Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
As a martial arts Instructor, and parent, tenets such as respect, diversity and inclusion are at the forefront of my discussions. And I believe in modeling them.
That said, I question where we will be if we keep finding offense in our speech. We COULD try to find a neutral term for everything imaginable, but then, couldn't some people be offended if they had to be referred to as "they?" when they WANT to be identified as a "man" or "woman"?
If it comes down to people walking on pins and needles for fear of offending people, the result will be people NOT wanting to even talk to others. And like-people will congregate for this safety feature. And THEN what will happen??:
PEOPLE WILL BE SEGREGATED, based on comfort. And so, this whole move to be conclusive will have the opposite effect.
If I am wrong, I will take ownership for my thoughts on this. I am certainly willing top have a healthy discussion on it. And we are fortunate that so many city-data.com contributors bring a ton of experience and ideas!
As a martial arts Instructor, and parent, tenets such as respect, diversity and inclusion are at the forefront of my discussions. And I believe in modeling them.
That said, I question where we will be if we keep finding offense in our speech. We COULD try to find a neutral term for everything imaginable, but then, couldn't some people be offended if they had to be referred to as "they?" when they WANT to be identified as a "man" or "woman"?
If it comes down to people walking on pins and needles for fear of offending people, the result will be people NOT wanting to even talk to others. And like-people will congregate for this safety feature. And THEN what will happen??:
PEOPLE WILL BE SEGREGATED, based on comfort. And so, this whole move to be conclusive will have the opposite effect.
If I am wrong, I will take ownership for my thoughts on this. I am certainly willing top have a healthy discussion on it. And we are fortunate that so many city-data.com contributors bring a ton of experience and ideas!
Peace!
The only error is thinking that this isn't all being done By Design. There are people in this country who want to tear down our existing social structure, and have determined that creating discord among the population with respect to sex, gender, race, political beliefs, etc. is an excellent way to meet that goal.
How could the rest of us (the vast majority) defeat this? By not giving them a shred of credibility. Instead of joining these Grievance Pimps, they need to be recognized for who they really are, and ostracized, instead of being taken seriously. Just my $0.02.
With my position in a jail, the staff in my company have a mandatory "Ethics and Boundaries in the Workplace" seminar we need to complete. I had mine last week.
The Presenter shared a story with us in which she had addressed another group of women as "ladies." And then one of the students came up to her afterward and indicated she was offended by being called a lady, due to the wide spectrum of gender fluidity, as well as a negative connotation of the word, "lady." (Incidentally, I did a search and I did not find anything negative... well, in MY interpretation)…. So, now the Presenter says she refrains from using that term with a group of female students, so as to be proactive in NOT re-offending anyone.
After the seminar, my 2 female co-workers said to me, "Jay, we thought immediately about YOU when the Presenter said that, because every morning when we come into the office, you greet us with a "good morning, ladies.' "
Well since this IS a Chicago forum, I will say that yesterday when I went into the McDonald's in Lincoln Square, I wondered when it will come around that it will no longer say "Ladies" on the female bathroom.
Thoughts???
Yeah I'm pretty feminist and I don't actually understand what's wrong with "lady" either. I'd think feminists would prefer that because it isn't derived from "man".
Yeah I'm pretty feminist and I don't actually understand what's wrong with "lady" either. I'd think feminists would prefer that because it isn't derived from "man".
Last century, it was perfectly acceptable to deem someone a "moron", a "cretin", an "imbecile", or an "idiot". In fact, they were medical terms intended to differentiate between different levels of intellectual deficiencies. Unfortunately, they were turned into derogatory terms for people who displayed behavior that was considered "stupid" (Thanks, Moe, Larry, and Curly!); so in order to not be disrespectful to those whose IQ's deviated from average to the low side, new terms were invented; I believe "retarded" pretty much took over after the 1940's, and again, it was a legitimate medical and scientific term.
But since then, "retarded" has also been deemed derogatory, and it became "mentally handicapped", which morphed into "Challenged", then "Special Needs", and now, I believe, "Learning Disabled". Before long, this latest term will also be dust-binned, because it describes a human experience deemed to be a negative, instead of a natural, occurrence. In fact, there is a term for this phenomenon (which I cannot recall right now, LOL). So the falling out of favor for the word "Lady", should probably not be unexpected. Just look at the evolution of words describing those whose ancestors came from the African Continent. The common term in the 1800's whose name shall not be mentioned because it starts with "N" (which was derived from the French word for "black"), morphed into "Colored", then "Negro", and now, "African American". How long before the current term is considered a slur?
Part of this is simply the evolution of language. But again, another part is our own discomfort with our society at large. "Lady" used to be a term of respect for those of the female persuasion. Sooner or later, if we keep on our hyper-sensitive, emotionally-charged path, even referring to people as "People" will be considered a Hate Crime.
Stop the World, I want to get off.
Which again, is By Design.
Master Jay, the thought that immediately comes to mind is that America and the western world in general haven't had enough real problems to contend with for some time, so let's manufacture some.
Hard times make strong men, who make good times, which spawns weak men....and you know what's coming next.
God. Seriously. Can you imagine if WWII was going on? I think those soldiers who were in foxholes would be astounded at the ridiculousness of it all.
The Presenter shared a story with us in which she had addressed another group of women as "ladies." And then one of the students came up to her afterward and indicated she was offended by being called a lady, due to the wide spectrum of gender fluidity, as well as a negative connotation of the word, "lady." (Incidentally, I did a search and I did not find anything negative... well, in MY interpretation)…. So, now the Presenter says she refrains from using that term with a group of female students, so as to be proactive in NOT re-offending anyone.
Thoughts???
I never thought I would live to see the day when people are too stupid to understand basic human biology. The concept of 'gender fluidity' is quite possibly the biggest load of crap ever dumped on the American public.
Black people have a much higher criminality rate per % of US population, so that's not saying much that "white people" have better relations with cops.
And which white people are you referring to? People who's ancestors were on the mayflower, or like me? Coz I wasn't even born in the US. What about all the other ethnic groups, asians, arabs, caribbean black immigrants, african immigrants, all the immigrants really? What's their relations with cops like, coz I don't hear them making a big deal of it.
What's "colorblind card"?
Actually, it is not true that blacks commit more crime.
The better question for public debate is this: do the actual government statistics bear out the claim that Blacks contribute disproportionately to the crime rate? Or is this largely a stereotype, which is driven by the disproportionate rate of ARRESTS and CONVICTIONS of Black people? And does the over-focus on Black crime conceal an alarmingly high crime rate within the white population?
**********************************
Those who believe that African American or Latino youth are more ;criminal” than any other ethnic groups are simply wrong. The real facts tell us much more than stereotypes, or musingsboth of which obscure the well-documented disparate treatment accorded African Americans compared to whites within the justice system. These comments on racially disparate crime also overlook the area of “corporate crime.”
For over a decade, the Justice Department has been working to reduce the racial disparity seen in juvenile arrests and juvenile imprisonment, a fact that underscores the existence of racially disparate arrests and sentences. African American youth arrest rates for drug violations, assaults and weapon offenses are higher than arrest rates for white youtheven though both report similar rates of delinquency.
*LARGEST DISPARITIES FOUND IN DRUG ARRESTS, IMPRISONMENT. Some of the greatest disparities in the juvenile justice system’s response to youth of color involve the number of youth arrested, and prosecuted for drug offenses. While African American youth comprise 17% of the youth population [4], African American youth represent 27% of all drug violation arrests, and comprise 48% of the youth detained for a drug offense.
“Contrary to popular assumption, at all three grade levels African American youth have substantially lower rates of use of most licit and illicit drugs than do Whites.”
There is a common conservative narrative that indicates the disproportionate incarceration of black people is not the result of systemic racism, but rather of shortcomings within the black community.
It is also common to hear the supposedly neutral statement that “black people commit more crimes than white people.” This “fact” is used to justify a belief that black people have a natural criminal propensity, or that a “culture of violence” is to blame for problems faced by black people in America.
Black people make up roughly 13% of the United States population, and white people make up 64%. Black people make up 40% of the prison population, and white people 39%. Therefore, even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers. But the fact that black people are incarcerated five times as frequently as white people does not mean black people commit five times as many crimes. Here’s why:
(1) If a black person and a white person each commit a crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested. This is due in part to the fact that black people are more heavily policed.
Black people, more often than white people, live in dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are more heavily policed than suburban or rural areas. When people live in close proximity to one another, police can monitor more people more often. In more heavily policed areas, people committing crimes are caught more frequently. This could help explain why, for example, black people and white people smoke marijuana at similar rates, yet black people are 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. (The discrepancy could also be driven by overt racism, more frequent illegal searches of black people, or an increased willingness to let non-blacks off with a warning.)
(2) When black people are arrested for a crime, they are convicted more often than white people arrested for the same crime.
An arrest and charge does not always lead to a conviction. A charge may be dismissed or a defendant may be declared not guilty at trial. Whether or not an arrestee is convicted is often determined by whether or not a defendant can afford a reputable attorney. The interaction of poverty and trial outcomes could help explain why, for example, while black defendants represent about 35% of drug arrests, 46% of those convicted of drug crimes are black. (This discrepancy could also be due to racial bias on the part of judges and jurors.)
(3) When black people are convicted of a crime, they are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration compared to whites convicted of the same crime.
When a person is convicted of a crime, a judge often has discretion in determining whether the defendant will be incarcerated or given a less severe punishment such as probation, community service, or fines. One study found that in a particular region blacks were incarcerated for convicted felony offenses 51% of the time while whites convicted of felonies were incarcerated 38% of the time. The same study also used an empirical approach to determine that race, not confounded with any other factor, was a key determinant in judges’ decisions to incarcerate.
Racial disparities at every stage of the criminal justice process build upon one another. So, if 1,000 white people and 200 black people (a ratio of 5:1 to reflect the U.S. population) commit the same crime, here is what the eventual prison population could look like:
100 white people and 74 black people might be arrested.
It is impossible to determine what percentage of crimes committed result in arrests because there can be no data on un-observed crimes. As noted above, however, it has been found that while black and white Americans smoke marijuana at similar rates, blacks are arrested 3.7 times as frequently for marijuana possession. These numbers were picked to reflect the 3.7:1 ratio of black to white arrests for marijuana possession. 100 is 10% of 1,000 and 74 is 37% of 200, so these numbers would represent an arrest disparity equivalent to that noted in the example above.
50 white people and 48 black people might be convicted.
If black people account for 35% of drug arrests and 46% of convictions, this indicates a conviction rate that is approximately 1.3 times higher than it should be based on the black arrest rate. So, if 50% of white arrestees were convicted we would expect to see 65% (.5 x 1.3) of black arrestees convicted: 50 is 50% of 100 and 48 is about 65% of 74. (50% was picked at random; the important factor here is the comparative proportion.)
19 white people and 24 black people might be sentenced to prison.
Using the example felony incarceration rates cited above, we might expect to see 38% of the 50 convicted white defendants (19) and 51% of the 48 convicted black defendants (24) incarcerated for their crimes. In this scenario, 12% of black people who commit a crime and less than 2% of white people who commit the same crime might eventually go to prison.
This example demonstrates that there are systemic differences in how blacks and whites are treated by the law. These differences, which are compounded in each successive phase of the criminal justice process, increase the percentage of black people incarcerated for committing a particular crime.
This example is NOT meant to be a conclusive analysis explaining the incarceration gap. The statistics presented above and applied to the illustrative example come from different contexts and refer to different crimes. Racial disparities in the application of criminal justice are not the only source of differential incarceration rates. Poverty, geography, and lacking educational and career opportunities all likely play a role. These factors exacerbate the effects of systemic racism and feed the cycle of incarceration, joblessness, and poverty that plagues some segments of the black population.
Regardless of the exact factors behind the incarceration gap, it is not some neutral, statistical fact that black people commit more crime. The gap is the result of numerous interacting factors, not the least of which is racism. Explanations of the incarceration gap as a result of black criminal propensity or insular cultural deficiencies are critically flawed, and by definition racist.
I never thought I would live to see the day when people are too stupid to understand basic human biology. The concept of 'gender fluidity' is quite possibly the biggest load of crap ever dumped on the American public.
I tend to think that the whole idea of "spectrums" in human behavior stemmed from the term being applied to Autistic behavior. And it isn't incorrect, there is a wide spectrum of symptoms and levels of affection suffered by those with mental disabilities. It's so varied because the psychology of human beings is so complex, and there are so many of us; we are all alike and at the same time, are all different, at least to some degree.
So, now "gender" is also considered not only to be on a spectrum, but fluid as well. It is generally accepted that there are two sexes, one male and one female, one with XX and one with XY chromosomes. Now, are there exceptions to this? Absolutely, but they are extremely rare. When teaching human anatomy, for instance, professors teach that human beings have two eyes, two ears, and one mouth. But occasionally, nature screws the pooch and someone is born with three ears. But that is not the "norm" which defines human anatomy, and while it is acknowledged, it is considered an aberration, and human ear physiology is not defined to be on a "spectrum". But gender, because it is heavily psychological in nature, is a bit more complicated. On the other hand, for those who embrace the idea that you can be Cis on Monday, Trans on Tuesday, and Both on Wednesday, that condition was best described by terms used in the last century, and corrupted by the Stooges.
Once more, the forces that hate our current society are looking at the fringes in an attempt to find reasons to throw the baby out with the bathwater, they want to disqualify the 99% in order to elevate the 1%. Don't fall for this nonsense. People who are afflicted in some manner need to be free from persecution, that's for sure. But the 99% of us who are NOT afflicted by a particular condition also need to be free from the persecution that is the "Rheeee" of the SJW crowd continuously ringing in our ears. Let 'em teach THAT in our schools.
The better question for public debate is this: do the actual government statistics bear out the claim that Blacks contribute disproportionately to the crime rate? Or is this largely a stereotype, which is driven by the disproportionate rate of ARRESTS and CONVICTIONS of Black people? And does the over-focus on Black crime conceal an alarmingly high crime rate within the white population?
**********************************
Those who believe that African American or Latino youth are more ;criminal” than any other ethnic groups are simply wrong. The real facts tell us much more than stereotypes, or musingsboth of which obscure the well-documented disparate treatment accorded African Americans compared to whites within the justice system. These comments on racially disparate crime also overlook the area of “corporate crime.”
For over a decade, the Justice Department has been working to reduce the racial disparity seen in juvenile arrests and juvenile imprisonment, a fact that underscores the existence of racially disparate arrests and sentences. African American youth arrest rates for drug violations, assaults and weapon offenses are higher than arrest rates for white youtheven though both report similar rates of delinquency.
*LARGEST DISPARITIES FOUND IN DRUG ARRESTS, IMPRISONMENT. Some of the greatest disparities in the juvenile justice system’s response to youth of color involve the number of youth arrested, and prosecuted for drug offenses. While African American youth comprise 17% of the youth population [4], African American youth represent 27% of all drug violation arrests, and comprise 48% of the youth detained for a drug offense.
“Contrary to popular assumption, at all three grade levels African American youth have substantially lower rates of use of most licit and illicit drugs than do Whites.”
There is a common conservative narrative that indicates the disproportionate incarceration of black people is not the result of systemic racism, but rather of shortcomings within the black community.
It is also common to hear the supposedly neutral statement that “black people commit more crimes than white people.” This “fact” is used to justify a belief that black people have a natural criminal propensity, or that a “culture of violence” is to blame for problems faced by black people in America.
Black people make up roughly 13% of the United States population, and white people make up 64%. Black people make up 40% of the prison population, and white people 39%. Therefore, even though there are roughly five times as many white people as black people in this country, blacks and whites are incarcerated in equal numbers. But the fact that black people are incarcerated five times as frequently as white people does not mean black people commit five times as many crimes. Here’s why:
(1) If a black person and a white person each commit a crime, the black person is more likely to be arrested. This is due in part to the fact that black people are more heavily policed.
Black people, more often than white people, live in dense urban areas. Dense urban areas are more heavily policed than suburban or rural areas. When people live in close proximity to one another, police can monitor more people more often. In more heavily policed areas, people committing crimes are caught more frequently. This could help explain why, for example, black people and white people smoke marijuana at similar rates, yet black people are 3.7 times as likely to be arrested for marijuana possession. (The discrepancy could also be driven by overt racism, more frequent illegal searches of black people, or an increased willingness to let non-blacks off with a warning.)
(2) When black people are arrested for a crime, they are convicted more often than white people arrested for the same crime.
An arrest and charge does not always lead to a conviction. A charge may be dismissed or a defendant may be declared not guilty at trial. Whether or not an arrestee is convicted is often determined by whether or not a defendant can afford a reputable attorney. The interaction of poverty and trial outcomes could help explain why, for example, while black defendants represent about 35% of drug arrests, 46% of those convicted of drug crimes are black. (This discrepancy could also be due to racial bias on the part of judges and jurors.)
(3) When black people are convicted of a crime, they are more likely to be sentenced to incarceration compared to whites convicted of the same crime.
When a person is convicted of a crime, a judge often has discretion in determining whether the defendant will be incarcerated or given a less severe punishment such as probation, community service, or fines. One study found that in a particular region blacks were incarcerated for convicted felony offenses 51% of the time while whites convicted of felonies were incarcerated 38% of the time. The same study also used an empirical approach to determine that race, not confounded with any other factor, was a key determinant in judges’ decisions to incarcerate.
Racial disparities at every stage of the criminal justice process build upon one another. So, if 1,000 white people and 200 black people (a ratio of 5:1 to reflect the U.S. population) commit the same crime, here is what the eventual prison population could look like:
100 white people and 74 black people might be arrested.
It is impossible to determine what percentage of crimes committed result in arrests because there can be no data on un-observed crimes. As noted above, however, it has been found that while black and white Americans smoke marijuana at similar rates, blacks are arrested 3.7 times as frequently for marijuana possession. These numbers were picked to reflect the 3.7:1 ratio of black to white arrests for marijuana possession. 100 is 10% of 1,000 and 74 is 37% of 200, so these numbers would represent an arrest disparity equivalent to that noted in the example above.
50 white people and 48 black people might be convicted.
If black people account for 35% of drug arrests and 46% of convictions, this indicates a conviction rate that is approximately 1.3 times higher than it should be based on the black arrest rate. So, if 50% of white arrestees were convicted we would expect to see 65% (.5 x 1.3) of black arrestees convicted: 50 is 50% of 100 and 48 is about 65% of 74. (50% was picked at random; the important factor here is the comparative proportion.)
19 white people and 24 black people might be sentenced to prison.
Using the example felony incarceration rates cited above, we might expect to see 38% of the 50 convicted white defendants (19) and 51% of the 48 convicted black defendants (24) incarcerated for their crimes. In this scenario, 12% of black people who commit a crime and less than 2% of white people who commit the same crime might eventually go to prison.
This example demonstrates that there are systemic differences in how blacks and whites are treated by the law. These differences, which are compounded in each successive phase of the criminal justice process, increase the percentage of black people incarcerated for committing a particular crime.
This example is NOT meant to be a conclusive analysis explaining the incarceration gap. The statistics presented above and applied to the illustrative example come from different contexts and refer to different crimes. Racial disparities in the application of criminal justice are not the only source of differential incarceration rates. Poverty, geography, and lacking educational and career opportunities all likely play a role. These factors exacerbate the effects of systemic racism and feed the cycle of incarceration, joblessness, and poverty that plagues some segments of the black population.
Regardless of the exact factors behind the incarceration gap, it is not some neutral, statistical fact that black people commit more crime. The gap is the result of numerous interacting factors, not the least of which is racism. Explanations of the incarceration gap as a result of black criminal propensity or insular cultural deficiencies are critically flawed, and by definition racist.
This is a long post to respond to, so let me make the story short:
No actually, it is quite true. Black Americans comprise <14% of the US population, yet add up to 53% of all US homicide and 54% of all robbery arrests. Juvenile crime stats are even worse. That was just from a quick search, found in 2017 FBI crime stats: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s...ables/table-43
The only error is thinking that this isn't all being done By Design. There are people in this country who want to tear down our existing social structure, and have determined that creating discord among the population with respect to sex, gender, race, political beliefs, etc. is an excellent way to meet that goal.
How could the rest of us (the vast majority) defeat this? By not giving them a shred of credibility. Instead of joining these Grievance Pimps, they need to be recognized for who they really are, and ostracized, instead of being taken seriously. Just my $0.02.
Reasonable people need to stand up while there are still reasonable people in position to voice opposition. Every action has a reaction, it's just a question who's doing the reacting. The Jan 6 storming of the capital is billed as "an insurrection". That was no insurrection, that's not what an insurrection looks like. An insurrection would be these guys showing up with all their guns, and I'll bet my house a vast majority of them have them. Regimes with far less qualms about shooting their own civilians, torturing, bombing and gassing entire towns and so forth, still managed to loose vast chunks of their countries to rebels who started off armed with just pistols and rifles.
If rational people don't give pushback to the loonies, other loonies will, just the way it is, and I personally think it's not out of the realm here.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
