I've been talking through all of this with a hardcore right winger in the US I used to work with. He's a very smart guy, always seemed nice enough, but he's deep in an echo chamber. It's been interesting and disturbing seeing the lens a lot of people put on this.
His one point has been that there isn't systemic police racism, but police develop stereotypes because of negative interactions with groups of people over time, and they can be a good thing that is actually a protective mechanism.
I've been trying to bring it back further to root causes with him, and discuss why a black male is so disproportionately likely to have an encounter with the law. As part of this I went digging for education funding numbers as hearing US coworkers talk about moving to a "good school district" has always been an alarm bell for me.
When the UCP is discussing the privatization of education we all need to do our part to push back. Entrenching systemic inequality for children in our province is in none of our best interests.
This is probably true. We all have or develop unconscious biases. The key is to fight against those biases by questioning why we have them.
I've been talking through all of this with a hardcore right winger in the US I used to work with. He's a very smart guy, always seemed nice enough, but he's deep in an echo chamber. It's been interesting and disturbing seeing the lens a lot of people put on this.
His one point has been that there isn't systemic police racism, but police develop stereotypes because of negative interactions with groups of people over time, and they can be a good thing that is actually a protective mechanism.
I had a chat with a friend's mom last night who's pretty with it and sharp but a little Trumpish. She asked who George Floyd was. I was like...well, he's a dead black guy. But was he famous? Not before the cops killed him. Well then why are people rioting? Cause of racism. Then in a perfect SNL moment...Well I don't know about that.
I thought the horse analogy would work well explaining systemic racism. It did not.
Let's say you ride your horse every day and he's a really good horse. He does everything you want him to do. But one day you decide to stop riding him and stop taking care of him. And then you stop being nice to him. And eventually you're really mean to him. Then one day you decide to go for a ride again and he bucks you off. Who's fault is that?
I was surprised to learn how many red necks respond with..."No horse is gonna buck me off. That horse would be on the plane to France"...and so on.
Let's say you ride your horse every day and he's a really good horse. He does everything you want him to do. But one day you decide to stop riding him and stop taking care of him. And then you stop being nice to him. And eventually you're really mean to him. Then one day you decide to go for a ride again and he bucks you off. Who's fault is that?
Is that actually an analogy used to explain systemic racism? That strikes me as a really terrible analogy.
__________________ "The great promise of the Internet was that more information would automatically yield better decisions. The great disappointment is that more information actually yields more possibilities to confirm what you already believed anyway." - Brian Eno
The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to CorsiHockeyLeague For This Useful Post:
Yeah the analogy is missing a component. Are you riding all the horses equally? Are you suddenly mean to one horse or all horses? Or are you mean to one horse and the other horses react?
__________________
Watching the Oilers defend is like watching fire engines frantically rushing to the wrong fire
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Bumface
I've been talking through all of this with a hardcore right winger in the US I used to work with. He's a very smart guy, always seemed nice enough, but he's deep in an echo chamber. It's been interesting and disturbing seeing the lens a lot of people put on this.
His one point has been that there isn't systemic police racism, but police develop stereotypes because of negative interactions with groups of people over time, and they can be a good thing that is actually a protective mechanism.
I've been trying to bring it back further to root causes with him, and discuss why a black male is so disproportionately likely to have an encounter with the law. As part of this I went digging for education funding numbers as hearing US coworkers talk about moving to a "good school district" has always been an alarm bell for me.
When the UCP is discussing the privatization of education we all need to do our part to push back. Entrenching systemic inequality for children in our province is in none of our best interests.
I've heard this line of reasoning as well.
There is never any thought that
a) those negative stereotypes are almost certainly passed along by more experienced members of the police force to newer members
b) Future negative interactions that cause people to steerotype are almost certainly confirmation bias
c) That is 100% the definition of institutional racism.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Location: In my office, at the Ministry of Awesome!
Exp:
Quote:
Originally Posted by GirlySports
Yeah the analogy is missing a component. Are you riding all the horses equally? Are you suddenly mean to one horse or all horses? Or are you mean to one horse and the other horses react?
Yeah, also, the US was NEVER nice to the horse in question.
__________________
THE SHANTZ WILL RISE AGAIN. <-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Bring_Back_Shantz For This Useful Post:
Yeah the analogy is missing a component. Are you riding all the horses equally? Are you suddenly mean to one horse or all horses? Or are you mean to one horse and the other horses react?
Actually there was a part two. The horse had several foals. And all the people with horses sired by that horse sent their horses to France too because of bad bloodlines. But whatever. My audience wasn't that sophisticated. Not corsi level genius at least.
The Following User Says Thank You to OMG!WTF! For This Useful Post:
I've been talking through all of this with a hardcore right winger in the US I used to work with. He's a very smart guy, always seemed nice enough, but he's deep in an echo chamber. It's been interesting and disturbing seeing the lens a lot of people put on this.
His one point has been that there isn't systemic police racism, but police develop stereotypes because of negative interactions with groups of people over time, and they can be a good thing that is actually a protective mechanism.
I've been trying to bring it back further to root causes with him, and discuss why a black male is so disproportionately likely to have an encounter with the law. As part of this I went digging for education funding numbers as hearing US coworkers talk about moving to a "good school district" has always been an alarm bell for me.
When the UCP is discussing the privatization of education we all need to do our part to push back. Entrenching systemic inequality for children in our province is in none of our best interests.
I don't disagree with your overall point, but I know in the metro area I live in, the poor, inner city schools spend significantly more than the county schools that are mostly suburban. I see from your site, that this is generally the case throughout the state.
Even though far more money is spent on the inner city schools, the suburban schools are considered much better schools and I think it is definitely fair to say there is a significant advantage to going to them. My point is that it is a much more complex problem than how much money is spent on the schools.
Even though far more money is spent on the inner city schools, the suburban schools are considered much better schools and I think it is definitely fair to say there is a significant advantage to going to them. My point is that it is a much more complex problem than how much money is spent on the schools.
Definitely. I think it's all deeply complex and you can't just throw money at schools and fix it.
Economically segregated neighbourhoods and social networks in general put people at a disadvantage. If you grow up surrounded by affluent people, your network provided opportunities are huge. If all your friends and classmates are working minimum wage, they aren't going to help you score that sweet internship.
I've been talking through all of this with a hardcore right winger in the US I used to work with. He's a very smart guy, always seemed nice enough, but he's deep in an echo chamber. It's been interesting and disturbing seeing the lens a lot of people put on this.
His one point has been that there isn't systemic police racism, but police develop stereotypes because of negative interactions with groups of people over time, and they can be a good thing that is actually a protective mechanism.
I've been trying to bring it back further to root causes with him, and discuss why a black male is so disproportionately likely to have an encounter with the law. As part of this I went digging for education funding numbers as hearing US coworkers talk about moving to a "good school district" has always been an alarm bell for me.
When the UCP is discussing the privatization of education we all need to do our part to push back. Entrenching systemic inequality for children in our province is in none of our best interests.
I think about this problem allot, I saw a relative post some terrible antivax crap today, and I have been thinking about how you address half truths in conversations while getting the point across they they are using them to justify completely wrong conclusions.
This is the inherent problem with forming your rhetoric around rationalism. It would be disingenuous to argue that your friend is wrong for talking about the feedback loop between negative interactions, negative attitudes and negative interactions. It is a very strong point, and a very true part of the problem, so to have a genuine discourse you need to agree with him that the problem he is concerned about is real. The problem is that in agreeing with him you are hoping to move on to a conversation about the actions both parties would need to take to unwind this negative feed back loop. Understanding that the police being an organized group would have an easier time initiating these changes, while marginalized citizens are a disparate and disorganized groups that need cultural change not structural change since they don't have an underlying organizational structure. All of this is a conversation you are interested in having and exploring, in search of better understanding the causing and solutions to what is obviously a big issue we need to address. Your friend on the other hand has no interest in conversation, he has a prefered conclusion that the existing structures are good and people just need to find a way to fit into them. Seeking confirmation of his preexisting biases, he either hears you agree that there are in fact negative feedbacks and assumes his world view is affirmed, or he hears you reject his obviously true statement that police are more likely to have negative interactions with instituationaly marginalized people and he understands that you are arguing for a world view not for truth.
No guarantee you can ever break through, but there is a tight line you have to tow. Frist not rejecting or affirming his statement, either action will end the discourse and lead to talking at each other rather than to each other. Second inserting all of that nuance into the conversation, prequalifying any agreement with him in the fact that both sides need to make changes but the police are the only ones capable of making changes first. Then talking about even where his premise is true he is deliberately skipping over many other facts because of nuance he has been ignoring.
The Following User Says Thank You to #-3 For This Useful Post:
Giuliani loves the sound of his own voice, and is the definition of doubling down. This man cannot admit fault even if he a dump in a department store and 100 people watched him do it. This doesn't even mention the conspiracies and lies he spews. He is no longer fit to be a responsible voice in politics.
Media need to do the responsible thing and just not interview him anymore.
<-----Check the Badge bitches. You want some Awesome, you come to me!
