getting you to click on it.
---

r4X0r posted...

I don't get how anyone can make claims of black people being "systematically excluded" from our society when our society elected one as our LEADER, and did it TWICE.

One person out of how many black people that have lived and died in this country?

And even then Obama had to be squeaky clean with the temperament of a saint. If he had even half the baggage that Trump had and talked like he does he wouldn't have made it past state Senator.

Obama's election has shown how far this country has come in the last 40-50 years but we still have a long way to go for the average Joe and Jane.
---

r4X0r posted...

I don't get how anyone can make claims of black people being "systematically excluded" from our society when our society elected one as our LEADER, and did it TWICE.

AAVE is a known job-killer, roughly on par with neck tattoos.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhAiTuTI8Vs

Bloodychess posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

Bloodychess posted...

Open question

So does that mean cops should be "cautious" because of skin color in situations when dealing with a suspect?

First your analogy doesn't work because the situations are unequal, the impacts vastly different, the power dynamics completely different, and the expectations with regards to favorable and unfavorable outcomes are different. 'Caution' in one situation is guarded but civil interaction that can become warmer as trust develops. 'Caution' in the other situation is strategic de-escalation where violent, potentially lethal force is authorized.

Second. Irrelevant. What does this have to do with the trust deficit widening between white people and people of the global majority?

First, a person is making a decision on how to interact with another based solely on the color of their skin. You can throw in as many words as you want, but that's what it simply boils down to in both cases.

Second, you really think that widening trust deficit has no impact on a cops job?

It has a huge impact.
---

Bump
---

Why are so many professors leftist idiots?
---

Taharqa_ posted...

r4X0r posted...

I don't get how anyone can make claims of black people being "systematically excluded" from our society when our society elected one as our LEADER, and did it TWICE.

One person out of how many black people that have lived and died in this country?

And even then Obama had to be squeaky clean with the temperament of a saint. If he had even half the baggage that Trump had and talked like he does he wouldn't have made it past state Senator.

Obama's election has shown how far this country has come in the last 40-50 years but we still have a long way to go for the average Joe and Jane.

Obama was 'squeaky clean?' He openly associated with a known domestic terrorist that blew up a police station. His pastor was a blatant racist. He sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels and ISIS. He sided with criminals against cops on multiple occasions. He lied to the American people on no less than 27 separate occasions JUST ON BEING ABLE TO KEEP YOUR INSURANCE.

You're fucking ignorant if you will seriously stand there and say he had no baggage.
---

Bloodychess posted...

hollow_shrine posted...

Bloodychess posted...

Open question

So does that mean cops should be "cautious" because of skin color in situations when dealing with a suspect?

First your analogy doesn't work because the situations are unequal, the impacts vastly different, the power dynamics completely different, and the expectations with regards to favorable and unfavorable outcomes are different. 'Caution' in one situation is guarded but civil interaction that can become warmer as trust develops. 'Caution' in the other situation is strategic de-escalation where violent, potentially lethal force is authorized.

Second. Irrelevant. What does this have to do with the trust deficit widening between white people and people of the global majority?

First, a person is making a decision on how to interact with another based solely on the color of their skin. You can throw in as many words as you want, but that's what it simply boils down to in both cases.

Second, you really think that widening trust deficit has no impact on a cops job?

No, I think the impacts of the widening trust deficit are not specific to cops, and that we're narrowing our scope down to a specific type of interaction when the focus (of the opinion piece, and the conversations in this topic) is explicitly on the larger context of race relations in America in all kinds of situations.

And by virtue of being a cop, there are other more important impacts one would have to worry about than those related to skin color. Those impacts are far more complex than any of the civilian examples (placed in work, and social settings) discussed in the article, like designating someone as a 'suspect,' calculating how best to de-escalate a situation involving said suspect, knowing that your badge imbues you with special authority, but also commiserate responsibility. I should mention, I'm assuming we're talking here about how cops should behave, and not down many cops actually do behave. That that it matters, because...

...Relevance: What is the relevance of your cop example to the larger questions surrounding the widening racial trust gap in America?
---

That_Happened posted...

I have not given up on being friends with all white people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and childrens godparents variety, many are white. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the presidents travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.

Translation I'm not racist because I have a half-white friend.
---

darkjedilink posted...

Taharqa_ posted...

r4X0r posted...

I don't get how anyone can make claims of black people being "systematically excluded" from our society when our society elected one as our LEADER, and did it TWICE.

One person out of how many black people that have lived and died in this country?

And even then Obama had to be squeaky clean with the temperament of a saint. If he had even half the baggage that Trump had and talked like he does he wouldn't have made it past state Senator.

Obama's election has shown how far this country has come in the last 40-50 years but we still have a long way to go for the average Joe and Jane.

Obama was 'squeaky clean?' He openly associated with a known domestic terrorist that blew up a police station. His pastor was a blatant racist. He sold weapons to Mexican drug cartels and ISIS. He sided with criminals against cops on multiple occasions. He lied to the American people on no less than 27 separate occasions JUST ON BEING ABLE TO KEEP YOUR INSURANCE.

You're fucking ignorant if you will seriously stand there and say he had no baggage.

You're the ignorant one if you truly believe that he would have gotten elected if he behaved like Trump.
---

So basically, there are children being taught to hate cops and white people. And then they grow up and continue this cycle of hatred.

*sigh*
---

Mal_Fet posted...

And you're trying to sneak "chinese gangs" in there as if that were ever a thing or that asians didnt have similar exclusionary practices levied againt them?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tong_(organization)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hip_Sing_Association
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Dragons_(gang)

https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/4w5yej/chinese-american-gangs-tong-wars-new-york-chinatown-money-murder
---

Mal_Fet posted...

Wait, you're claiming that the reason black people are oppressed because black criminals didn't donate enough to their people in charge?

What I'm saying is a lot of the money and capital that have been taken from the black community - whether they were through legal or illegal means, was never placed back into the black community. In fact, most of it was used to subsidize white American society.
---

Howl posted...

That_Happened posted...

I have not given up on being friends with all white people. My bi-ethnic wife, my most trusted friend, understands she is seen as a white woman, even though her brother and father are not. Among my dearest friends, the wedding party and childrens godparents variety, many are white. But these are the friends who have marched in protest, rushed to airports to protest the presidents travel ban, people who have shared the risks required by strength and decency.

Translation I'm not racist because I have a half-white friend.

I'm not sure what translator you put that into because not only is it wrong, but it reduced the number of white friends from "several" to "one half-white friend." Unless that's your personal translation and you're just really, really slow.
---

Zodd3224 posted...

The Admiral posted...

Zodd3224 posted...

Barenziah Boy Toy posted...

NINExATExSEVEN posted...

The main thing is that the communities need to improve. Now how do we achieve that?

First thing to do is make sure that all schools get the same quality level of education as the best private schools - starting from Pre-K.
Secondly, give all families the resources to take care of their kids starting from pre-natal - this includes releasing prisoners who were prosecuted for non-violent drug offenses, and erasing their records so that they can have a fairer shot at getting a job.

Universal Housing, Universal Pre-K to College, Universal Healthcare. All of these things disproportionately help black communities.

This will cost trillions in dollars - which most of white America doesn't want.

Thirdly, discrimination based on names listed on a resume must stop. Resumes with black-sounding names are 80% more likely to be rejected by companies, vs that of white-sounding names.

I had a friend who said if he saw names like Jamaal or Dante on a resume he would throw them in the trash without looking at them.

The problem with horseshit like what BBT posted is that most black people have "white names." Studies like this just assume names like John or Brian are "white," rather than using true, crazy "white" names like Stardust or Twig. Those are the equivalent of the D'Brickashaws and Shaniquas that it uses to claim fake prejudice, and those names are not used because it wouldn't support their desired narrative.

The Freakonomics guys dispelled this myth a long time ago, basically showing there isn't a racial prejudice so much as a general "unusual name" prejudice. You'll notice Asian parents are smart enough to compensate for this by giving their kids an Anglicized nickname, rather than crying oppression like other groups do.

Im not talking about the report. Im talking about a real life experience of a supposed friend who wouldnt interview someone with those names because he knew they would be black.

It happens more often than people realize.