Gun Control - Topic

[CharonY]

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

In my mind the problem is not so much use of terminology or lack of dialogue. It is that people generally see themselves as clear thinkers who understand what is really going on, and are justified in their beliefs. In other words, everyone thinks they are right and anyone who disagrees with them is wrong.

I mean, one thing that is somewhat relevant is the fact that in many cases we are talking about more or less unconscious racial biases. Some of which are merely a byproduct of personal exposure (or lack thereof). Obviously a negative trait is hard to accept if you are not cognizant of them. Majority persons come much more rarely into situations where racial discrimination of any sorts occurs and thus their estimates of frequency of such encounters is likely going to be much lower than minority persons, for example.

Even if dialogue occurs the situation is approached from vastly different experiences, which can colour the judgement of the other persons. What instead is needed is a general acknowledgement of said experiences, but contextualize them into a broader context. I.e. where do the described experience fit into the overall social landscape. But that is very difficult to achieve within short time frames. It does not help that research or similar work that specifically provide this context are often dismissed as biased (typically to the liberal side).

Without the context we end up in holding up our own experiences as the ultimate truths.

[DirtyChai]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Well, the issue is that there is a disconnect between what it is and what folks think it is. A structural bias that systematically disadvantages folks of certain ethnicities is (from what understand) termed racism. Or at least the outcome is.

I just think it helps to make a distinction between implicit bias and explicit racism when applicable since there's a difference.

When people are calling for the heads of "racist pigs,"  it implies explicit racism.  And if that's clearly the case, then fine.   But if it's not, people may be more inclined to talk about the idea of "implicit bias" since it's more relatable and easier to understand.

 

4 hours ago, zapatos said:

You say 'crying wolf'. I say 'hitting the nail on the head'. We all see things from our unique vantage point.

Neither are very helpful.  The first just dismisses a sensitive issue in a rather insensitive way, while the second just automatically assumes racism even if it isn't.

[zapatos]

4 hours ago, CharonY said:

Even if dialogue occurs the situation is approached from vastly different experiences, which can colour the judgement of the other persons. What instead is needed is a general acknowledgement of said experiences, but contextualize them into a broader context. I.e. where do the described experience fit into the overall social landscape. But that is very difficult to achieve within short time frames. It does not help that research or similar work that specifically provide this context are often dismissed as biased (typically to the liberal side).

Without the context we end up in holding up our own experiences as the ultimate truths.

When I was younger and dumber I had no idea what women and minorities had been putting up with their entire lives. I didn't see it or experience, and I certainly didn't participate in overt bias. I was therefore confident that it wasn't nearly as bad as many made it out to be. I was shocked when I finally understood how blacks are treated every day in the US. From being followed around in stores, to being ignored as if they are not there. 

3 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

Neither are very helpful.  The first just dismisses a sensitive issue in a rather insensitive way, while the second just automatically assumes racism even if it isn't.

And that's your vantage point. My point is that when one thinks they are right, there is nothing dismissive or assumptive about those statements. They are simply making a statement of fact (as they see it). It is very difficult to change someone's mind simply by using words, when that person already "knows" they are right.

[DirtyChai]

23 hours ago, zapatos said:

It is very difficult to change someone's mind simply by using words

Then I guess I'm just easy.  iNow's comment resonated with me a bit:

  "Otherwise quite good people... well trained, well raised,  and well intentioned... you and me included... too often fall victim to unconscious biases "

It helped me understand more how it could increase the disparity a bit.  Tho I was always aware of unconscious bias (if that makes sense, lol)  I never really thought that it could cause a cop to actually kill another person as explicit racism could.  And there are still studies that support that.

For example, while police showed bias in reaction times toward blacks, it didn't translate to their ultimate decision to shoot or not shoot.

The disagreement is whether or not the disproportionate numbers are more related to racial bias vs demographic and socioeconomic issues. We know both play a role.

 

23 hours ago, zapatos said:

When I was younger and dumber I had no idea what women and minorities had been putting up with their entire lives. I didn't see it or experience, and I certainly didn't participate in overt bias. I was therefore confident that it wasn't nearly as bad as many made it out to be. I was shocked when I finally understood how blacks are treated every day in the US. From being followed around in stores, to being ignored as if they are not there. 

Ok, I'll bite.  Against my better judgement, I'll open myself up a little and offer a bit of my own anecdotal flare since at this point it seems relevant and may provide some insight into my perspective in previous posts.

I grew up in a small neighborhood in the middle of Detroit City.  (Here's the part of the script where I'm supposed spend time building a rapport with the audience so that subsequent tragedies are more heartfelt, thus securing a 60+ rating on the rotten tomatoes scale.)

But anyway, I'll just cut to the chase.

When we were in our teens, not only were we also followed around by security guards throughout the store, we were taken to the back room where we were then thoroughly searched before being able to leave.

After a high school girls basketball game, we were all drinking in a parking lot several blocks away from the school.  When the cops came, we all ran, but my buddy was caught and beaten as the police questioned him for gang information - he wasn't in a gang.

In another instance, after a dispute I was handcuffed to a rail.  Back then I was a bit of an asshole (still am in some ways) and I mouthed off to a cop about how this is just a bunch of BS and he started to choke me.

In another instance during a dispute just outside an L.A  pool hall, the cops rolled in and my initial instict was to just run, but after several steps, I thought better and  kneeled down with my hands behind my head - then several seconds later, Boom!  They  tackled me, handcuffed me, then repeatedly beat me in the face while emptying what seemed to be an entire can of pepper spray into my face. It seemed to go on forever.  I could do nothing but burrow my face into the gravel as deep as I could.  I could feel the cop digging his hand underneath the gravel trying to get the spray directly into my eye as they continued to beat the sides of my face and back of my head.  At one point, I couldn't breathe at all, my lungs felt like they just locked up.  I honestly felt like I was about to die.

My point in all this is that for a long time I felt that living in the city just comes with more risk overall, cops are more suspicious/cautious and everyone is suspect regardless of race.  

In violent, poverty stricken neighborhoods it's normal for stores to have security guards.  It's their job to follow people around, so even though I was followed around, of course blacks are going to be followed around more since these areas tend to have more black people.  You don't need some elaborate study to tell you that, just some common sense and mathematics - calculate the odds, it's a numbers game.

We know that these negative encounters happens to both whites and blacks.  Maybe it's explicit racism, maybe it's bias, maybe the cop is just a dick, maybe he just hates criminals, maybe he just hates the way some people dress regardless of race, maybe he hates rednecks and thugs equally.

Even if we are able to eliminate racial bias, we still have to deal with excessive force and police brutality overall - and I still think the numbers would be disproportionate given the current demographics and over policing of black neighborhoods.

It's a good thing that people and groups like BLM draw awareness to the issue, because any policy implemented will benefit society as a whole, regardless of race.

One has to wonder, if the numbers weren't disproportionate, would anything have been done to address the problem?  Liberals only seem to be concerned because it affects blacks disproportionately, while conservatives remain apathetic.  They just don't care regardless of race.  Their mindset remains consistent - you play with fire, you get burned.

 

Edited September 15, 2018 by DirtyChai

[iNow]

1 hour ago, DirtyChai said:

One has to wonder, if the numbers weren't disproportionate, would anything have been done to address the problem?  Liberals only seem to be concerned because it affects blacks disproportionately

If only your constrained experiences represented the whole. If wishes were fishes we’d all swim in riches...

Stop using “liberals” as your foil. It’s lazy and makes you (a seemingly otherwise thoughtful and intelligent human with important experience and knowledge to express) look foolish. 

[DirtyChai]

31 minutes ago, iNow said:

Stop using “liberals” as your foil. It’s lazy and makes you (a seemingly otherwise thoughtful and intelligent human with important experience and knowledge to express) look foolish. 

First, point taken. I can see how it may be interpreted like that.  I'll try to avoid it in the future.

Second, I consider myself a moderate,  probably left leaning and more liberal than conservative.  But considering I'm practically surrounded by respectable conservative influence in practically every aspect of my life, that might not be saying much.

Third, I really didn't mean much by it.  I was just making a very broad comparison of typical liberal vs. conservative views based on my social media observations.

Forth, It makes you look foolish/lazy when you say mitigating implicit bias is easy, then link to an article that contradicts that statement.

Fifth, it makes you look foolosh/lazy when you don't address any of my content except the most trivial point of all in an attempt at some type of patronizing semi-quasi ad hom.  Should I say thanks?

Edited September 15, 2018 by DirtyChai

[iNow]

Yes 

Always be grateful 

[CharonY]

On 9/14/2018 at 7:50 PM, DirtyChai said:

It's a good thing that people and groups like BLM draw awareness to the issue, because any policy implemented will benefit society as a whole, regardless of race.

Well, here is the thing. It is not that liberals don't care or only if it affects black people. After all, a number of the devastating policies ultimately targeting black folks were enacted under Democratic administrations.

It is more likely that most Democrat politicians are equally careful as their conservative counterparts to blame police. After all, law and order is considered a strength of Republicans and many Democrats are try to appeal to the same. The rise of these activists groups can be considered a form of lobbying in which could embolden certain progressive politicians to take those things seriously with less fear of losing votes.

 

On 9/14/2018 at 7:50 PM, DirtyChai said:

One has to wonder, if the numbers weren't disproportionate, would anything have been done to address the problem? 

It depends on the voter, doesn't it? Many, especially white folks, seem to be complacent with the issue or even encourage tougher enforcement. Ironically probably because the target are generally not what is seen as the "typical" voter such as the white middle class. Many anti-police violence groups were formed or are headed by minorities. This is likely not by accident, as they perceive themselves to be targeted by the police, which is a strong motivator for political activism. 

[Phi for All]

On 9/14/2018 at 9:40 PM, DirtyChai said:

Fifth, it makes you look foolosh/lazy when you don't address any of my content except the most trivial point of all in an attempt at some type of patronizing semi-quasi ad hom.  Should I say thanks?

OMG, you're on a science forum. Expect to have small mistakes/misconceptions corrected. When you're trying to persuade people, your argument is a path that should be kept clean. If someone takes the time to pick up a bit of litter, perhaps thanks is in order.

Personally, I think misuse of quick labels by the media has kept many important issues muddled in the minds of many Americans. They allow people to generalize a topic that's increasingly complex and frustrating. Gun control isn't helped at all with this kind of treatment. We need to stop thinking in terms of black/white, red/blue, lib/con, right/left, because it seems to reduce us all to alive/dead.

[DirtyChai]

5 hours ago, Phi for All said:

If someone takes the time to pick up a bit of litter, perhaps thanks is in order.

No, merely looking at a piece of litter and calling it lazy is not the same as actually taking the time to pick it up, and is lazy in itself.

And again, I really didn't mean it as an attack on liberals or conservatives, but acknowledged how it could've been viewed like that.  CharonY seemed to be able to look past all that and took the time to address the real question with a substantive response without calling someone a "misguided, only accurate by accident, lazy fool!"

That's the problem.  I didn't insult anyone's character, but stuck to the topic.  I even applauded his illustration of unconscious bias.  I didn't insult his reading comprehension abilities when he relied on links that only contradicted his claims.  And it's not that he didn't acknowledge my response to his objections and accusations in previous posts.  I get it.  If you're too busy or don't want to talk about it, fine.  But then don't peek back in just to offer some lame ass passive aggressive ad hom without any substance whatsoever.

As a moderator, I find it surprising that you would support such indolent tactics as if they were something to be thankful for.

Edited September 17, 2018 by DirtyChai

[Phi for All]

20 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

That's the problem.  I didn't insult anyone's character, but stuck to the topic.

I missed where iNow insulted your character. Perhaps you're being a bit thin-skinned for science? Expressing his opinion that certain of your behaviors makes you look foolish is hardly a personal insult. A character insult would be to call you a fool. His comments have been in the spirit of "Attack the idea, not the person" that we try to adhere to on these forums. 

20 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

As a moderator, I find it surprising that you would support such indolent tactics as if they were something to be thankful for.

I explained why there was nothing objectionable, and the mods here try not to make judgement calls on posts in threads we're involved in as a member. 

20 hours ago, DirtyChai said:

And again, I really didn't mean it as an attack on liberals or conservatives, but acknowledged how it could've been viewed like that.  CharonY seemed to be able to look past all that and took the time to address the real question with a substantive response without calling someone a "misguided, only accurate by accident, lazy fool!"

See how you changed iNow's words into a personal insult, and made it worse by using fake quote marks, like he really said that? He was commenting on your arguments and behavior, but you've made it personal. It's possible to do something foolish without being an overall fool, you know.

[DirtyChai]

2 hours ago, Phi for All said:

Perhaps you're being a bit thin-skinned for science?  His comments have been in the spirit of "Attack the idea, not the person" that we try to adhere to on these forums. 

I'll admit that you coming in here a few days later to stir things up again got under my skin a bit.  I felt that iNow and I pretty much resolved the problem on our own.  He said his piece and I said mine.  I acknowledged the issue and said I'd avoid it in the future.

Note how we're now discussing each other rather than the actual topic.  That's the inherent problem and ultimate purpose of ad hom - to divert attention away from the real issue by focusing on the poster without having to provide an actual argument of your own.

[DirtyChai]

Well, I had some time today to relax, grab a bourbon and reflect on the situation a bit.  I was browsing some other political forums, and everything seemed to boil down to the typical liberal this, conservative that garbage.  I can't stand it, yet here I was projecting a similar attitude.  It just shows how this divisive mindset has saturated American political discourse.

Phi, I wholeheartedly agreed with your response about not looking at everything as white vs. black, lib vs. con, etc., but I just ignored it and insisted on rationalizing my own position rather than focusing on the integrity of the forum.

I can appreciate your lack of tolerance for such unnecessary comments in order to keep this forum clean, unlike so many others out there.  I really don't know why I took such a simple concept so personally and I owe you both an apology.