200 replies to this topic

[Mike]

I've just spent the last half-hour or so reading through quotes and speeches for this thread's title.

I have just taken two paracetamol.

These two facts may, or may not, be related.

US Politics eh? Play on.

[Todd Gambrel]

"Because I'm bored, I'll do it for you. White people, as a racial group, didn't have to fight for the freedom and then 100 years later also fight for basic civil rights. For a guy like Sam Jackson, who grew up during the civil rights movement, the idea of a black president who nothing more than a pipe dream preached by idealists who were hopeful for a better tomorrow. So anyone who can't see how voting for Obama because of his race is vastly different than voting for McCain because he's white is being willfully ignorant of basic history we all know.
"


Translation: Because Sam was wronged in the past makes it ok to make a wrong now.

I don't buy it. Making a decision based on race is racism. You can spin it all you want, go ahead. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!

Saying Samuel Jackson can be racist because he lived in the civil rights movement is a cop out.

Actually, BECAUSE Samuel Jackson lived in during the civil rights movement makes what he did EVEN WORSE. He should know better.

Unbelievable. It's a crutch, per and simple, for weak minded people. You want to continue fighting for equality? I'm right behind you. But don't fight for equality by performing actions which create inequality, which is what Mr. Jackson did.

[Chris D]

Translation: Because Sam was wronged in the past makes it ok to make a wrong now.

I don't buy it. Making a decision based on race is racism. You can spin it all you want, go ahead. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT!

Like I said, willfully ignorant.

I don't agree with Sam Jackson's reasoning. I even said at the end of the last thread that his reasoning is pretty racist. Since I already went into detail in the last thread as to the differences between a white person voting for McCain because he's white vs. a black person doing the same for Obama, I won't bother doing it again. Never once did I say it was a good reason. Just pointed out why it's more understandable. As nice as it would be if we lived in a world where people weren't defined by their race, we still don't and context matters in these situations.

I know I'll never change your mind on anything, Todd, so I'm not going to argue this any more. Have a great day!

[Christian U]

But don't fight for equality by performing actions which create inequality, which is what Mr. Jackson did.

How would you balance these scales, Todd?

[Johnny Henning]

I agree with Todd that there really is no excuse for race being the sole determinant of one's voting choice. It is "understandable" but that in no way excuses such a short-sighted and race-based decision. Racism among whites Jackson's age is also understandable, but it is still a really bad criteria for living your life.

Now, the excuses or explanations given above and in the other thread apply more broadly to policies and behavior seeking greater inclusion of all Americans equally as far as opportunities in business and government. In that instance, you are looking at obvious imbalances over years of oppression and it is necessary to take action to ensure fair hiring practices.

However, on the individual level, using race as a sole criteria or even a primary criteria is at least bigoted no matter how understandable it is.

[Christian U]

Sole criterium.

[Chris D]

However, on the individual level, using race as a sole criteria or even a primary criteria is at least bigoted no matter how understandable it is.

You and Todd aren't wrong. But I don't think anyone here thinks otherwise. The original topic was more about why a white guy voting against Obama because he's black is different (and marginally not quite as wrong) as a black person voting for Obama because he's black. Neither are right, and certainly aren't a good reason to vote for/against someone.

Anway, I've said all I think I can on the subject and at this point I feel like we're all arguing different, albeit tangential, points.

[Jim Ohara]

So I just arrive back in the US to find Rick Santorum has won 3 more states. It's enough to make me turn around and go back to Ireland.

[Todd Gross]

So I just arrive back in the US to find Rick Santorum has won 3 more states. It's enough to make me turn around and go back to Ireland.

What, and miss all the fun?

[Johnny Henning]

You and Todd aren't wrong. But I don't think anyone here thinks otherwise. The original topic was more about why a white guy voting against Obama because he's black is different (and marginally not quite as wrong) as a black person voting for Obama because he's black. Neither are right, and certainly aren't a good reason to vote for/against someone.

Anway, I've said all I think I can on the subject and at this point I feel like we're all arguing different, albeit tangential, points.

Interesting and startling article about the obscenely high incarceration rate for young black men in America:

http://www.newyorker...currentPage=all

...More than half of all black men without a high-school diploma go to prison at some time in their lives. Mass incarceration on a scale almost unexampled in human history is a fundamental fact of our country today—perhaps the fundamental fact, as slavery was the fundamental fact of 1850. In truth, there are more black men in the grip of the criminal-justice system—in prison, on probation, or on parole—than were in slavery then. Over all, there are now more people under “correctional supervision” in America—more than six million—than were in the Gulag Archipelago under Stalin at its height. That city of the confined and the controlled, Lockuptown, is now the second largest in the United States...

Read more http://www.newyorker...k#ixzz1mPU035oR

Personally, prison policy in the United States is probably near the top of our real and lasting problems in the country. It is connected to nearly every aspect of society, but you don't hear boo about it in political debates even though, except for police states and dictatorships, we really have the most people in prison of any country as developed as we are.

It really is quietly poisoning our society and culture.

[garjones]

Personally, prison policy in the United States is probably near the top of our real and lasting problems in the country. It is connected to nearly every aspect of society, but you don't hear boo about it in political debates even though, except for police states and dictatorships, we really have the most people in prison of any country as developed as we are.

It really is quietly poisoning our society and culture.

I read an article from the BBC a month or two back looking at Texas. They've traditionally been of the "lock them up and throw away the key" mindset but that hit against the fiscal responsibility and government spending mentality - prisons cost a lot of money. So they've been sharply reducing the number of people sent to prison, primarily to save money rather than as an act of reform but found the crime rate has dropped as a result.

[Johnny Henning]

Yeah, it's like when Nixon, I think, imposed a speed limit on freeways due to the oil embargo - drive slower, use less gas - and then, shock! they discovered it led to less accidents as well.

[garjones]

The problem is it's often counter-intuitive, the first response that comes to mind is to make sentences longer and conditions harder and people are less likely to offend. In practice that doesn't seem to happen.

There was an excellent series on ITV in the UK last year (it's not often you say that about ITV) looking at the maximum security prison Strangeways in Manchester, England. A raft of headlines in the UK were going mad that prisoners had TV and X-Box but once you saw how it actually operated it made perfect sense. Those things were not provided by default, they were given access to them after sustained good behaviour, people taking courses, helping in the kitchens etc. If they misbehaved they got taken away. Basically replicating the rules of polite society, you work and behave and get luxuries, you laze about or are disruptive and nobody will pay you so you don't. It's conditioning them to adjust to society.

20 years previously they locked them up for 23 hours a day with 4 to a cell, crime rates were higher, attacks on officers were higher, the rates of re-offending were higher, drug use was higher and then they had a massive riot, prompting the changes. However much evidence you have in that direction though it's a hard sell because it goes against what would seem the obvious logic.

[Ogul]

One thing that I think would make prisons a whole lot better would be if they did a better job of segregating prison populations based on crimes. Make it so that if you get put in for theft, you'd only ever meet other thieves in there, no murderers or rapists or anything like that. If you're in for drugs then you'd only ever meet drug offenders. I think this would make the experience much less traumatizing for most types of criminals, and reduce the odds of them becoming "hardened criminals" in the process or fully organizing as well.

[jamon g]

people including you guys get confused with the contrasting desires to rehabilitate and prevent crime and to punish the criminals. The reason prisons exist is not just to deter crime and rehabilitate (prison structure has never really been shown to do either well), but to provide a means of punishment and justice for the victims. without prisons and sentences that create a feeling of justice to the victims of crime you essentially push toward a feudal state, especially in a country with so many guns. It may sound far fetched, but the US has actually just emerged from that kind of structure where people took the law into their own hands. The police as a concept is actually a very recent one, in all countries and came about as the duel purpose of revolution against monarch and patriarch rule and desires to stop people fighting and killing each other. we can all point out the problems, but how about some real affordable and sensible solutions? you can't just say 'let's get rid of poverty because the poor are the primary prison population'. Don't turn it into a race argument, it's a socio economic problem.

[garjones]

Don't turn it into a race argument, it's a socio economic problem.

Yeah we had this lecture last time and it still didn't change the fact that in the same neighbourhoods and with the same incomes the black man was still more likely to be locked up.

While a large part is undeniably socio-economic, that's an influence on most things we see in society, people have also looked into it a little deeper and still seen other issues. There was a black actor interviewed on the radio the other day that said he gets stopped so often by the police in his nice neighbourhood with nice car he has to keep a DVD of his film in the glove compartment to show them. His problem isn't socio-economic, he's rich.

we can all point out the problems, but how about some real affordable and sensible solutions?

I just gave a few that had been tried and tested positively in Manchester and the Texas experience.

[jamon g]

yeah that's one guys anecdote, and yeah there's heaps of racism, but that's not why people are in jail. those ideas put forward are pretty much the norm here, and from what I've seen, the norm in most minimum and medium security prisons in the US, but doesn't seem to really affect recidivism. a hugely disporportionate number of aboriginal people are in our prisons in Oz, but it's not institutional racism, it's drug and alcohol related crime due to totally dysfunctional communities and family structures. In perth the police have just released figures showing the more juvenile aboriginal offenders they lock up the lower the crime rate for street violence and burglaries by a huge margin. basically it's a wake up call to say another generation is being lost, not because they're black, but because of the shyte place they've come from.

[garjones]

I think the bigger point from Johnny was the sheer number imprisoned, even when race isn't a consideration.

The US has 743 people out of every 100k in jail, Australia has 133, Japan is 58.

http://en.wikipedia....arceration_rate

[jamon g]

yeah that's the important factor for sure. that shows a real undercurrent of despair. also disturbing are the number of kids each year that die from neglect in the US.

[Ogul]

I think the bigger point from Johnny was the sheer number imprisoned, even when race isn't a consideration.

The US has 743 people out of every 100k in jail, Australia has 133, Japan is 58.

Yes, but we have more criminals.