Black Lives Matter

13»

  Comments


  • Soul Zilla said:
    Big_Stacks said:
    Hey,

    To answer Soul Zilla's commentary, I will make several points. First, I will say that senseless killing is an atrocity no matter the demographic membership of the perpetrator or victim(s). So, I do not condone nor defend in any way the killing of innocent people. Second, I will agree with his point that the Black community does need to behave with decorum when it comes to interactions with the police. Black folks have been educating their children for eons about this irrefutable fact, as not being respectful can lead to violence against them and death.

    Now, that I have established my ideological baseline (i.e., killing innocent people is wrong and Black folks should behave politely with police), I will depart from Soul Zilla on the following point. The simple fact of the matter is that institutional racism is the reason why Blacks (and other disparaged folks) react negatively to police scrutiny. There has been a legacy of police mistreatment of minorities so, of course, there is distrust between minorities and the police. More importantly, there is documented research evidence in criminology of the following racial-ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. Relative to Whites, statistically, Blacks tend to experience more use-of-force (including deadly) by the police (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Police-Public Contact" Survey, 2008), and are given longer prison sentence for identical crimes (Doerner & Demuth, 2010 in Justice Quarterly). These statistics provide some explanation for why there are negative citizen-police relationships in the Black community.

    Finally, as I remarked about 8 years ago, Blumer's (1958) realistic group threat theory would predict that (some) Whites would respond negatively to the election of a Black president. This occurs because there are some Whites who feel that the election of a Black president symbolizes encroachment by the lower-status group into a position more legitimately held by higher-status group members (i.e., Whites). The result, Blumer predicted, is higher incidences of racial discrimination. Not surprisingly, there has been an upswing in police shootings (and killings) of Black citizens during President Obama's presidency. Moreover, research suggests that police tend to be higher in right-wing authoritarianism (i.e., an ideology that supports obedience to authority, conventionalist thought, etc.) (Gatto, Dambrun, Kerbrat, & De Oliveira's 2010 article in European Journal of Social Psychology, and Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert's 1998 book "Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing"), which is strongly correlated with social dominance orientation (SDO). People who are high in SDO tend to support the maintenance of the social hierarchy wherein some groups (i.e., Whites) have higher status than other groups (i.e., minorities). High SDO people also have more negative attitudes toward disparaged groups such as women, minorities, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered individuals, and the disabled (see work by James Sidanius, Felecia Pratto, Shana Levin, and Lawrence Bobo on the topic) . So, the trends we are witnessing in regards to the above issues are strongly predicted by prior theory and research.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    I'm tempted to challenge you on facts. Not the academic credentials that you flaunt promiscuously and with out abandon, please tell us how learned you are, must you repeat it ad nauseum?

    Can you address posts without citing your academic credentials? I'm Sure you are who you say you are, but the discourse gets muddled real quick.

    And some people become Mesmerized real quick, and here we are....



  • Soul Zilla said:
    Soul Zilla said:
    Big_Stacks said:
    Hey,

    To answer Soul Zilla's commentary, I will make several points. First, I will say that senseless killing is an atrocity no matter the demographic membership of the perpetrator or victim(s). So, I do not condone nor defend in any way the killing of innocent people. Second, I will agree with his point that the Black community does need to behave with decorum when it comes to interactions with the police. Black folks have been educating their children for eons about this irrefutable fact, as not being respectful can lead to violence against them and death.

    Now, that I have established my ideological baseline (i.e., killing innocent people is wrong and Black folks should behave politely with police), I will depart from Soul Zilla on the following point. The simple fact of the matter is that institutional racism is the reason why Blacks (and other disparaged folks) react negatively to police scrutiny. There has been a legacy of police mistreatment of minorities so, of course, there is distrust between minorities and the police. More importantly, there is documented research evidence in criminology of the following racial-ethnic disparities in the criminal justice system. Relative to Whites, statistically, Blacks tend to experience more use-of-force (including deadly) by the police (Bureau of Justice Statistics, "Police-Public Contact" Survey, 2008), and are given longer prison sentence for identical crimes (Doerner & Demuth, 2010 in Justice Quarterly). These statistics provide some explanation for why there are negative citizen-police relationships in the Black community.

    Finally, as I remarked about 8 years ago, Blumer's (1958) realistic group threat theory would predict that (some) Whites would respond negatively to the election of a Black president. This occurs because there are some Whites who feel that the election of a Black president symbolizes encroachment by the lower-status group into a position more legitimately held by higher-status group members (i.e., Whites). The result, Blumer predicted, is higher incidences of racial discrimination. Not surprisingly, there has been an upswing in police shootings (and killings) of Black citizens during President Obama's presidency. Moreover, research suggests that police tend to be higher in right-wing authoritarianism (i.e., an ideology that supports obedience to authority, conventionalist thought, etc.) (Gatto, Dambrun, Kerbrat, & De Oliveira's 2010 article in European Journal of Social Psychology, and Kappeler, Sluder, & Alpert's 1998 book "Forces of deviance: Understanding the dark side of policing"), which is strongly correlated with social dominance orientation (SDO). People who are high in SDO tend to support the maintenance of the social hierarchy wherein some groups (i.e., Whites) have higher status than other groups (i.e., minorities). High SDO people also have more negative attitudes toward disparaged groups such as women, minorities, lesbian/gay/bisexual/transgendered individuals, and the disabled (see work by James Sidanius, Felecia Pratto, Shana Levin, and Lawrence Bobo on the topic) . So, the trends we are witnessing in regards to the above issues are strongly predicted by prior theory and research.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    I'm tempted to challenge you on facts. Not the academic credentials that you flaunt promiscuously and with out abandon, please tell us how learned you are, must you repeat it ad nauseum?

    Can you address posts without citing your academic credentials? I'm Sure you are who you say you are, but the discourse gets muddled real quick.

    And some people become Mesmerized real quick, and here we are....



    Should any of yall be swayed by z group theory from 1958, im here to be swayed

  • Big_StacksBig_Stacks "I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
    Hey Soul Zilla,

    The point is not about flaunting credentials, but to inform readers about from whence my position on the topic of discussion comes. I just try to establish some modicum of credibility. Even research journals ask us to provide a bio to include with our published articles. Trust me, I'm the most 'regular' academic dude you'll ever meet. Regarding Blumer's (1958) theory, five decades of research to the present day have supported it.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

  • Big_Stacks said:
    Hey Soul Zilla,

    The point is not about flaunting credentials, but to inform readers about from whence my position on the topic of discussion comes. I just try to establish some modicum of credibility. Even research journals ask us to provide a bio to include with our published articles. Trust me, I'm the most 'regular' academic dude you'll ever meet. Regarding Blumer's (1958) theory, five decades of research to the present day have supported it.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    Are you comitted to the racial line? This is a hard line to walk. For every black victim I can up you with a nonblack victim. Video evidence. My point is that stupidity crosses racial lines.

    Go ahead and be disrespectful to the police, don't comply, see where that gets you.

    The impetus for my reaction was a local case, yes I live in NC like you, and similar to other cases the police officer was vilified by the media. It was a foregone conclusion.

    Until it was tried in a court of law. And the facts came to light. Dashcam footage corroborated along with testimony from the other two officers present both of whom were black.

    It's this sensationalism that bothers me before the facts come to light. By the time this long process comes about the spotlight has shifted to another case again where all the facts aren't known but people leap to a conclusion.

  • Big_StacksBig_Stacks "I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
    Hey Soul Zilla,

    My statement of facts is not about convincing you (or anyone else for that matter). I present the research trends owing to their informational value. The consumer of the information can regard it (or disregard it) as they wish. I just like to bring information to the discussion (versus solely my personal views), and I see no value in playing the 'who's right' game. I respect peoples' rights to hold views that counter my own. That's the beauty of intellectual discourse, agreeing to disagree.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

  • Stacks, you are a patient man.

  • Big_Stacks said:
    Hey Soul Zilla,

    My statement of facts is not about convincing you (or anyone else for that matter). I present the research trends owing to their informational value. The consumer of the information can regard it (or disregard it) as they wish. I just like to bring information to the discussion (versus solely my personal views), and I see no value in playing the 'who's right' game. I respect peoples' rights to hold views that counter my own. That's the beauty of intellectual discourse, agreeing to disagree.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    You didn't address my questions. You artfully said nothing paradoxically with paragraphs of text. And still managed to garner a fan that replied, pattern emerging?

    That someone replied in the manner which he did is both disgraceful because he's on your side no matter what and no matter how trivial, but also lockstep to the biased beat.

    That is eye opening

  • Big_StacksBig_Stacks "I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
    Soul Zilla said:
    Big_Stacks said:
    Hey Soul Zilla,

    My statement of facts is not about convincing you (or anyone else for that matter). I present the research trends owing to their informational value. The consumer of the information can regard it (or disregard it) as they wish. I just like to bring information to the discussion (versus solely my personal views), and I see no value in playing the 'who's right' game. I respect peoples' rights to hold views that counter my own. That's the beauty of intellectual discourse, agreeing to disagree.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    You didn't address my questions. You artfully said nothing paradoxically with paragraphs of text. And still managed to garner a fan that replied, pattern emerging?

    That someone replied in the manner which he did is both disgraceful because he's on your side no matter what and no matter how trivial, but also lockstep to the biased beat.

    That is eye opening

    Hey Soul Zilla,

    I didn't reply because your statement was not particularly insightful (i.e., my reaction to it was 'duh'). Plus, my previous posts speak to my position so I did not feel it necessary to reiterate my point. Since you seem to presume what I think, I find it equally unnecessary to refute your irrefutable point of view. Facts can't never sway those who are dogmatic. My mother has taught me as much for my entire 45 years. Her opinions have always superseded any facts presented, because "she just knows..." I am well-versed in your schtick, my friend.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

  • ketanketan Warmly booming riffs 3,103 Posts
    Soul Zilla said:
    ketan said:
    Dude isn't ignorant - that would imply that more information would change his mind. He's just got a worldview/ideology that is, um, distinctive compared to many of us. Any more information you pour into him will likely be sorted into his worldview just fine, thanks (and unless you're a strong critical thinker, you're probably doing a bit that yourself on the issues of the day... it's a form of confirmation bias).


    The single best reply yet, yes I may be wrong, yes I have confirmation bias, yes I am human.

    But no my worldview isn't solid, it can change. And has changed and will undoubtedly change in the future. As long as it morphs with the data.

    The point is that data is hidden sometimes and othertimes distorted. And that the media has an agenda, that changes periodically and It's hard to decipher.

    And that a skeptical voice needs to always be present to separate the wheat from the chaff


    I was trying to damn you with faint praise! I should have clarified that [em]it's not just that you're ignorant[/em], but that you appear to be so obstinate that more information will apparently not change your mind.

    You should check out California Newsreel for some great documentaries with scientific data about why social marginalization has inter-generational effects on communities and societies. I use Unnatural Causes a lot in different classes to help students become less ignorant.

    http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/

    They just made a follow-up called The Raising of America that is sitting on my desk (gonna watch it this week). It focuses more on the science behind early childhood development, including how investing in it strengthens societies at large.

    The Raising of America Series - TRAILER from California Newsreel on Vimeo.



    bassie said:
    Out of curiosity - are people engaging this poster for sport or off a sliver of hope of getting it to agree with you?
    (not counting LB who is providing picture boards for all the blah blah blah)

    I'm genuinely interested in changing people's perspectives on social justice issues. As a teacher, I figure it's my job. As a human, I think it's only right.

    I was going on about confirmation bias earlier and I'm sorry if this is getting pedantic (but you asked!)... but if you haven't lived or somehow experienced what it's like to be of some particular social group (think: class, race, gender, sexuality, musical taste), I think it can be hard for some special people to fit new facts into a radically different interpretation of the world . This is why something like confirmation bias is important to account for as decent people act in a self-critical manner.

    That being said, if there is any social issue that you're accused of being unjust on by a large number of people, you just accept that you're probably an asshole and try to improve yourself.

  • Big_Stacks said:
    Soul Zilla said:
    Big_Stacks said:
    Hey Soul Zilla,

    My statement of facts is not about convincing you (or anyone else for that matter). I present the research trends owing to their informational value. The consumer of the information can regard it (or disregard it) as they wish. I just like to bring information to the discussion (versus solely my personal views), and I see no value in playing the 'who's right' game. I respect peoples' rights to hold views that counter my own. That's the beauty of intellectual discourse, agreeing to disagree.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    You didn't address my questions. You artfully said nothing paradoxically with paragraphs of text. And still managed to garner a fan that replied, pattern emerging?

    That someone replied in the manner which he did is both disgraceful because he's on your side no matter what and no matter how trivial, but also lockstep to the biased beat.

    That is eye opening

    Hey Soul Zilla,

    I didn't reply because your statement was not particularly insightful (i.e., my reaction to it was 'duh'). Plus, my previous posts speak to my position so I did not feel it necessary to reiterate my point. Since you seem to presume what I think, I find it equally unnecessary to refute your irrefutable point of view. Facts can't never sway those who are dogmatic. My mother has taught me as much for my entire 45 years. Her opinions have always superseded any facts presented, because "she just knows..." I am well-versed in your schtick, my friend.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    Thank you, everything I need to know about you is contained in this response.

  • Soul Zilla said:
    ketan said:
    Dude isn't ignorant - that would imply that more information would change his mind. He's just got a worldview/ideology that is, um, distinctive compared to many of us. Any more information you pour into him will likely be sorted into his worldview just fine, thanks (and unless you're a strong critical thinker, you're probably doing a bit that yourself on the issues of the day... it's a form of confirmation bias).


    The single best reply yet, yes I may be wrong, yes I have confirmation bias, yes I am human.

    But no my worldview isn't solid, it can change. And has changed and will undoubtedly change in the future. As long as it morphs with the data.

    The point is that data is hidden sometimes and othertimes distorted. And that the media has an agenda, that changes periodically and It's hard to decipher.

    And that a skeptical voice needs to always be present to separate the wheat from the chaff


    I was trying to damn you with faint praise! I should have clarified that [em]it's not just that you're ignorant[/em], but that you appear to be so obstinate that more information will apparently not change your mind.

    You should check out California Newsreel for some great documentaries with scientific data about why social marginalization has inter-generational effects on communities and societies. I use Unnatural Causes a lot in different classes to help students become less ignorant.

    http://www.unnaturalcauses.org/

    They just made a follow-up called The Raising of America that is sitting on my desk (gonna watch it this week). It focuses more on the science behind early childhood development, including how investing in it strengthens societies at large.

    The Raising of America Series - TRAILER from California Newsreel on Vimeo.



    bassie said:
    Out of curiosity - are people engaging this poster for sport or off a sliver of hope of getting it to agree with you?
    (not counting LB who is providing picture boards for all the blah blah blah)

    I'm genuinely interested in changing people's perspectives on social justice issues. As a teacher, I figure it's my job. As a human, I think it's only right.

    I was going on about confirmation bias earlier and I'm sorry if this is getting pedantic (but you asked!)... but if you haven't lived or somehow experienced what it's like to be of some particular social group (think: class, race, gender, sexuality, musical taste), I think it can be hard for some special people to fit new facts into a radically different interpretation of the world . This is why something like confirmation bias is important to account for as decent people act in a self-critical manner.

    That being said, if there is any social issue that you're accused of being unjust on by a large number of people, you just accept that you're probably an asshole and try to improve yourself.

    Thanks for the info and link, I will watch. And no I'm not an asshole. I always try to improve myself.

  • Big_StacksBig_Stacks "I don't worry about hittin' power, cause I don't give 'em nuttin' to hit." 4,670 Posts
    Soul Zilla said:
    Big_Stacks said:
    Soul Zilla said:
    Big_Stacks said:
    Hey Soul Zilla,

    My statement of facts is not about convincing you (or anyone else for that matter). I present the research trends owing to their informational value. The consumer of the information can regard it (or disregard it) as they wish. I just like to bring information to the discussion (versus solely my personal views), and I see no value in playing the 'who's right' game. I respect peoples' rights to hold views that counter my own. That's the beauty of intellectual discourse, agreeing to disagree.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    You didn't address my questions. You artfully said nothing paradoxically with paragraphs of text. And still managed to garner a fan that replied, pattern emerging?

    That someone replied in the manner which he did is both disgraceful because he's on your side no matter what and no matter how trivial, but also lockstep to the biased beat.

    That is eye opening

    Hey Soul Zilla,

    I didn't reply because your statement was not particularly insightful (i.e., my reaction to it was 'duh'). Plus, my previous posts speak to my position so I did not feel it necessary to reiterate my point. Since you seem to presume what I think, I find it equally unnecessary to refute your irrefutable point of view. Facts can't never sway those who are dogmatic. My mother has taught me as much for my entire 45 years. Her opinions have always superseded any facts presented, because "she just knows..." I am well-versed in your schtick, my friend.

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

    Thank you, everything I need to know about you is contained in this response.

    Hey Soul Zilla,

    I'm always happy to be informative. The feelings are mutual. ;-)

    Peace,

    Big Stacks from Kakalak

  • ketanketan Warmly booming riffs 3,103 Posts
    And no I'm not an asshole.

    You should go back and re-read your first post. You sound really dismissive of the notion that African Americans suffer structural discrimination. You start off by trying to compare a shooting involving a mentally ill person (who was, yes, black and killing white people) with situations of ostensibly sane police officers (of all colours, mind you) killing black people.
Sign In or Register to comment.