A Marriage Equality Victory Lap
Yesterday's announcement that the Supreme Court would not review the marriage equality cases before it was a solid victory for marriage egalitarians (a term I just made up in the hopes everyone will immediately start using it). It was a solid defeat for the anti-egalitarians. Marriage equality will soon be reality in at least 30 out of 50 states. The others are likely to quickly follow, one way or another (as I sat down to write this I noted that yet another ruling from an appeals court was just announced, striking down anti-egalitarian laws in two more states -- something that has become so common, it is barely considered newsworthy any more). The only real question now is whether it'll take another Supreme Court case or just happen organically among the various federal appellate courts.
America has come a long way to get to this point. The past two years, the issue has moved forward at lightspeed in both the world of politics and the arena of public opinion. Social change is always a big rock that must be slowly and painfully pushed up a hill, but when you get to the top the rock starts rolling faster and faster by itself, gaining speed and momentum all the while.
Today I am taking a victory lap of sorts, because while the term "tipping point" is now in a lot of headlines, I actually predicted this chain of events a year and a half ago, in the column below. That doesn't sound like a whole lot of time, but consider that when I wrote this the following was true:
- The biggest advance in gay rights was the repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" in the military.
- The Defense Of Marriage Act was still the law of the land.
- Four-fifths of the states had anti-egalitarian marriage laws on the books, and in 30 of them they were enacted by popular referendum -- including in very blue states such as California.
- Only ten states had full marriage equality.
- The Supreme Court had yet to rule on the two marriage equality cases before it (I wrote the article after the arguments had been made in the Proposition 8 case and in the DOMA case).
- Republicans were still almost completely (and vocally) against marriage equality.
- Nobody knew what was going to happen, legally, or what the next year and a half would bring.
All of that was true in March of 2013, which is really not that long ago. Since that point, there has been an overwhelming string of court victories for marriage equality, starting with the momentous Supreme Court decision handed down later that year. Since then, lawsuits have been brought in every single state that still has anti-egalitarian laws on the books. In almost every one, the courts have ruled for equality. Part of the reason why the Supreme Court didn't take up any of the multiple cases this week was that they were all in agreement -- there were no circuit court rulings in favor of anti-egalitarian laws to complicate the issue.
Since this was written, full equality has come to at least twenty more states (including eleven affected by the court's refusal to overturn any of the cases before it this week). It is flabbergasting to think that that gay marriage is now legal in Oklahoma. It is now the law of the land in Utah -- quite possibly the most socially conservative state in existence. Cases in the remaining states are working their way upwards through the federal court system, and people are seriously asking whether the remaining cases will also be a clean sweep for full equality. It was almost unimaginable to picture where we are today, only a year and a half ago, because things have moved so quickly and so unanimously towards full equality for all.
Few people were predicting anything like it, back then. I personally never thought the progress would be anywhere near so swift. But I do have to take a victory lap by reprinting the following article (which was titled "The Gay Marriage Tipping Point"), because few back then were predicting that America had already reached this tipping point, even before the Supreme Court ruled on the two big cases. I certainly didn't call everything right, but I did walk pretty far out onto a limb, for back then. Today, it hardly even seems like a remarkable idea -- and that is the best measure of how far we've come in such a short period of time.
Originally published March 25, 2013
No matter what the Supreme Court decides, after hearing this week's arguments, I think America has reached the tipping point on the subject of gay marriage. I say that because I think that gay marriage is going to win, in the end -- even if the Supreme Court ducks the issue this year. As civil rights battles go, the country has moved extraordinarily fast to where we find ourselves now: the point of no return. Victory for gay rights activists is not assured this time around, but it should now be seen as almost inevitable. Which makes this a very historic point in American progress.
That's a pretty sweeping thesis, but the facts justify it, I think. If you just took a snapshot in time of where we're at now, it might not seem as optimistic as when you put everything in context. After all, something like four out of five states have bans on gay marriage written into their laws in one fashion or another. Over 30 of these state laws passed by voter referenda. That's a pretty daunting fact to begin with.
But context is key. Banning gay marriage has been a favorite for Republicans for the past 20 years or so. It's been a proven winner for them. Put a gay marriage initiative on the ballot, and not only would you get more people out to vote, but they'd be reliably more conservative in the voting booth. Gay marriage initiatives were a big factor in George W. Bush's 2004 win, according to many political analysts -- as a backlash to the mayor of San Francisco pushing the issue to the forefront.
But that was then -- even though it was less than a decade ago -- and this is now. Things have changed dramatically in the meantime. In 2012, for the first time ever, gay marriage actually won at the ballot box, and in more than one state. Add to this the fact that the conservatives are now a victim of their own success -- there are barely any states left which haven't already banned gay marriage. And if gay marriage is already banned, then putting it back on the ballot is pointless, for conservatives.
However, it is not going to be pointless for liberals, from here on out. By winning in a few blue states in 2012, gay marriage supporters -- even without taking into consideration what the Supreme Court may or may not do -- may have shown that banning gay marriage has hit its high-water mark. This tide has now turned. There are plenty of progressive "blue" states where gay marriage is currently banned where future ballot initiatives will likely go the other way. California -- home of Proposition 8 -- is a good example of this. Prop 8 passed narrowly in 2008. Put it back on the ballot in 2014, and legalizing gay marriage is a lot more likely to carry the day. As I mentioned, public opinion is changing fast. What this means is that progressives will be the ones putting gay marriage on the ballot from now on -- in states where they have a good chance of the public voting for legalization. What used to be a wedge issue for conservatives will now cut the other way.
The country is moving in one clear direction on gay marriage -- towards full acceptance. Poll after poll shows this. Younger people are overwhelmingly more tolerant of gay marriage than their elders. As time goes on, this demographic bulge will wipe out popular opposition. We're just never moving back, to put it another way. No matter how the Supreme Court rules.
It's an odd fact for Democrats to have to face, but the military is leading on the issue in a similar way as they were forced to lead on desegregation. The repeal of "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" has had ripple effects. While the Defense Of Marriage Act still stands in the way, gay spouses and "significant others" are gaining a more-equal status with military wives and husbands as time goes on. Interestingly, when DADT was repealed, there was less teeth-gnashing from Republicans than many would have expected (myself included).
This is because Republicans know this issue is killing their chances of making any inroads among young voters. They still harbor the hard-liners on all gay rights within their ranks, but their voices are a lot more muted than they were five or ten years ago. This is because their influence is waning, even among Republicans. The party's establishment knows full well it has to get this issue behind them soon, or they will have lost an entire generation's voters. Those who want to see a revitalized Republican Party -- and can read polls and follow demographic trendlines -- know that the issue is an absolute deal-breaker among many under the age of 30.
It's beginning to show, too. While only a very few Republicans currently serving in elected office or party leadership positions have come out in support of gay marriage, there's a growing chorus of voices of former officeholders and leaders with less political risk to themselves who are beginning to speak out on the issue. Even those who are still fighting against the gay marriage tide the strongest seem downright dispirited these days. There's a sort of gay marriage gloom which hangs over conservatives on television, and this is only going to increase over time. This was on full display yesterday, on the weekly Sunday morning shows. Virtually no Republican politician or serious conservative analyst was predicting full and complete victory for their side at the Supreme Court. They were -- at best -- hoping for a very narrow ruling which wouldn't force all states to accept gay marriage right away. They projected defeatism and not confidence of their success, to put it bluntly.
On the Democratic side, supporting gay marriage has also just recently reached the tipping point. Up until now, most Democrats (most of those now in or running for office) have either been mealy-mouthed in their support, been otherwise intentionally vague and nebulous about their support, or have wanted to duck the issue entirely. Democrats, for approximately the past six years or so, have known that supporting gay marriage is the right thing to do, but they've also been afraid to champion the issue because they think they'll suffer for their stance at the ballot box. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are two prime examples of this (from the 2008 race). But now the floodgates are opening wide. The people are leading, and the leaders are finally following. Obama "evolved" on the issue in the 2012 campaign, and Hillary wasted no time after leaving the State Department to get on the record herself. No viable Democratic presidential candidate is ever again going to get away with either ducking the issue or actively opposing gay marriage, that's my guess.
It's not just the Democratic Party or the president, either. America has evolved on gay marriage. Now, this doesn't mean that everyone everywhere has gotten fully on board yet -- not by a long shot. There's still a long ways to go. There may, indeed, be a lot more political work to do. Of course, the Supreme Court could indeed surprise everyone and issue a sweeping ruling that gay marriage is a constitutional right (as it did in Loving v. Virginia over interracial marriage). But most court-watchers are predicting a less-monumental outcome. Some sort of incremental ruling or narrowly-targeted ruling would be seen by many as a huge disappointment, but my guess is that such a partial victory will not slow down the march of progress much at all. Such an outcome will leave a lot of work left to do at the state level, many more battles to be fought, and more hearts and minds to win over.
But whether the Supreme Court goes for a bold stroke or not, the tide will still have turned with the public. From here on out -- until marriage equality is indeed declared by the Supreme Court to be the immutable law of the land in all states -- gay marriage is going to win a lot more victories than it loses. The last two decades were a constant string of defeats for gay marriage. The next decade (even if the Supreme Court narrowly rules in the two cases before it) is going to be a lot different. The youth of America is driving the issue forward. Democratic politicians are on board, a handful of even Republican politicians are on board, and the general public is getting more and more supportive with each passing day. The tide has turned, and it's not ever going to turn back.
No matter what the Supreme Court rules on Proposition 8 and the Defense Of Marriage Act, I truly believe the tipping point for gay marriage has now been reached.
-- Chris Weigant
Follow Chris on Twitter: @ChrisWeigant
It's a big deal indeed. Some people say that marriage equality should not top the Gay Agenda, but I disagree. These are laws that specifically single out gay people. They've got to go. The haters can still hate and I'm sure that they will. They'll still be free to pretend to be victims and they'll still be allowed to say that gay people are asking for "special rights". They'll even have the liberty to keep on writing their hate into the GOP platform. They just shouldn't be able to inflict their "special persecution" by law.
JFC
Marriage egalitarian
And the next fight for our LGBTQ friends and families is protection in the workplace and housing, etc. It will come, but so slowly....
JFC,
They just shouldn't be able to inflict their "special persecution" by law.
And there shouldn't be any special protections under the law for people based solely and completely on who they have sex with..
And yet.. Here we are....
An entire race of people, solely and completely based on who they have sex with..
Only the Hysterical Left could come up with something so utterly ridiculous and asinine.. :^/
Michale
Hay CW I have a great idea.. Since contests seem to be the soup de jour, why not a contest on the most ridiculous things to base an entire race of people on??
Maybe we can have a race of people based on hair color.. Or eye color..
Or an entire race of people based on who likes chocolate ice cream and a different race of people who likes vanilla ice cream...
Or how about an entire race of people who are black on the left side and white on the right side and a different race of people who are black on the left side and white on the right side...
Ya know, for all the Left's claim of welcoming diversity, they sure like to divide people based on arbitrary, ridiculous and scientifically unsupported labels...
Michale
The haters can still hate and I'm sure that they will.
I wonder if you can see the irony of this statement in the context of the rest of your hatred-laced diatribe and the general hatred exhibited by the Left. :D
Michale
Like I said . . . like clockwork.
Mitch McConnell (R) did himself no favors with a confrontational appearance on KY Sports Radio today. Among the idiotic things geezer had to say was this gem that he chanted repeatedly rather than answer questions: "My opinion is that marriage is between one man and one woman." This opinion clearly illustrates that reality doesn't intrude on his opinions because marriage equality is a fact in number of states and other countries regardless of what he thinks. KY needs a new senator.
Ditch Mitch.
...
You just really have no idea what the word race means do you?
Hint: Sexuality is different from race
You just really have no idea what the word race means do you?
Hint: Sexuality is different from race
Says the race expert...
Race?? sexual orientation?? Get it??
Do I have to draw you a picture??
Michale
Ditch Mitch.
Yea, you WOULD want the politician who's own crew says she is lying just to get elected...
Michale
Like I said . . . like clockwork.
And just like *I* said...
You speak with such hatred, complaining about the GOP and their hatred...
Does the word HYPOCRISY mean anything to you??? :D
Michale
In addition to logical deficiencies, the imbecile McConnell also lies a lot. He'll say just about anything to get re-elected. For instance, he said he wants to pull out "ObamaCare" root and branch, but Kentucky can keep KyNect. When confronted about this bizarre bald-faced lie today, he became angry and hostile and refused to answer the question. He went on this program to lie about what a big UK fan he is because that's apparently how we decide who to vote for here in KY. He wasn't expecting to be asked about policy positions or his lies.
If you quote me, you're lying.
The sad fact is that everyone is an expert compared to you Michale, it'd be funny if you didn't take so much "pride" in being basically uneducated.
Which makes sense, Conservatives like you are "politically" opposed to reality, how can we expect you have that sort of platform and NOT be a hopeless ignoramus on all subjects?
call me a cynic, but recent wins on social issues tend to strike me as distractions from all the losses on the economic front. full equality for LBGTQ people is a great thing and i'm strongly in favor of the steps our country has made recently. my concern is that gains on this front will give people a sense that we've progressed on all fronts, which is decidedly not the case. citizens united is still strongly in force, and corporations still have more rights than real people, whatever their sexual orientation.
JL
THAT nypoet22 is the classic conundrum. One that has plagued reformers since the very beginning of such a concept.
I can say is that you are very wrong and right. Helpful, yes?
The Zero Sum Game, while existing, is not the full picture.
JohnFromCensornati [1] -
I forgot to include somewhere in this article a link to another former one:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/06/26/marriage-equalitys-giant-leap-forward/
which I wrote when SCOTUS ruled last year on the two big cases. Scroll down to the bottom of this, and it has a note with all the links to pretty much every time I've written about the subject previously.
One of those links:
http://www.chrisweigant.com/2013/03/27/my-own-gay-marriage-evolution/
details my own evolution on the issue, politically and personally. I remember arguing with progressives and gay rights folks back in the middle of the 2000s (as a decade) that shooting for the moon by pushing gay marriage was counterproductive and would engender a backlash.
I was wrong. It WAS the right thing to go for, and it happened FAR sooner than I ever would have dreamed.
Just had to say that, on a personal level.
Michale [3] -
You still beating that tired old drum? What part of "equality" don't you understand? They want EQUAL rights, not special rights.
You don't really believe this dreck, though, I know that deep down. You've always sneered at Republicans when they enter the bedroom (politically speaking) so I know this is just knee-jerkism on your part...
[4] -
Seriously, what part of "equal rights" don't you understand? They are not arguing for special tax benefits that are unavailable to heterosexual couples, so really, what's your beef?
JohnFromCensornati [7] -
Yeah, I heard about that interview with pro-UK Mitch. "Angry" was the takeaway from the article I read. McConnell seems increasingly desperate, but then he is sitting on a mountain of money, so (unfortunately) we'll see...
Michale [9] -
Race?? sexual orientation?? Get it??
Do I have to draw you a picture??
Um, yeah, would you? I have no freakin' idea what you're talking about.
[10] -
Getting worried? Hmmm?
-CW
CW,
You still beating that tired old drum? What part of "equality" don't you understand? They want EQUAL rights, not special rights.
Really?? Then explain why when a scumbag gets into a fight with another scumbag it's just assault. When a scumbag gets into a fight with another scumbag who happens to be gay, it's a hate crime and all sorts of penalties are attached special to that "crime".....
Sounds like special rights to me...
Any time you single out a group of people for different and special considerations, it's special rights...
Seriously, what part of "equal rights" don't you understand? They are not arguing for special tax benefits that are unavailable to heterosexual couples, so really, what's your beef?
They are asking for special protections based on who they have sex with. It's ridiculous..
It's like giving special considerations and special rates to a group of people solely and completely because that group likes to have sex with BBWs...
It's utterly and completely ridiculous..
Um, yeah, would you? I have no freakin' idea what you're talking about.
It's all part and parcel of the special rights and special considerations issue...
If you are of a different race, you get special considerations and special protections.. Just like you get special considerations and special protections based on who you have sex with...
It lumps sexual orientation in the same category as race...
Getting worried? Hmmm?
Not even close. :D I KNOW that the GOP is going to take the Senate, just as everyone else here knows it. That's why no one is interested in making a wager.. :D
My biggest beef is, as usual, the hypocrisy... What would the reaction be from rank and file Weigantians if it had been McConnell staffers caught on tape saying, "Oh, he is just saying that to get elected. He doesn't really mean what he says and he is going to do the opposite once he is elected..."
Ya'all would go hysterical... Right??
So, why is it no big deal with Grimes???
Ahhh yes.. Because of that almighty -D after her name.. :D
Michale
JFC,
I always know when I have you on the ropes with your totally inane and BS statements... :D
You actually respond to me.. :D
Michale
YoYo,
Which makes sense, Conservatives like you are "politically" opposed to reality, how can we expect you have that sort of platform and NOT be a hopeless ignoramus on all subjects?
And yet, the GOP is going to take the Senate...
So, as bad as you claim conservatives are, it's apparent that the American people think Democrats are much much worse... :D
I realize that is the source of your anger rather than the fact that you can't address my points in a logical and rational manner, so I forgive you.. :D
Michale
citizens united is still strongly in force, and corporations still have more rights than real people, whatever their sexual orientation.
Do you know why CU is still going strong??
Because Democrats are getting as much benefit from it as ya'all claim Republicans are getting...
Why would Democrats want to eliminate a huge cash cow??
And THAT is the hypocrisy that bugs me to no end around here...
Despite all the evidence, all the facts to the contrary, the majority around here think that Democrats are the saviors of the Republic and it's the Republicans who are evil incarnate..
But, from the viewpoint of a Party agnostic and a registered NPA, the only way to tell Democrats from Republicans is with a playbill...
Michale
"McConnell seems increasingly desperate"
It's difficult to understand why when he's got criminal scumbags like James O'Keefe exposing ALG's "lies" for him.
Um, yeah, would you? I have no freakin' idea what you're talking about.
Don't blame me.. It wasn't *MY* idea to equate race with who a person chooses to have sex with...
You can thank Hysterical Left Wingers for that special piece of moronic-ness and stoopidity....... :D
Michale
JL,
Obama slams GOP as party of billionaires then attends $32k-a-head fundraiser hosted by billionaire property tycoon named Rich Richman
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2785161/Obama-slams-GOP-party-billionaires-attends-32k-head-fundraiser-hosted-billionaire-property-tycoon-named-Rich-Richman.html
That's why CU is still going strong.. Because Demcorats are as much into greed and money and corruption as rank and file Weigantians claim Republicans are...
Michale
It's difficult to understand why when he's got criminal scumbags like James O'Keefe exposing ALG's "lies" for him.
But when Carter's grandson illegally tapes a Romney speech, it's no big deal, right???
Jeezus, ya don't even TRY to hide the blatant hypocrisy..
Typical Demcorat....
Michale
YoYo,
You just really have no idea what the word race means do you?
Hint: Sexuality is different from race
And yet, it is fanatical and hysterical Left Wingers who say that gay people are "born" that way, just like people are born black...
So it's you crazy Left Wingers who equate sexual orientation with race..
Ya'all's confusion about race is well documented... Remember when you hysterical Lefties referred to hero George Zimmerman as a "White Hispanic"??? What the frak is a "White Hispanic"???
So, if you want to see people who are race-confused, just look in a mirror, Sonny Jim... :D
Michale
YoYo,
Zero-sum would imply that giving attention to positives on gender equality takes away from our attention to negatives on corporate personhood and campaign finance inequalities. i don't think that's a valid way to characterize my position on the matter. From a libertarian perspective, it makes some sense - giving corporations free rein while moving forward on equal rights for the queer community is win-win. However, from a utilitarian perspective we're helping the 10% (LBGTQ) and the 1% (>$525,000 per annum), while still ignoring the other 89% - which in my mind is far below zero-sum...
...until of course we realize that there is no set limit to what good we can or can't accomplish, so the game theory model doesn't apply anyway. democrats seem to favor one and not the other, while republicans seem mostly antagonistic to both.
JL
Rationality and Logic?
You really shouldn't use words you can't understand.
"What the frak is a "White Hispanic"?"
I could go into a wider discussion here about how racial identities and terms shift over time, along with maybe a brief detour through the history of race in latin and south america, but I would like to eat dinner. And it's not like you'd understand it anyway.
Rationality and Logic?
You really shouldn't use words you can't understand.
Says the guy who has stated for the record that every time a black person interacts with a white person to the detriment of the black person, it's ALWAYS racism...
I could go into a wider discussion here about how racial identities and terms shift over time, along with maybe a brief detour through the history of race in latin and south america, but I would like to eat dinner. And it's not like you'd understand it anyway.
Yea, you COULD go into that discussion, but it would be self-serving and totally bullshit anyways..
You Hysterical Lefties wanted to take an incident that had NOTHING to do with race and make it a racial incident.. So ya'all concocted this totally bullshit race called "White Hispanic" so as to pretend that a scumbag violent thug was "poor innocent child" who was "murdered" by a white man because the white man is ALWAYS racist..
THAT is the discussion we should be having, if you had an ounce of integrity and didn't view every incident thru the Everything-Is-Racism glasses you seem to always wear...
Michale
I could go into a wider discussion here about how racial identities and terms shift over time, along with maybe a brief detour through the history of race in latin and south america,
And yet, prior to George Zimmerman taking a violent scumbag thug out of the gene pool, the term "White Hispanic" had never been used in the mainstream..
I won't even BOTHER to mention NBC's doctored audio.... That's just too easy to refute your claims.. Like dynamiting fish in a barrel... :D
Michale
"Says the guy who has stated for the record that every time a black person interacts with a white person to the detriment of the black person, it's ALWAYS racism."
You misunderstand me, deliberately of course, but let me clarify. That hypothetical INVOLVES race, just like damn near everything in america, it's just a banal fact. Removing it from the equation would give you a fundamentally flawed view of the situation. Which is what you do, and why you're such an idiot. You don't get to pick the reality in which you live, you either try and understand it, or are willfully ignorant, like you!
"And yet, prior to George Zimmerman taking a violent scumbag thug out of the gene pool, the term "White Hispanic" had never been used in the mainstream."
And you're wrong, but I see why you're confused. It was the first time you hard such a thing described, but your ignorance doesn't define "the mainstream," you just don't know very much. And are super racist, the violent thug in that situation is one who stalked and killed a human being, not the victim.
But to clarify some more, distinctions and racism based on skin color do have a history in latin and south america. Lighter skin had upper class connotations, whereas darker skin had lower class connotations. This sort of cultural bias being based upon assumptions about spanish/african/american indian origins. This is of course generally speaking. But it did and does exist.
Look! race and class interacting and informing history and current events. This stuff exists.
You misunderstand me, deliberately of course, but let me clarify. That hypothetical INVOLVES race, just like damn near everything in america, it's just a banal fact.
A fact that you have absolutely NO EVIDENCE to support..
I have asked repeatedly for evidence.. You haven't been able to come up with ANYTHING...
And you're wrong,
Again.. PROVE IT...
You can't because I am not...
It's really THAT simple...
Come talk to me when you have ANY facts to back up your BS...
ANY facts at all...
I'll be waiting a long time for THAT to happen, I am sure...
Michale
Give me an example of "White Hispanic" that existed within the MSM prior to George Zimmerman planting some low life scumbag into the ground...
You can't because none exists...
You and JFC... Incapable of providing facts.. One could almost believe that JFC is a sockpuppet of yours by the way ya'all simply resort to name-calling and don't have a single relevant fact to yer names...
Michale
blancos and morenos have always had cultural significance in spanish society.
the reason it didn't show up so much in US media may be that the terminology was unfamiliar or unwieldy, or maybe because US-based reporters either were ignorant of the distinction themselves or figured too many of their readers were for it to be worth putting into the text of an article. i've found spanish language articles at least as far back as 2005 about the phenomenon in mexico and the caribbean.
JL
JL,
i've found spanish language articles at least as far back as 2005 about the phenomenon in mexico and the caribbean.
But NOT here in the US, right???
I have no doubt that the term existed somewhere in the world prior to the Sanford Shooting....
But, it was not a term utilized in the US and not in the MSM until such time that the Leftist MSM needed to tie a white person to a racial theme that didn't exist..
The MSM HAD to somehow create a white man out of a hispanic man to further the myth that racism was involved in the shooting..
It's rather funny when ya look at it. The MSM had to create a (in the US) non-existent term to "prove" racism that ALSO did not exist...
No one ever said the MSM wasn't creative, eh?? :D
I mean, using the "logic" of the Hysterical Left, Obama is a black-white man, right...
The contortions that the Hysterical Left resort to, to further their rabid ideology never ceases to amaze me...
Michale
The contortions that the Hysterical Left resort to, to further their rabid ideology never ceases to amaze me...
To be fair, the contortions of the Hysterical Right are ALMOST, not quite but almost, as amazing... :D
Michale
The MSM HAD to somehow create a white man out of a hispanic man to further the myth that racism was involved in the shooting...
is this somehow supposed to imply that being hispanic makes one unable to be racist? racism just as bad in the latin world as anywhere else. as i perceive it, calling zimmerman white-hispanic is excessive political correctness - an attempt to explain to the public why someone in the South who looks and sounds "white" may have additional ethnic or cultural identification.
JL
is this somehow supposed to imply that being hispanic makes one unable to be racist?
That's how the MSM thinks....
You and I know better. But that is how the MSM thinks..
as i perceive it, calling zimmerman white-hispanic is excessive political correctness - an attempt to explain to the public why someone in the South who looks and sounds "white" may have additional ethnic or cultural identification.
Why would the MSM have to explain that??? It has nothing to do with the incident..
The MSM tried to spin it that way to fit the non-existent racism angle...
THAT is the problem..
Michale
The MSM tried to spin it that way to fit the non-existent racism angle...
racist or not, zimmerman has since proven that he is a loose cannon who had no business stalking the neighborhood as a law enforcement wanna-be - much less do so while packing heat. racist or not, he killed someone who would not be dead if he'd listened to the police dispatch and hung back instead of giving chase. personally i think it highly unlikely that race wasn't at least part of the equation - racial profiling is pretty well-documented among both law enforcement and nosy neighbors. this week deshawn curry got pepper sprayed and his mom found him on a stretcher in their driveway, all because folks thought he looked suspicious entering his own home!
JL
http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white
Reading material for all to enjoy and discuss!
he killed someone who would not be dead if he'd listened to the police dispatch and hung back instead of giving chase.
Actually Zimmerman DID listen to police and started to return to his vehicle when the police dispatch suggested he do so.
That is when he was attacked by Martin.
This is well documented..
personally i think it highly unlikely that race wasn't at least part of the equation
But there are no FACTS to support such a claim..
The concept that race MUST be a factor in situations such as this is why this country still has a long way to go when it comes to race relations.
This inherent and inherited guilt-complex that people like to wallow in...
I feel absolutely no responsibility or culpability for what happened in this country a hundred years before I was born..
That is why I am completely and utterly color blind.
Michale
he killed someone who would not be dead if he'd listened to the police dispatch and hung back instead of giving chase.
Actually Zimmerman DID listen to police and started to return to his vehicle when the police dispatch suggested he do so.
That is when he was attacked by Martin.
This is well documented..
personally i think it highly unlikely that race wasn't at least part of the equation
But there are no FACTS to support such a claim..
The concept that race MUST be a factor in situations such as this is why this country still has a long way to go when it comes to race relations.
This inherent and inherited guilt-complex that people like to wallow in...
I feel absolutely no responsibility or culpability for what happened in this country a hundred years before I was born..
That is why I am completely and utterly color blind.
Michale
This inherent and inherited guilt-complex that people like to wallow in...
I feel absolutely no responsibility or culpability for what happened in this country a hundred years before I was born..
I mean, honestly.
Name me any other heinous accusation that one can make against another person without absolutely NO EVIDENCE or FACTS to support and actually have the accusation stick??
I can't think of a one...
All because of this conditioning that, if a black person is involved with a white person to the detriment of the black person, it MUST be racism...
It's not even considered that maybe, just maybe, the black person is an asshole...
Even saying that, I bet you are cringing, eh??
Just shows ta go ya... :D
Michale
racist or not, zimmerman has since proven that he is a loose cannon who had no business stalking the neighborhood as a law enforcement wanna-be - much less do so while packing heat.
I disagree...
For one, it's clear from the evidence that Zimmerman was NOT a cop-wannabee. He turned down a PSA position that he would have jumped at if he were truly a cop-wannabee
Secondly, what you describe as a "loose cannon" is really nothing more than the trials and tribulations of life.. How would any of us fair if we were under a microscope 24/7?? I don't know about you, but I am far from perfect and there are things that I have done that I intensely regret. That would make me look like a "loose cannon" if that is all the public ever knew about me..
From all the evidence, Zimmerman did this society a great service and, more likely than not, saved a bunch of lives. Maybe even yours or mine..
this week deshawn curry got pepper sprayed and his mom found him on a stretcher in their driveway, all because folks thought he looked suspicious entering his own home!
Shit happens..
Jesse Jackson once commented that he was walking down a dark street and heard someone walking behind him. He got scared and turned around to look and was relieved that it wasn't a black person. Does *that* make Jackson a racist??
I think that many just jump to the conclusion of racism simply because it is easier than actually LISTENING to the other side and actually CONSIDER the arguments. We saw that and see that here in Weigantia...
Present company excepted, of course... :D
My overall point is two fold..
One: You have stated that racism is very hard to prove. Maybe there is a reason for that. Maybe, in MANY instances, it's hard to prove because it doesn't exist. Sanford and Ferguson taught us that...
Two: Since (until recently) racism has been an evil heinous thing akin to being a terrorist or a child molester, doesn't it behoove people to be absolutely SURE, 1000% SURE, with oodles and oodles of factual evidence, before accusing someone of racism?? Since the inception of the Obama Era, racism has become a blunt weapon with which to silence debate or discussion.. The sad thing about that it's cheapens ANY claim of racism, valid or not... The Boy Who Cried Wolf syndrome..
Again, let me be clear.. I am not lumping you in with the group that drops "RACISM!!!" at the drop of a dime. You have clearly been on the side of the Angels (Castiel, not Metatron :D Although I am kinda partial to Gabriel) in this particular debate...
But, for many on the Left, it seems all you need is a black person to cry "RACISM!!!"
And THAT is why accusations of racism is, in the here and now, not any big deal...
The solution?? Exactly what we are doing now.. Frank, honest and objective discussions free of any accusations or hysteria...
Maybe we can start a trend.. :D
Michale
http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white
I know I am going to regret this, but.....
The article starts with a conclusion and cherry picks only the data that supports the conclusion...
THAT is the entire problem I illustrated to JL above...
For the article to be relevant and objective, it would have to list WHY young black males were killed by police...
The was another shooting in Ferguson in which a black teen male was killed by police..
Of course, the locals rioted and screamed "RACISM!!!!"...
Yet, the black teen had shot 3 times at officers..
Of course, no one hears about THAT fact...
If you take away all the FALSE claims of racism, take away ALL the instances where there is no evidence to support the claim of racism, you would find that the statistics for shootings of black males by police is not all that different than shootings of white males by police..
Further, why doesn't anyone want to examine the number of shootings BY black people against black people??
Because THOSE shootings have absolutely NOTHING to do with racism, yet THOSE shootings are 5x-7x more prevalent in the here and now..
If you TRULY care about black people and you want to help them as a group, quit pushing the RACISM and victim meme.. Address the REAL problems such as out of wedlock births and the black on black violence perpetrated on daily basis..
But no one wants to do that because no one wants to face the facts...
Michale
20 times more likely to shot by police is a statistical avalanche. Bluster all you want, but police have a problem and race is involved.
Cherry picked the data? Don't make me laugh, this is self reported data from police depts. If anything the stats are actually low as some depts haven't submitted reports in years.
Grow a brain stem Michale, reality is staring you in the face here.
yoyo/michale,
it's one thing to question correlation-causation, but i seriously doubt that police mis-reported their data. we can legitimately ask whether the disparate rates are due mainly to racism or some other, more complex social phenomenon. however, facts are facts. as to the question of "why," i agree with yoyo that it's highly unlikely that the data would line up the way they are unless race were a significant factor.
JL
YoYo,
20 times more likely to shot by police is a statistical avalanche. Bluster all you want, but police have a problem and race is involved.
That is your ASSUMPTION based on only ONE criteria of data...
JL,
it's one thing to question correlation-causation, but i seriously doubt that police mis-reported their data. we can legitimately ask whether the disparate rates are due mainly to racism or some other, more complex social phenomenon.
EXACTLY!!
No one who spouts these stats wants to even CONSIDER another cause... It's all in their minds that it is racism, so they ignore ANY other possibility..
It's like when Eric Holder said he was pulled over in New Jersey in his 20s because of racism..
There are a MULTITUDE of factors that could have come in to play in that one traffic stop..
But, because Holder is black, it HAS to be racism. NO OTHER possibility exists for those who play the race card...
however, facts are facts. as to the question of "why," i agree with yoyo that it's highly unlikely that the data would line up the way they are unless race were a significant factor.
If you are going to accuse an institution of racism, you need a LOT more than "highly unlikely" don't you think??
It's like that latest shooting in Ferguson...
A white cop killed a black teen.. People like Yo Yo hysterically scream RACISM!!!! When the fact is, the scumbag teen fired three shots at the officer...
But the FACTS don't matter...
All that matters is that it's a black person so it MUST be racism..
As long as people insist on playing the victim and playing the race card and people PROFIT from the victim status, then race relations will never get any better...
Michale
Give me a fact..
Give me one single solitary FACT that proves racism..
Just ONE single fact...
You do that and I'll gladly concede that you might have a point.
Just ONE SINGLE RELEVANT FACT...
Michale
http://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white
Right here man, a twenty to one racial disparity cannot simply be "wished" away. There's your fact.
Let me put it this way, people..
I can show you stat after stat after stat that "proves" that it is "highly unlikely" that Obama ISN'T the worst president that this country has EVER had...
You see, I look at just ONE set of criteria and don't consider ANY other possibility..
Which is exactly the kind of bullshit that ya'all are trying to pass off..
Exactly....
Michale
Right here man, a twenty to one racial disparity cannot simply be "wished" away. There's your fact.
Your right.
It's a fact that, of the limited police departments that reported the stats, black men were shot 20 times more than white men..
THAT's the ONLY fact...
There are NO FACTS that show it was due to race...
When you have any FACTS, rather than hysterical racism, that show it was due to race, then come talk to me..
But, JUST because it's a black person involved doesn't mean it's racism...
Those scumbags in Ferguson weren't shot because they were black. They were shot because they tried to kill cops...
How many of those 20-1 were shot for the same reason?? Does your stat show that??
No, it doesn't..
So, your "stat" is nothing more than a useless fact to promote a hysterical racist agenda..
Michale
Let's have some more fun with stats..
I can "prove" that CW.COM is a Right Wing Talking Points Website.
I can do this by showing that most EVERY Friday, CW.COM slams and attacks a Democrat for their stoopidity and their bonehead moves and statements..
Ya see.. By only taking into account that ONE criteria to the exclusion of all the other facts and by assuming only ONE conclusion is possible, I have "PROVEN" that CW.COM is a Right Wing Talking Points website..
Just like you have "PROVEN" that cops kill black people because of racism...
Fun With Stats 101 dismissed... :D
Michale
“Let us be honest with ourselves, and say that we, our standards, have lagged behind at many points. Negroes constitute ten percent of the population of New York City, and yet they commit thirty-five percent of the crime. St. Louis, Missouri: the Negroes constitute twenty-six percent of the population, and yet seventy-six percent of the persons on the list for aid to dependent children are Negroes. We have eight times more illegitimacy than white persons. We’ve got to face all of these things. We must work to improve these standards. We must sit down quietly by the wayside, and ask ourselves: Where can we improve?
And another thing my friends, we kill each other too much. We cut up each other too much. There is something that we can do. We’ve got to go down in the quiet hour and think about this thing. We’ve got to lift our moral standards at every hand, at every point. You may not have a Ph.D. degree; you may not have an M.A. degree; you may not have an A.B. degree.
But the great thing about life is that any man can be good, and honest, and ethical, and moral, and can have character.”
Who said that?? The people like Herman King or Condolezza Rice or Bill Cosby or Ben Carson?? People that have been labeled as "tokens" right here in Weigantia??
No...
Dr Martin Luther King said that...
On December 5, 1957 at the Holt Street Baptist Church in Montgomery, AL...
If only ALL black people ran their lives as Dr King would have wanted...
If only they would have a life, not ruled by the color of the their skin but rather ruled by the strength of their character...
If only they would take responsibility for their own lives and their own actions and quit playing the victim and blaming non-existent racism..
If only.... If only....
Michale
michale, you're confusing individual cases with overall trends. in any grouping of human beings, there will be variety. some people are convicted of crimes who do something to deserve it, others don't. one gentleman in ferguson shot at cops; the other did jack squat. you asked for one piece of evidence, and yoyo provided it. perhaps the statistics cited by yoyo don't prove racism in and of themselves, but that's far from the only piece of evidence.
"Many of the consequences of how race affects the larger criminal justice system can be seen in innocence-related efforts. An analysis of the 297 DNA exonerations reveals minorities make up approximately 70% of those proven innocent through DNA testing. Similarly, African-Americans represent the vast majority of these exonerations - 63% of those exonerated by DNA testing. -
Despite numerous studies depicting similar levels of participation by Whites, African-Americans, and Hispanics in non-violent crimes – notably drugs, weapon possession, and speeding - Bureau of Justice statistics show minorities are arrested and incarcerated at higher rates for these crimes."
- See more at: http://www.innocenceproject.org/Content/What_Wrongful_Convictions_Teach_Us_About_Racial_Inequality.php#sthash.hEsL9hgK.dpuf
i'd suggest reading the whole article, and i tend to agree with the author's conclusion:
"Additional research should be pursued to correct the wrongs that race plays in convicting the innocent."
what's significant, to paraphrase samuel jackson from pulp fiction, isn't whether or not it's "according to hoyle" racism that put someone innocent in prison. what matters is that significantly higher rates of minorities are mistakenly arrested and convicted, and it's a trend that people (both the innocent and the not-so-innocent) feel in every interaction with law enforcement. i seriously do believe that the police overall are starting to get better at this, but as evidenced by cases like deshawn curry, it's not just a relic of the past, it's something that still happens.
JL
one gentleman in ferguson shot at cops; the other did jack squat.
You mean, one did "jack squat" other than a strong armed robbery and assault a much smaller defenseless man and then attacked a police officer with intent to do grievous bodily harm or kill...
you asked for one piece of evidence, and yoyo provided it.
I asked for one piece of evidence that PROVED racism..
YoYo provided a single stat that could be explained by a multitude of factors, ONE of which is racism..
That's my whole point..
Just like your claim that Michael Brown did "jack squat"... Ya'all ONLY look at the factors that support your particular claim and ignore the factors that dispute your particular claim..
Whereas I look at the totality of the facts and come up with a much more logical and rational conclusion. A conclusion borne, not of innuendo and ideology but rather a conclusion based on FACT...
Your claim that Brown and Martin were killed because they were black is completely and unequivocally NOT SUPPORTED by any facts whatsoever...
Let me repeat that.
NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY FACTS WHATSOEVER....
On my side, there is the FACT that Martin & Brown attacked innocent people with the intent to do grievous bodily harm or to kill...
Once again, I must employ the wisdom of Dr Martin Luther King and ask you to disregard the color of the skin and look at the strength (or, in this case, lack thereof) of their character...
If you want to go against the teachings of MLK, that's your choice.. But you have to realize that that is exactly what you are doing..
Michale
Let me ask this..
Why do the wise words of Dr MLK or Bill Cosby or Hermann King or Dr Ben Carson or Condelezza Rice hold any meaning???
Why is it only the words of obvious racial hucksters and con-artists like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson or Ben Crump are the only words that ya'all support?? Men who have gotten FILTHY RICH off stoking racial animus all over the country...
Because it's THOSE words that are in keeping with the ideological agenda of keeping black people dependent on government and being the perpetual un-ending victim of racism that doesn't exist....
Institutional racism simply does not exist anymore..
These are the facts... And, heretofore, they are indisputable..
If you can find ANY facts that PROVE there is institutionalized racism, then by all means... Let's air them...
But all there is, is a stat here and there that COULD indicate racism or COULD indicate something completely different...
I don't believe in fairys or Santa Claus or hobgoblins....
You want to prove that racism exists???
Give me FACTS that have no other possible explanation...
Michale
whenever dealing with social science, there are many possible explanations for just about any phenomena. if you line up the statistics on people arrested and later proven innocent, it doesn't leave room for much doubt that racial prejudice plays a part. how big a part? again, that leaves us in the murky world of statistics and subjective experience. there ALWAYS are other possible explanations - that doesn't mean such explanations are equally likely to be true.
if you're going to make claims like institutional racism doesn't exist and then hold out ironclad proof as your criterion, then pretend like the factual evidence provided somehow isn't factual... that gets into the realm of the kind of people who deny other instances of large-scale harm based on meaningless technicalities, be it in europe or china or darfur.
michale, when i think you might be right i'll say so (and i have said so), but your stance on racism seems to demand evidence, then abject denial of any evidence provided. you're dead wrong on this, and at this point there aren't many of us left here who even take the time to say so. i've been operating under the assumption that you're just being contrarian about it, perhaps in defense of law enforcement (the police do have an extremely difficult job to do, and racial tension muddies the waters even when that job is done right). but i don't know, maybe you really do have a blind spot when it comes to your own racial prejudices. at this point, based on the manner in which you've argued racism cases, that conclusion is becoming increasingly difficult to reject.
JL
michale, when i think you might be right i'll say so (and i have said so), but your stance on racism seems to demand evidence, then abject denial of any evidence provided
It's not that..
It's simply that if I am going to accuse anyone or anything of racism, I better damn well have ironclad PROOF of it before I do...
Put it another way..
If I am a cop on patrol and I roll up on an armed robbery in progress, doesn't it behoove me to have IRONCLAD proof of who the bad guy is before I start firing at targets???
Using ya'alls reasoning, I should roll up to the crime in progress and say, "Well, it's unlikely that THAT guy is NOT guilty so I should just blow his head off now."
If you want me to apply the label of racism, you better have an airtight case...
Labeling someone a racist just because innuendo says so???
Well, that just ain't me...
Michale
if you're going to make claims like institutional racism doesn't exist and then hold out ironclad proof as your criterion, then pretend like the factual evidence provided somehow isn't factual...
You want to prove to me that ALL birds are blue..
You point to a blue bird there and a blue bird there and a blue bird there and say, "See!! The fact is all the birds i pointed out are blue. Therefore you MUST concede that all birds are blue"...
It's not that I dispute your fact.. Because, in and of itself, your fact is completely and 1000% accurate..
What I dispute is the CONCLUSION you draw from that fact... It's an erroneous conclusion based on the fact's OWN ADMISSION that the dataset is limited...
I will allow that it is POSSIBLE that black people are targeted because of racism..
You must allow that it is also possible that you are wrong... That racism has absolutely NOTHING to do with it..
Unless you can do that..???
Well, it's not me who has the blind spot.. :D
There are other possibilities for YoYo's stat... I'll even give you a hint as to another possible explanation. It can be found in the words of Dr Martin Luther King....
Michale
I mean, honestly...
I have Dr Martin Luther King on my side...
How can ya'all even THINK of disputing that???
Michale
michale,
i understood the first time - you're saying african-americans are arrested more because they choose to commit more crimes. but if that were the case, why would a disproportionate percentage be proven by DNA evidence to be innocent of crimes for which they were convicted? if the racial disparity in arrests and convictions were due mainly to the behaviors of the accused, then the disparity would not extend to mistaken convictions. yet, based on the evidence, it does. depending on which of the studies is cited, between 50% and 70% of those proven to have been wrongfully convicted were black.
the appeal to authority of MLK2 is called argumentum ad verecundiam, while the assumption that there is not racism in any instance where it has not been proven is argumentum ad ignorantium. the reason there are names for these types of fallacious reasoning is that people frequently make these mistakes in their attempts at logic. yes, if we're talking about an individual case then it makes sense to establish a past pattern based on individual behavior before condemning the individual. but if we're talking about the overall tendency of the whole country to skew a certain way, that pattern has been factually established a thousand times over.
JL
i understood the first time - you're saying african-americans are arrested more because they choose to commit more crimes.
Now you switch gears on me..
I thought we were discussing black people being shot and killed by police...
that pattern has been factually established a thousand times over.
ONLY if you ignore all other facts and possiblities to simply concentrate on the information that "proves" your theory...
I have already shot holes in your theory on three of the most recent incidents...
2x Feguson and 1x Sanford...
If those three incidents prove your theory wrong and you multiply a thousand or a million incidents, then there is reasonable doubt that your theory is wrong...
I am not going to roll up on a crime in progress and start capping people just because it's "unlikely" that they are innocent...
Wouldn't you agree that such accusations SHOULD require a level of proof beyond "likely" and "unlikely"???
Michale
ONLY if you ignore all other facts and possiblities to simply concentrate on the information that "proves" your theory...
incorrect - those trends exist and have been observed and documented. there is no "alternate" trend, because such things have not been observed nor documented, the most likely reason being that such data do not exist. you may wish to engage in discussion as to the validity of the conclusion i reach and posit an alternate conclusion, but that discussion does not conjure the existence of alternate data, which has not yet shown any signs of existing.
JL
I am not going to roll up on a crime in progress and start capping people just because it's "unlikely" that they are innocent...
but isn't the exact behavior you condoned in the case of george zimmerman?
but isn't the exact behavior you condoned in the case of george zimmerman?
You mentioned before that you would agree if you thought I was right..
Wouldn't you agree that there is a BIG difference between simply observing someone and shooting them in self-defense...
Martin is dead for one reason and one reason only. Because he attacked an innocent person with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm or death..
Remember?? It's that "character" issue that ya'all always seem to never want to address..
All I am asking is one simple question..
If you are going to accuse a person or an institution of being racist, isn't it logical to have concrete evidence that is unequivocal??
Innocent before PROVEN guilty?? Ring a bell??
Michale
As far as YoYo's stat goes..
One simple question will make or break the question of racism....
Were the shootings listed in the stat ruled justified??
If the shootings were justified, then there can't be a case made for racism based shootings...
Because, by definition, if the shootings were race-based, they simply could NOT be justified...
So, if the shootings were not "Good Shoots" (to use the vernacular) then you would have a case for racism..
Michale
Were the shootings listed in the stat ruled justified??
have you been paying attention? i'm sure that some were and some were not, but a higher percentage of convictions of african-americans were found wrong by DNA evidence. again, if the overall conviction rate did not have a racial bias, the rates of false arrest and false conviction would be expected to be roughly equal. that not being the case, i can't think of any alternate scenarios where racial bias plays no part in arrest or conviction rates.
have you been paying attention? i'm sure that some were and some were not, but a higher percentage of convictions of african-americans were found wrong by DNA evidence.
We're not talking about convictions or incarcerations.
We're talking about police shootings of black people..
Let's resolve THIS discussion before we change the subject...
Michale
But if you want to switch gears, I'll be yer huckleberry.. :D
As Dr MLK said, there is a higher percentage of black Americans committing crimes..
It would stand to reason that there would be a higher percentage of being wrong...
More crimes mean more chances to be wrong..
Simple logic...
Michale
It seems to me that ya'all are trying to fit a round peg in a square hole...
Look, is there racism in the country??
Sure there is.. It's a sad fact of life..
But is there a grand conspiracy amongst ALL the LEO agencies ALL across the country (many agencies which HAVE BLACK PEOPLE RUNNING THEM!!) to "keep the black man down"??
I just don't see it...
The scope and magnitude of what you are proposing is mind-boggling to the point of absurdity..
Sure, you can take a random fact here and a random fact there and make a plausible sounding case for such a grand conspiracy...
But if one takes in the totality of the issue, what you have is mere happenstance and coincidence, not a grand conspiracy...
Tell ya what...
Grab Season 6 Episode 9 of STAR TREK VOYAGER called THE VOYAGER CONSPIRACY...
It details precisely what I am talking about...
Watch that and see if ya'all don't see a similarity between what ya'all are saying and what Seven Of Nine (or 36 of DD if you prefer :D ) is saying...
I'll have the episode available for you to download in a couple hours...
Michale
As Dr MLK said
appeals to authority don't strengthen your argument, they weaken it.
there is a higher percentage of black Americans committing crimes..
It would stand to reason that there would be a higher percentage of being wrong...
but it would not, that's my point. the demographics of wrongful convictions, were they not biased in some way, would be unrelated to the demographics of accurate convictions.
mistakes would be drawn from the general population, not the group "most likely" to commit a crime.
you may wish to treat wrongful convictions and mistaken police shootings as unrelated, but the pattern in both cases is consistent with both quantitative data and qualitative accounts. in general, people like deshawn curry tend to be racially profiled because they seem "more likely" to be guilty based on their skin color.
this pattern also did not come to exist in a vacuum. two generations ago it was explicit - if you asked a cop in the 1960's why someone was arrested, they'd tell you straight out that it was for walking around in a neighborhood where they weren't welcome. One generation ago, the 80's perhaps, they might not say so out loud but it was still accepted practice in many places. Now it's not supposed to not happen anymore, but such cultural tendencies don't disappear just because we want them to; some people still report a similar experience to the past, and not just those with a vested political interest in seeing it that way.
that's three different sources of evidence, all of which support the same conclusion - racial bias exists and is practiced in law enforcement. we can reasonably debate whether this practice is pervasive or sporadic, conscious or unconscious, changing or resisting change. however, your insistence on debating whether or not it even exists appears to rest on two logical fallacies, which i've already outlined.
again, even when we disagree i am happy to acknowledge those areas where i think you have a valid point - the president, partisanship, election law, etc. - However, racial bias and global warming are two areas where your logic doesn't have half a leg to stand on.
JL
appeals to authority don't strengthen your argument, they weaken it.
How so??
MLK is the greatest civil rights leader of our time or any time...
If he and I are on the same page and ya'all are on a different page.... well, I would think that that not only STRENGTHENS my argument, it SETTLES the argument..
However, racial bias and global warming are two areas where your logic doesn't have half a leg to stand on.
That's because in BOTH cases, you only look at the evidence/facts that supports the theory and ignore the evidence/facts that disprove your theory..
Don't you find it odd that your "science" and your political ideology are completely in lockstep on those issues??
If we were talking about PURE science, surely there would be SOME divergence, no?? Some discrepancies...
Such perfect symmetry between ideology and science should be your first clue that maybe things aren't as you wish them to be..
Such perfect symmetry isn't science. It's faith.. Faith that your "priests" are right and the other "priests" are heretics and should be, metaphorically speaking" burned at the stake...
In both cases your evidence is subjective and could have a myriad of different explanations.. In the case of Global Warming (Of which there has been none for almost 2 decades) even the most devout scientist is now saying they don't have a clue what's going on...
"Something is clearly balancing out the warming effect of the CO2. It might be natural factors, it might be the ocean, no one knows for sure.
The warming could start anytime - and that is an indication that we don’t fully understand the climate.
That’s a reality that most climate scientists are reluctant to admit."
-Dr Benny Beiser, THE acknowledged foremost authority of Global Warming.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/nature/518497/Exclusive-interview-with-Dr-Benny-Peiser
Food for thought... I hope...
That episode should be ready for you to download in an hour.. I highly recommend watching it. It will be an eye opener as it explains fully where I am coming from... :D
Plus it's just a fun episode to watch.. :D
If CW has any objections to me posting the link, I'll give it to you via email.. michale AT mfccfl.us
Michale
Such perfect symmetry between ideology and science should be your first clue that maybe things aren't as you wish them to be..
In other words, you need to accept the fact that you COULD be wrong...
And if you are wrong, billions and billions and billions of dollars will be wasted and billions of lives will be upended for nothing, in the case of Global Warming..
In the other case, you will have falsely accused hundreds of thousands of people of racism where no racism exists making it that much hard to make REAL cases of racism stick...
You must be absolutely sure of the facts...
ALL of the facts, not just the ones that tell you what you want to hear...
Michale
I also dispute your claim that proving racism is difficult...
It's not. It's quite easy..
Mark Fuhrman taught us that...
What you are after is "thought crime"... And you are correct.. THAT is not only difficult to prove, it's IMPOSSIBLE to prove....
That's why our entire criminal jurisprudence is based on one simple concept.
INNOCENT UNTIL *PROVEN* GUILTY
"Likely" doesn't cut it...
Michale
If he and I are on the same page and ya'all are on a different page.... well, I would think that that not only STRENGTHENS my argument, it SETTLES the argument..
michale, that's both a logical fallacy (ad veracundiam) and a misinterpretation of the passage. MLK wanted black people to rise above the expectations of society; that's far from denying that those expectations exist or are enforced unfairly.
That's because in BOTH cases, you only look at the evidence/facts that supports the theory and ignore the evidence/facts that disprove your theory..
that's just flat untrue. you may want it to be true in order to hold onto your assertion that my conclusions are somehow biased or mistaken, but at least in those two instances it's unlikely enough not to be worth arguing.
You must be absolutely sure of the facts...
ALL of the facts, not just the ones that tell you what you want to hear...
that assertion is your other logical fallacy - and it's not true that i'm failing to consider or acknowledge evidence contrary to my conclusion. it exists, it's just extremely underwhelming. perhaps you don't understand the science, but if you're going to stick to the logical fallacy of "ad ignorantium" (if we don't know with absolute certainty then we must reject the entire conclusion) i simply can't take your arguments on these topics seriously.
JL
It's funny in a sad sort of way...
Every country on the planet, at one time or another in it's history has enslaved, brutalized or murdered a portion of their population...
Yet, the USA is the ONLY country on the planet that has created a huge government bureaucracy, a DEPARTMENT OF FREE STUFF as reparations to a group of people who weren't even BORN at the time...
And has tolerated, excused and mitigated that same group of people when they act out in brutality, violence, destruction and death...
In essence, our solution to the problem of past racism is to employ racism...
It's mind-boggling in it's idiocy...
Michale
I have heard it said from the Left that wars to end wars is the worst kind of lunacy their is...
If true, then surely racism in reparation for racism surely ranks up there on the lunacy scale as well..
Wouldn't you agree??
Michale
That's why our entire criminal jurisprudence is based on one simple concept.
INNOCENT UNTIL *PROVEN* GUILTY
"Likely" doesn't cut it...
that set of constitutional protections exists to protect individual rights, not collective rights. any individual case of racism is subject to reasonable doubt to protect the rights of that individual. the conclusion that society as a whole tends to have a racial bias in law enforcement is as close to certainty as social science gets. reasonable doubt in individual cases doesn't make argumentum ad ignorantium the law of the land for political discourse.
JL
michale, that's both a logical fallacy (ad veracundiam) and a misinterpretation of the passage. MLK wanted black people to rise above the expectations of society; that's far from denying that those expectations exist or are enforced unfairly.
That's your interpretation..
I see it as MLK was warning that if black Americans wanted to be treated fairly by white Americans then they would have to act fairly... If black Americans wanted respect, then they would have to be respectful.. If black Americans wanted to be treated as civilized human beings and not animals then they must ACT like civilized human beings and not ACT like animals..
Successful black Americans (Bill Cosby, Herman King, Condelezza Rice, Clarence Thomas) has said pretty much the same..
Granted, that's my interpretation, but here's the thing..
MY interpretation is about true equality. It's positive...
hat's just flat untrue. you may want it to be true in order to hold onto your assertion that my conclusions are somehow biased or mistaken, but at least in those two instances it's unlikely enough not to be worth arguing.
I call them as I see them... You don't acknowledge all the FACTS, all the EVIDENCE and all the SCIENCE that disproves your theories...
As I said, the fact that your ideology and your science is completely meshed, perfectly aligned and in complete lockstep with each other should be a clue to you that something is amiss...
Real science, TRUE science is very messy...
that assertion is your other logical fallacy - and it's not true that i'm failing to consider or acknowledge evidence contrary to my conclusion. it exists, it's just extremely underwhelming. perhaps you don't understand the science, but if you're going to stick to the logical fallacy of "ad ignorantium" (if we don't know with absolute certainty then we must reject the entire conclusion) i simply can't take your arguments on these topics seriously.
In the case of Global Warming, I am not advocating absolute certainty. As I indicate, TRUE science is very messy and never absolutely anything...
But when your theory of Global Warming approaches the likely-hood that, say the theory of Evolution has, then you might be onto something..
But the GW theory is not even on the same planet as Evolution.. And more and more scientists, TRUE scientists like Dr Benny above are admitting that.. That we don't know enough to start futzing around with active measures...
Study?? Sure.. Study the theory all you want...
But active measures???
Put it another way... Employing active measures with climate is as foolhardy and fraught with risks as you claim the US going back into the Middle East with full military deployment is...
We don't even know enough about climate to know what we don't know...
That's a recipe for disaster if I have ever seen one...
As far as absolute certainty in accusing others of racism.
Damn tootin'...
You would want to be absolutely 1000% sure of your facts before you accuse someone of being a child molester, wouldn't you???
Likely or unlikely wouldn't cut it, right??
How is racism any different???
Michale
if you ask any scientist, even those most skeptical, they won't deny that nearly all the evidence points to a human influence over earth's climate. any social scientist who can read statistics will recognize an overall racial bias in the workings of our justice system. scientific doubts about racism and man-made global warming are questions of degree, not whether or not those things exist.
when we apply overall tendencies to specific cases or models, there is bound to be error and uncertainty. however, error on the micro level does not negate trends on the macro level. that would be like using the fact that you've fully paid off your house and car as evidence to disprove the existence of the national debt.
JL
that set of constitutional protections exists to protect individual rights, not collective rights.
But your collective evidence is made up of a bunch of individuals...
If you have ten thousand shootings of black people by white cops and each and every one of those shootings were ruled a Good Shoot, then you cannot collectively claim that racism was involved..
Just like in Sanford and Ferguson.. Collectively, you claim that race was a factor, yet in each individual case, there was absolutely no evidence of racism involved.. If no racism is involved individually then how can one make a collective conclusion of racism...
Let me digress a bit..
When I was young (early teens) I had a unique business economic outlook... I had always assumed that if one were just to sell products at lower price than they cost to make, eventually, *COLLECTIVELY* you would HAVE to make money..
As I grew up (or I should say OLDER because I really haven't grown up yet.. :D) I realized that I was taking an absolute (the cost of the product) and applying a collective wishful thinking type theory...
I learned that an absolute input (cost of product/good shoot) MUST have an absolute output... Regardless of whether or not you view the data as individual data points or collectively...
any individual case of racism is subject to reasonable doubt to protect the rights of that individual. the conclusion that society as a whole tends to have a racial bias in law enforcement is as close to certainty as social science gets.
Well, then we'll have to just agree to disagree...
I am a "Just the facts" kinda guy.. But I want ALL the facts... And before I label a society as racist, I am going to need more evidence...
I want someone to stand up and say, "yea!! I did that for racial reasons!!" Or have witnesses that say, "Yea I heard him spew deragatory racial comments"...
THAT is evidence.. No "code words", no "likely he's a racist"... Cold hard objective evidence...
It's just how I'm wired, I spose... :D
Michale
when we apply overall tendencies to specific cases or models, there is bound to be error and uncertainty.
And there is also bound to be good calls, accuracy and models that are correct..
But with the GW theory, there has NEVER been any good calls or correct models or any accuracy... It's ALL error and uncertainty..
So, if you have no accuracy and all errors, what's a GOOD scientist to do??
Re-evaluate the theory.. Alter the theory to reflect the evidence..
But, because GW is a POLITICAL issue, the process here is to alter the evidence to reflect the theory..
It's the point I was making with Stig and his wanting to know the datasets and the process that one guy used to determine his election model...
That information is needed to determine the validity of the model...
But GW scientists don't want to release that information. This fact is especially damning because, in science, such duplication by outside sources is VITAL to the validity and credibility of the science...
Put another way...
I have been trying to lose weight. I was at 267 about 2 months back.. I got it lower, but I could never break the 250 barrier.. I came close but never could break that barrier..
Now, let's say you offered me a million dollars to get my weight down to 240....
Now, normally one weighs oneself ..er.. ahem.. au naturel to get the best reading, right??
But let's suppose I was in a hurry and didn't weigh myself before I showered, shaved and dressed..
I tell you that I had hit the 240 mark.. You say, "Really!??"
I qualify, "well, I actually weighed 252, but I had to extrapolate 'modifiers' because I weighed myself fully clothed.."
You say, "OK, what were the datasets of the modifiers."
"I don't want to tell you that because you will just use it to discredit my accomplishments and get out of paying me the million dollars"...
"Well, then I can't accept your conclusion if I can't analyze your data"....
You see where I am going with that???
If ALL the datasets cannot be released for independent study and verification, the entire conclusion is suspect...
So it is with GW.. GW advocates won't release their science, their modifiers, their "hiding the decline" data and all the rest..
Therefore their conclusion MUST be suspect by any TRUE scientist...
For the record, I weighed 236 this morning, buck assed nekkid.. :D
Michale
I want someone to stand up and say, "yea!! I did that for racial reasons!!" Or have witnesses that say, "Yea I heard him spew deragatory racial comments"...
for the most part people don't do that anymore, because it would result in negative consequences for the perpetrator. i think that's a very positive development socially, since most of society can no longer explicitly condone the practice with impunity. however, a necessary side-effect is that it makes instances of racial bias much more difficult to observe or measure.
JL
buck assed nekkid.. :D
T M I ??? :D
By the by, that episode is ready to download.. Just drop me an email...
Michale
We should probably table this discussion til after Thanksgiving..
Liz wants to see some records broken...
I am gonna need ya'alls help to accomplish the mission.. :D
Michale
however, a necessary side-effect is that it makes instances of racial bias much more difficult to observe or measure.
Especially if there are no biases to measure, right???
Shall I point to the times that racism wasn't a factor??
Tawana Brawley, to name just one...
Kinda the point I was trying to make before. Every time you have a false accusation of racism, it desensitizes the public and makes future cases harder to prove regardless of any merit of the accusation.
THAT alone is enough of a compelling reason to make damn sure of the facts...
Wouldn't you agree???
Michale
And another example of a Two-Faced Democrat who publicly says one thing but privately says another...
Hidden camera exposé: Democratic senator who publicly opposes gay marriage privately says he is 'not against it'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2793534/arkansas-gay-rights-leader-tells-hidden-camera-spy-democratic-senator-publicly-opposes-gay-marriage-privately-not-against.html
Now, intellectually, I know that all politicians are scum and will say anything to get elected..
First Grimes and now Pryor..
Ya'all have to admit.. It doesn't look good...
Democrats are pulling money out of the Grimes campaign and ceding Kentucky to the GOP..
Once how long til Dems do the same in Arkansas...
Michale
Quote me all you want.. I ain't afraid of my own words.. :D
Especially if there are no biases to measure, right???
wrong. that's where all the macro data come in, because they provide the evidence that individual cases no longer can.
JL
The problem is that people who are compiling the data believe that racism is a factor...
It's like when we were having the debate about the Michael Brown shooting and I asked YoYo for evidence. He said that the ONLY evidence needed was that Brown was black.. That if a black person is involved, it HAS to be racism..
That's the kind of people who are compiling the stats that support your theory..
They have already made up their minds that race is a factor so they ignore any evidence or stats that disprove their conclusion..
Like I said, no one is going to convince anyone of anything based on the limited data that is available..
The stats can be explained by other facts..
You may be right and it's a racist issue.
But you may be wrong as well...
You were wrong in Sanford and you were wrong in Ferguson x2...
You want to claim that racism is a factor when no evidence of that exists...
I am not going to change your mind and, with the facts you have, you are not going to change mine...
But it's been a really awesome discussion.. :D
Michale
But it's been a really awesome discussion.. :D
Note to YoYo and LD....
This is how discussions and debates are done in the adult world.. No name-calling, no hysteria, no personal attacks..
There doesn't have to be agreement.. But there must always be mutual respect...
Food for thought... (again) I hope....
Michale
The problem is that people who are compiling the data believe that racism is a factor...
observer error is only relevant to those observations that are subjective. how many individuals are arrested, convicted or shot is not a subjective figure - either they are or they aren't - there's no room for observer error. demographics are not a subjective observation either. these data exist independently of the opinions of individuals who collect, collate or interpret it. the number of people convicted and later exonerated by DNA is not subjective. you may disagree with my interpretation, but the data sets themselves aren't so easily impeached.
science rarely deals in absolutes, but there are some trends for which the evidence is overwhelming, independently of people's opinions. "maybe" does not mean there is even close to an equal probability. nor does skepticism of the most dramatic assertions equate with evidence against the more modest ones. it's easy to cast doubt on any individual case - not so easy to deny the overall pattern. interpretations of the numbers may lie, but the numbers themselves do not.
based on the data, racial bias in law enforcement may be moderate and gradually decreasing, or it may be severe and not changing much at all. but your claim that it is the figment of the victims' imaginations is unsupported by the overall body of evidence. your assertion that anyone who disagrees with that claim is not looking at all the evidence is, frankly, fantasy-land delusional. My feeling is that you're making an honest mistake, but i don't blame yoyo or LD one bit for being offended.
JL
science rarely deals in absolutes, but there are some trends for which the evidence is overwhelming,
Trends, by definition, are extremely subjective..
And, if the designater of the "trend" has an agenda, then that can't help but influence things...
based on the data, racial bias in law enforcement may be moderate and gradually decreasing, or it may be severe and not changing much at all.
or it may not exist at all...
My feeling is that you're making an honest mistake, but i don't blame yoyo or LD one bit for being offended.
Because they SEARCH for things to be offended by...
I don't blame them for being offended...
I blame them for SEARCHING and INVENTING things to be offended by...
"There can be no offense where none is taken"
-Sarek Of Vulcan
Michale
Trends, by definition, are extremely subjective..
Give you a perfect example...
Under Bush, the "trend" of violations of personal privacy was very very bad from the Left's perspective...
Under Obama, that same "trend" or even an INCREASE of the "trend" is, all of the sudden magically not that big of a deal...
The agenda of the person designating the "trend" has influenced the severity of the "trend"....
A perfect example of a political agenda masquerading as social "science"....
Michale
Under Bush, the "trend" of violations of personal privacy was very very bad from the Left's perspective...
Under Obama, that same "trend" or even an INCREASE of the "trend" is, all of the sudden magically not that big of a deal...
yes, that's a perfect example, and in that case your assessment is completely accurate. you've made the exact same point that i just made. regardless of who's president or who's interpreting, the data exist and can't be disproven by some magical alternate data. it's the same exact thing.
or it may not exist at all...
apply that reasoning to torture or data mining, and see how well it works there. calling something fictional that clearly exists independently of observational bias doesn't impeach the data, it impeaches one's own credibility.
JL
Yah, I don't search or invent. Don't have to, I'll leave that to conservatives and their political opposition to reality.
Oh in regards to 93, Ignorance never gets respect, go read a book.
apply that reasoning to torture or data mining, and see how well it works there.
Big difference. It's not "likely" that torture or data mining existed. It's PROVEN by unequivocal facts...
When you have those kinds of FACTS that support your claim of racism, THAT is when you will have a case..
Yah, I don't search or invent. Don't have to, I'll leave that to conservatives and their political opposition to reality.
Yea.. And I don't cap on Democrats.. :D
Of course you invent... You called me stupid and a racist.. You can't NOT invent shit.. :D
Michale
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95406
regardless of who's president or who's interpreting, the data exist and can't be disproven by some magical alternate data. it's the same exact thing.
You miss the point..
The SAME people are interpreting the data (trend) but they interpret it different ways based on political considerations...
Such it is with your data... How it is being interpreted is based on a political consideration..
It's a very simple point.
You don't have any unequivocal facts. You have stated this. You don't have an admission of guilt and you don't have any eyewitness testimony of racism..
Put it another way.. If you took each and every individual case of racism to court, you would lose because all you have is supposition and innuendo..
Each case would be NOT GUILTY of racism. So, since each individual case would be NOT GUILTY of racism, collectively it would be NOT GUILTY of racism..
Now, of course, your opinion is that there IS racism. I respect that and I am sure you honestly and truly believe that there IS institutionalized racism...
But you can't unequivocally state as fact that there is institutionalized racism against black people.
The facts don't support such a statement of fact..
The facts support the POSSIBILITY, I'll grant you. As you said, the likely-hood... I'll even give you that even though I disagree..
But the facts don't support the claim as a statement of fact...
On the OTHER side of the equation, there is the idea that, for you to be correct, there would have to be a grand conspiracy amongst LEO offices AND the courts AND dozens of other government agencies, many of which are LEAD by black people... And all of those hundreds of thousands of people in all those agencies are in on the conspiracy and not ONE SINGLE shred of documented fact that shows the pattern you claim has come to light... Not one single, "He said he did this because of racism", not one single "I was ordered to do this and was told it was because the guy was black", not one single, "Yea, I did it because he was black!!!"...
We have seen in recent days how Democrat operatives have let slip some pretty stupid things when they thought they were amongst like minded thinking people... Videos that PROVE Democrat candidates are two faced liars who will lie right to people's faces..
Where's the O'keefe-style videos that PROVE people did stuff based on racism.. In all those hundreds of thousands of people in all those institutions you accuse of racism, surely ONE would talk out of school, eh??
Like I said, I am sure YOU honestly believe that it's true... And I respect that...
I just don't agree with it because there are no stone cold objective facts to support it..
Michale
Let me put it to you another way..
There is no stone cold objective fact that aliens from outer space are visiting our planet..
I choose to believe it's true, but I would never claim it as an absolute fact because the evidence doesn't support such a claim..
I would say that there is MORE evidence of alien visitation than there is of institutionalized racism... But that too, is just an opinion..
Michale
http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95406
And now we switch gears once again to racial profiling...
Was the racial profiling due to racism??
Or due to other factors..
The Israelis racial profile up the ying yang.. And their airports are some of the most secure in the world...
Is it because the Israelis are racist??
Or is it because it's well documented that one particular race is a huge problem for Israel??
If you have a Chinese suspect in LA, do you send cops to tear apart Harlem??? No, you send them to Chinatown..
Is that racial profiling?? Technically, yes..
Is it also common sense??
Yes it is...
Michale
YoYo,
Oh in regards to 93, Ignorance never gets respect, go read a book.
Calling someone ignorant out of bigotry is not very respectable either.. :D
Michale
But I still respect ya, YoYo... :D
Anyone who is a Trekker can't be ALL bad... :D
Michale