J.C.MacSwell

Where did you get that? (I googled Willik but got nothing)

I'd be embarrassed to admit how many hours i've wasted in the tub thinking about that one... (in my defence...never an hour at one time)

Electromagnetic forces "within" an object can introduce internal stresses but this doesn't make it lighter. Electromagnetic forces "on" an object can make it effectively lighter. (this could be considered to be thrust) What definition of "free space" are you using? If isolated the object would have nothing to push against (though simply radiating photons would give thrust). If just not in a gravitational field the same lightening electromagnetic forces would amount to thrust.

Fair enough. I agree with that, and the numbers are tied to the disparate experience. What are the root causes?

So you believe that's the majority of the problem?

It may be. It's a sensitive topic. Ignoring it may be a problem as well. True, according to the Wiki link you provided: "Most homicides were intraracial, with 84% of White victims killed by Whites and 93% of African American victims killed by African Americans." Proximity is certainly a factor, but not the only one. It's not an inherent function of race, so if that's what you mean I agree. The Wiki link you provided again: "According to the US Department of Justice, African Americans accounted for 52.5% of all homicide offenders from 1980 to 2008, with Whites 45.3% and "Other" 2.2%. The offending rate for African Americans was almost eight times higher than Whites, and the victim rate six times higher." Much of this depends on the US police/judicial system (including the source of the stats). If you choose to discount that 100% (even when/where if it isn't true), and instead choose to believe the disparities in crime and incarceration rates are all on them, are you going to solve the problem? You vilify (almost) all police/justices, and let other socio economic factors off the hook...why change any of that...let's just blame the police...even the good ones. Not saying you do that...but why wouldn't anyone if they believed the crime rate was exactly the same (despite the conditions) and looked at the conviction/incarceration rates? Let's not worry about poverty...let's abolish the police...like that will help.

As in government (as Americans say "we the people") mandated solutions, or government to enforce fair laws (racially blind except where egregious inequity exists) plus hopefully everyone?

I don't see the drug use (here slightly higher for Whites) or selling of drugs (here slightly higher for Blacks) disparities being statistically significant. Not enough to suspect that whites may be inherently more likely to commit crimes. The arrest/incarceration graphs are another matter. How much of that is due to police/judicial discrimination, how much due to police/judicial focus on type of drugs (I'm making an assumption that it reasonably could be due to differences in danger or other factors), and how much due to other socio economic effects? (not intended as rhetorical questions) Agree with both. I agree with that. But by whom? We are directly responsible for some disparities, and less so on others. We need to look at all root causes if we want to solve anything. Racism is just one of them, and IMO it's not primary, though it may become so. It certainly was in the past.

Why would you suggest that? Is it not reasonable to assume that given reasonably equivalent conditions, we can expect reasonably equivalent outcomes? Why would you suspect it could be lower for Blacks? We have plenty of biases in our systems. They aren't all racial driven, despite the difficulties in separating the motives.

Socio economic situation? I would expect equivalency, but would also be hard pressed to trust any data or manipulation of it. Socio economic status? I would certainly expect more white collar crimes from those groups more affluent, and more street crimes from those groups less so. (but not enough to differentiate individuals on that basis, and certainly not by race) I don't believe the races (to the degree people can be subdivided) are inherently any different in this. Why do you believe it might be lower for Blacks?

IN It does though...because if you actually read and understand the links you are presenting...https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_and_crime_in_the_United_States "In the United States, the relationship between race and crime has been a topic of public controversy and scholarly debate for more than a century.[1] Crime rates vary significantly between racial groups. Most homicide victims in the United States are of the same race as the perpetrator. Academic research indicates that the over-representation of some racial minorities in the criminal justice system can in part be explained by socioeconomic factors, such as poverty, exposure to poor neighborhoods, poor access to public education, poor access to early childhood education, and exposure to harmful chemicals (such as lead) and pollution.[2][3] Racial housing segregation has also been linked to racial disparities in crime rates, as blacks have historically and to the present been prevented from moving into prosperous low-crime areas through actions of the government (such as redlining) and private actors.[4][5][6] Various explanations within criminology have been proposed to explain racial disparities in crime rates, including conflict theory, strain theory, general strain theory, social disorganization theory, macrostructural opportunity theory, social control theory, and subcultural theory." Then it continues with something that you might conflate with supporting your claim: "Research also indicates that there is extensive racial and ethnic discrimination by police and the judicial system..." IE. It isn't enough to support your claim. This shouldn't be controversial (but I realize it is). It should not be surprising that socio economic factors influence the commission of crimes. Both Wiki and the UN seem to agree.

For quoting INow and a contradicting UN report? (which he thought was supporting evidence for his claim) Or is it for something else?

Thanks INow. But your link seems to disagree with your claim that Blacks "commit crimes at the same (or less) rate" https://www.sentencingproject.org/publications/un-report-on-racial-disparities/ "What might appear at first to be a linkage between race and crime is in large part a function of concentrated urban poverty, which is far more common for African Americans than for other racial groups. This accounts for a substantial portion of African Americans’ increased likelihood of committing certain violent and property crimes."10) It doesn't discount the effect of discrimination by the police/judicial system...but unless that's a greater factor than other socio economic effects...neither did I.

Thanks. But wasn't Dim responding in a way that many of the more well meaning protestors (not the violent looters) are espousing? Doing his best to speak out against even "hidden" racism?

What needs to be in place to ensure that's done? It seems to be an elusive goal. Most laws seem to at least attempt this...and then unfortunately it requires people to carry it out.

Others will of course not read that literally, or as intended, but look it as an example of systemic racism, and an attempt to preserve the status quo. Much for "efficient" to be able to point than to have to make an effort toward real solutions. Was that OK Phi? Or should I report every post whereI believe it (strawmanning) may be happening? (subtle or otherwise?)

I think we are all struggling with the term and context. In particular (for me at least) it seems impossible much of the time to differentiate between systemic racism and systemic abuse of power inequities of all types. Others seem to believe it's always racism, whenever a white person has a position of power over a minority.

With regard to those stats you gave, which are known to be accurate, what makes you add the bold? Are you as certain that is true? If you want to simply point out that there is no reason to believe Blacks are inherently more likely to be criminals, I think everyone here would agree with that. But adding what you did condemns the police and justice system in your country ( not saying they should be off the hook) where other socio economic factors may be more to blame.

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/gives+as+good+as+he+gets

Sorry for the delayed response. OK, I will agree it is a place where racism can take place, and though I think that can be almost anywhere the power balance overall in this adds to the problem, despite the fact that most laws are generally in place to protect both parties, employer and employee. In a dispute they might protect one side more so, and if it is a white employer and minority employee that can be seen, or actually be, part of our systemic racism problem. What can, or should, be done about it?

Maybe he's racist. He certainly likes to generalize and dislikes loud music. Maybe he finds it intimidating. Maybe he's not racist but an intolerant bigot. But at least there is this "because of the rude behavior/rap persona of a few." So maybe there is hope for him somewhere. I'm fine with banning him. We don't need that crap. And I understand the limits of patience to try to change him. I just don't see the need, or benefit, to insulting him as well, especially with all the neg reps on his posts (and positive ones for those insulting him) These people get to vote (and like everyone else, should be encouraged to do so). They may also come into position to influence others. Not my cup of tea either but one of my sons works out to it...hopefully not on his way to causing "psychological issues to society".

Nice... Maybe you should stick to explaining why your outlook is so much better, and will lead to better outcomes. I don't see MigL's goals on this being substantially different from yours, outside of him being substantially more open to other's views. (and I'm not referring to racist ones) I think you understood the point, but go ahead and pick apart the analogy as less than perfect That's fair. What's unfair is acting on those suspicions as if you assume they are true and assuming worst motives. Especially if there is a more diplomatic, sensible and potentially more effective approach available. If it's clear cut racism let's call it out, but we should feel an onus to prove it rather than assume it.

I think this is a problem. Few get to bestow the title of "physicist" or "plumber". It seems almost anyone is allowed to bestow the title of "racist". All you need is an opinion and an interpretation of what someone might have said or done. Yesterday the Leader of the NDP in Canada, Jagmeet Singh, called another member of the House of Commons "racist" because he voted against his Bill that proclaimed the RCMP in Canada systemically racist, and he considered him to have done so in a dismissive manner. I think if you use that term you have a major onus to explain yourself. Because it was said in the House, and not apologised for, Singh was ejected from that session. He later explained that he "saw" racism at the time the Member voted, We obviously have different rules here. I get the need not to give a platform for certain ideas, and the necessity of removing individuals that espouse them in certain ways, on this privately owned forum. The goal for some is to also insult them, often in a manner that would be totally unacceptable if they had views we agreed with. Singh may or may not have been right in his interpretation of the Member, but in the House that's not OK, and for good reason.

An earlier reply, again directly quoting you...(brick not book at that time) Have you learned anything?

Don't feel bad about me though...others have tried much harder to make points you prefer to ignore. (I quoted you directly when I posted that)