Ferguson After Action: Do white conservatives need to talk less and listen more?

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

What big ears you have Mr. Elephant. . .  

 

Here are my staggeringly obvious truths.  If you disagree or ignore them, does that mean you are ignoring the elephant in the room?  Be careful that he doesn't step on your toes.  

 

Shocking Mistakes in Wilson’s Grand Jury

http://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/shocking-mistake-in-darren-wilson-grand-jury-364273731666

 

It Doesn’t Add Up

http://politic365.com/2014/11/29/it-doesnt-add-up-nancy-grace-slams-darren-wilsons-testimony/

 

Legal Experts Explain Why the Grand Jury Was Set Up for Failure

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/11/24/3596621/in-powerful-video-legal-experts-explain-why-the-grand-jury-in-ferguson-was-set-up-for-failure/

 

Ferguson Decision Reflects Jurors Tendencies to Give Police the Benefit of the Doubt

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/ferguson-decision-reflects-juries-tendency-to-give-police-benefit-of-doubt-experts-say/2014/11/24/268c7b62-7311-11e4-a589-1b102c2f81d0_story.html

 

Legal Expert Decries Handling of Wilson Grand Jury

http://www.democracynow.org/2014/11/25/it_is_officially_open_season_on

Edited December 3, 2014 by LiterateParakeet

[Vort]

I tried to be conciliatory, and you call that blindness.

 

Untrue. I never accused you of blindness. Quite the opposite, in fact: I think you see all too well. My frustration is that you will not concede the most obvious of truths and work from there, instead ignoring everything that does not fit your narrative. With such, it is impossible to have honest and intelligent conversation. You are not interested in discussion or analysis, merely in converting people to your viewpoint. Or so it appears.

 

What you fail to understand is that I understand your point of view, I either once shared it, or I've considered it when it came up.  I am a pro at "self-doubt", I question myself and my opinions constantly.

 

Yet you refuse to concede even the most obvious of points. Why? Doing so does not strengthen your argument or your credibility. It just makes for very frustrating conversation.

 

What you call "staggeringly obvious truths" I call opinion

 

And herein lies the problem. These are not opinions. They are statistical evidence that point up what everyone already knows. For example:

 

Staggeringly Obvious Truth: Black people -- that is, self-identified African Americans -- constitute a minority of 10 to 15 percent of the population, yet account for about half of the violent crimes in our country.

 

Several people have made this point, some even using it as an explanation for why cops (especially white cops) might be more likely to treat black youth, especially young men, harshly. There is a whole world of reasoning that could be used to argue the wrongness of such discriminatory and apparently racist behavior regardless of the statistical evidence, but the bare fact must be conceded. Yet you do not concede it. You just go blithely on, arguing how awful it all is, without even acknowledging the statistical evidence.

 

One of many ironies here is that many of us would be inclined to agree with your position, at least in part. But when you refuse to acknowledge the correctness of such obvious truths, you invite readers to dismiss your views out of hand.

 

and the truths I share you guys call opinion

 

Which Staggeringly Obvious Truths®, on the order of saying "Statistics demonstrate that 50% of murders are committed by people in a racial category that comprises 13% of the population", have you presented that have been dismissed as mere opinion? I have noticed exactly zero, but I freely admit I may have missed one.

 

For example, JAG said that Tamir did get first aid about 3.5 minutes after he was shot.  I didn't want to argue about that...but least you think I am ignoring the elephant....I say 3.5 minutes is way too long.

 

Sorry, LP, but I'm struggling to understand. This is relevant -- how?

 

(Off the immediate topic, but looking at the example you use, I would also argue that it's naive -- to be kind -- of you to think that a cop is going to shoot someone in what s/he thinks is self-defense, call for backup, make sure the perceived threat is unarmed and no longer capable of harming the officer or others, secure the area, and then get to treating the wounded party in much less than 200 seconds. For you to insist otherwise suggests a complete lack of familiarity with what it means to police a situation and with how cops are trained to act in hostile situations. Regardless of the guilt or innocence of Tamir -- which has nothing to do with whether the cops' response rate was reasonable -- are you willing to examine the evidence of how police should act in a situation, reconsider your statement, and if you decide you're wrong, openly admit that your "way too long" comment was poorly considered?)

 

And there is also the time factor....when you are in the minority opinion, it can take a long time to respond to all the opposing opinions.

 

True enough. I have been in the minority opinion often enough, so I know very well the difficulty in keeping up. But it takes perhaps ten seconds to write, "Yes, you are right about that. That's a valid point that must be considered."

 

You already responded to many people who brought up Staggeringly Obvious Truths® -- not mere opinion, as you dismiss it, but real statistical evidence -- yet you glossed right over their relevant points. At what point did you plan to go back and acknowledge all of the true and relevant points they made? Were we to expect you would do that in hours or days to come?

 

My goal here was not to change anyone's mind, but to get people to listen as the OP suggested.

 

So your point, then, was not to discuss the situation at all. Your point was not to inform yourself or reexamine your biases. Your point was purely to preach to others and get them to understand important truths that, in your view, they were ignoring. Give-and-take discussion had no part in what you were trying to do.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

 

I feel like that happened, and I'm grateful for that.

 

What about some other LP-like person, one who simply wants acknowledgement that the statistical evidence surrounding racial makeup in criminal activity is pertinent and important? Would she have come out feeling like her point was acknowledged by those like yourself?

 

As I said, I have listened to the opposing views, I don't take a stand that disagrees with most of the people I know lightly.

 

Taking a stand that disagrees with people is completely NOT the issue. Refusing to acknowledge staggeringly obvious truths pointed out by others and dismissing them as mere "opinion" (as in, "It's only your opinion that there is more daylight at noon than at midnight") is the issue.

[Guest]

I think if you reverse that it would come closer to the truth.  I've used many different approaches to try and explain my point of view.  That is not the same as repeating oneself.  If you mean that I am not changing my mind in the light of "staggeringly obvious truths" as Vort puts it, I feel the same about you.  

 

You missed the point of the juxtaposition.  The point is - you're talking about the situation, I'm talking about the cause for the situation... we already agree that there is a situation.  But as much as you point out 500 things that support the situation (a lot of which is not even anything to do with racism but more to do with stupid people who just happen to be the right combination of a specific color - but I'm not going to point that out because we both accept there is a situation), none of it points to how the situation came to be... so we're not really discussing anything...

Edited December 3, 2014 by anatess

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Vort you said:

 

So your point, then, was not to discuss the situation at all. Your point was not to inform yourself or reexamine your biases. Your point was purely to preach to others and get them to understand important truths that, in your view, they were ignoring. Give-and-take discussion had no part in what you were trying to do.

 

Do I understand you correctly?

 

 

 

You truly think I am not participating in give and take discussion?  We must have a different definition of what that is then.

 

 

Anatess, you are right that I forgot to take the %'s into consideration.  

 

 

Admitting I was wrong.  Is that not give and take?

 

 

I could accept that--it is a reasonable argument--if there were not so many stories of young, unarmed black men being killed by police.  Here are the ones I know about so far...

 

I conceded that he made a reasonable argument....

 

I agree that police should not endanger their own lives.  

 

Acknowleged agreement here...

 

Vort, this is our common ground.  (There may be more, but I'll have to mull it over when I'm not seriously sleep deprived.)

 

And here.

 

What kind of give and take are you looking for?  It seems like the only thing you will accept is me saying, "You guys are right and I was wrong."  If I believed that I would say it.  

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Vort:

Untrue. I never accused you of blindness.

 

 

When you said this (quote below) that is what I consider calling me blind.

 

You seem utterly to refuse to recognize the elephant in the room pooping all over the couch (and coffee table, and recliner, and ottoman, and half the carpeting).

 

 

And this:

You are not interested in discussion or analysis, merely in converting people to your viewpoint. Or so it appears.

 

Could be said of every one in this discussion, including you.

 

Vort said:

Yet you refuse to concede even the most obvious of points. Why? Doing so does not strengthen your argument or your credibility. It just makes for very frustrating conversation.

 

 

Again this could be said of everyone in this conversation.  Some more than others...

 

And herein lies the problem. These are not opinions. They are statistical evidence that point up what everyone already knows. For example:

 

Staggeringly Obvious Truth: Black people -- that is, self-identified African Americans -- constitute a minority of 10 to 15 percent of the population, yet account for about half of the violent crimes in our country.

Several people have made this point, some even using it as an explanation for why cops (especially white cops) might be more likely to treat black youth, especially young men, harshly. There is a whole world of reasoning that could be used to argue the wrongness of such discriminatory and apparently racist behavior regardless of the statistical evidence, but the bare fact must be conceded. Yet you do not concede it. You just go blithely on, arguing how awful it all is, without even acknowledging the statistical evidence.

 

 

I did address that.  Are you not reading my posts?  I told Anatess she was right.  I forgot to take into account the percentages of population.  That still does not justify the fact that blacks are 21 times more likely to be shot by police.   This is statistical evidence too.

 

Again just because I'm not swayed by your point doesn't make me unreasonable.  If that were the case then everyone who does not automatically change their stance on this because black men are 21 times more likely to be shot is unreasonable too.

 

Sorry, LP, but I'm struggling to understand. This is relevant -- how?

 

It is relevant because it is part of "the elephant" you accused me of ignoring.

 

And yes, I do expect police to rend first aid promptly to a CHILD who the 911 caller said probably had a toy gun.  I don't think first aid is an unreasonable request.

 

True enough. I have been in the minority opinion often enough, so I know very well the difficulty in keeping up. But it takes perhaps ten seconds to write, "Yes, you are right about that. That's a valid point that must be considered."

 

 

I DID say that as I pointed out in my other post.  I can't say it about things I don't agree are valid points though.  

 

You already responded to many people who brought up Staggeringly Obvious Truths-- not mere opinion, as you dismiss it, but real statistical evidence -- yet you glossed right over their relevant points. At what point did you plan to go back and acknowledge all of the true and relevant points they made? Were we to expect you would do that in hours or days to come?

 

 

Maybe when they acknowledge all the true and relevant points I have made?  

 

I agree with as much as I was able.  Frankly nothing that has been said here is new to me.  I've heard all the same arguments on FB.

 

 

Taking a stand that disagrees with people is completely NOT the issue. Refusing to acknowledge staggeringly obvious truths pointed out by others and dismissing them as mere "opinion" 

 

 

Okay, here I see that I wasn't clear.  I was referring to the larger picture.  I thought you were as well.  For example the whole Grand Jury decision.  Some think the Grand Jury made the right choice, some don't...that is opinion on both sides.  I thought you were referring to those kinds of "truths".  Sorry I wasn't more clear.

 

 

Edited December 3, 2014 by LiterateParakeet

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

You missed the point of the juxtaposition.  The point is - you're talking about the situation, I'm talking about the cause for the situation... we already agree that there is a situation.  But as much as you point out 500 things that support the situation (a lot of which is not even anything to do with racism but more to do with stupid people who just happen to be the right combination of a specific color - but I'm not going to point that out because we both accept there is a situation), none of it points to how the situation came to be... so we're not really discussing anything...

 

Anatess, it's clear we are not understanding one another at all.    I'm talking about the cause for the situation too.

 

People keep saying, "Why all the riots.  Just accept the Grand Jury Decision."  (or some version of that) My point has been to try and explain the reason behind all the anger, the cause of the situation.

[Vort]

Vort you said:

 

 

 

You truly think I am not participating in give and take discussion?  We must have a different definition of what that is then.

 

 

 

Admitting I was wrong.  Is that not give and take?

 

 

I conceded that he made a reasonable argument....

 

 

Acknowleged agreement here...

 

 

And here.

 

What kind of give and take are you looking for?  It seems like the only thing you will accept is me saying, "You guys are right and I was wrong."  If I believed that I would say it.  

 

Well, I could go back and make a list of your responses or non-responses as I perceived them. If you want me to, I will do that. But I may be guilty here of some hasty generalizations. Your responses in this post are reasonable and well-considered, and serve to refute my basic premise.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Well, I could go back and make a list of your responses or non-responses as I perceived them. If you want me to, I will do that. But I may be guilty here of some hasty generalizations. Your responses in this post are reasonable and well-considered, and serve to refute my basic premise.

 

Thanks.  

[prisonchaplain]

Ouch!  Things were going so well.  I figured we were about done on this thread--that everyone had communicated, and we all seemed to understand each other...can't we celebrate that?

[Vort]

My apologies for introducing contention. This is exactly why I left off participating earlier this year. Maybe I need another vacation.

[PolarVortex]

My apologies for introducing contention. This is exactly why I left off participating earlier this year. Maybe I need another vacation.

 

Don't go.  I've enjoyed everyone's comments in this topic, respected all the opinions I've read, and learned a lot about Ferguson.  You wouldn't cheat me out of this in future topics, would you?  So what if a few of us lock horns now and then?  If things get out of control, someone can call in these mysterious Warning Points to calm everyone down.

 

I worked as an enumerator in the 2010 Census and was astonished by the multiracial character of our nation's children.  Some day, perhaps even in this century, the vast majority of Americans will be multiracial, and there will be fewer Fergusons because nobody will identify as totally of one race.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

PC and Vort,

 

I agree with both of you.  Wait! That didn't come out right.  I mean I understand what you are saying PC, and I agree.  Vort we had a misunderstanding, but we worked it out.  No reason for you to stop debating.  I have no hard feelings, and I trust that you don't either (correct me if I'm mistaken.)

 

So we can still celebrate.  Let the party begin.  

 

 

  Some day, perhaps even in this century, the vast majority of Americans will be multiracial, and there will be fewer Fergusons because nobody will identify as totally of one race.

 

 

I love that thought.  Let's pray it comes soon!

[jerome1232]

I worked as an enumerator in the 2010 Census and was astonished by the multiracial character of our nation's children.  Some day, perhaps even in this century, the vast majority of Americans will be multiracial, and there will be fewer Fergusons because nobody will identify as totally of one race.

That's perhaps ironic. We can't stop being racist so let's hope we get so blended that our nationality identifies itself as one American race.

I guess that's where a true melting pot takes us but my ideal would be that we can manage to move forward even in our diverse state, rather than hoping for a state of sameness so the differences are less stark. I guess my melting pot gets marshmallow in one bite, chocolate in another, and blends of both in others. I like that rather than a homogeneous blend of the two.

I don't mean to be contentions, just speaking my musings on that thought is all.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

Jerome, I think I understand what you mean.  I love diversity.  I live near Seattle and one of the things I love about it is the diversity.  We have many different cultures and races here.  

 

So I agree (if I understand you correctly) that it would be a shame if we were all the same.  What I was thinking before (but didn't say) was this--wouldn't it be awesome if we realized that we are all the same race, just different colors and stopped judging each other.  What I mean about us all being the same race is that we are all defended from Adam and Eve...there's more here: http://www.pbs.org/race/000_General/000_00-Home.htm

[Guest MormonGator]

I think everyone here makes some great points about race and America today. 

[PolarVortex]

That's perhaps ironic. We can't stop being racist so let's hope we get so blended that our nationality identifies itself as one American race.

 

I see your point, but I'd phrase it differently.  Many of us can stop being racists.  Maybe most of us.  A few, tragically, cannot.  But their days are numbered by the melting pot.

 

The fact that some people require the melting pot to stop being racist doesn't mean that everyone requires the melting pot to stop being racist.  In fact, the explosive growth in the number of multiracial children itself is evidence that a whole lot of single-race parents are not racist.  Bravo to them.

[Backroads]

I personally don't believe in color blindness at least not as an ideal. Diversity in race and cultures should be appreciated when it benefits society and at least tolerated when it doesn't harm.

But I hate this white privilege stuff. Why should I be less so another person feels better?

This is what irks me about Ferguson, that the rioters are innocent victims while I should be scolded just for being white.

[Windseeker]

My apologies for introducing contention. This is exactly why I left off participating earlier this year. Maybe I need another vacation.

 

Vort if I'm not passionate about what I'm reading and responding too...then I don't say anything, and often when I do post things my passion comes thru. I don't think anything is wrong with that. Let the moderators decide if things get out of hand. 

 

Bottom line - You didn't introduce contention...PC is just unintentionally killing his thread with his comment to himself..ignore him he's not laying blame. I had a comment already and saw his post and figured he wanted it to die so I bailed.

...nice going PC 

 

I'm always captivated by what you have to say..so when you came back I didn't want to jinx it by even welcoming you...lol

and now your leaving again...just stahp!

 

Pretty sure civil debate is allowed and despite the subject matter and heat surrounding this issue things have been super civil.

[Guest LiterateParakeet]

I personally don't believe in color blindness at least not as an ideal. Diversity in race and cultures should be appreciated when it benefits society and at least tolerated when it doesn't harm.

But I hate this white privilege stuff. Why should I be less so another person feels better?

This is what irks me about Ferguson, that the rioters are innocent victims while I should be scolded just for being white.

 

I agree with you that diversity should be appreciated or tolerated when it doesn't harm.

 

I think you are misunderstanding about White Privilege though.  If I saw it the way you do, I'm sure I would feel the same way, but I think there is misunderstanding here.  PC mentioned something similar earlier in the thread and I didn't respond because I wasn't sure how.  I have some ideas about that now.  I think I will start a new thread (if I dare....knees knocking!  :) )

[Just_A_Guy]

On a slight tangent, re the Eric Garner case (in which a grand jury in New York today refused to indict the cop who put a man into a choke-hold that, apparently, killed him) evoked the following interesting response from Instapundit:

 

 

 

A few observations:

(1) His initial crime: Selling “looseys” — individual cigarettes — in violation of NYC tax law. When you pass a law, however trivial, you are providing an opportunity for police to use lethal force. That’s why I favor fewer laws, not more.

. . . .

(3) Listening to NPR on the way back from the UT Studio — I taped a segment on this for The Independents on Fox Business tonight — they kept stressing that it was a WHITE officer who had killed a BLACK MAN. You could pretty much hear the capitals in their voices. They’d never stress race that way in other circumstances. And it’s not clear that excessive force by police is especially a racial problem. In Alabama, we had the shooting of a unarmed white 18-year old by a black cop; in Utah, we had the Dillan Taylor shooting, also unarmed, also not prosecuted. Racializing the issue makes it more divisive and less likely to be addressed.  [Emphasis added to bolded text.]

Edited December 4, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[Guest]

Anatess, it's clear we are not understanding one another at all.    I'm talking about the cause for the situation too.

 

People keep saying, "Why all the riots.  Just accept the Grand Jury Decision."  (or some version of that) My point has been to try and explain the reason behind all the anger, the cause of the situation.

 

Yes, we're not understanding one another at all... Because, Ferguson is not the situation.  Ferguson is a closed and shut case - America is a Rule of Law.  Ferguson is simply a media blitz and a political pawn and an opportunity for bad people to do bad things with impunity (it's not much different than a frat party).

 

The situation is what you are pointing to as the cause of the situation... racism.  Whereas, I'm talking about the cause of the cause of the situation... why that racist perception persists against black people.

[Blackmarch]

We had a demonstration in downtown Seattle over the holiday weekend.  Children were confused and scared (it was at a high-end mall), and a youth choir performance was canceled.  The mall ended up closing 4-hours early, on Black Friday. 

 

No, money is not the most important thing.  Not at all.  However, I always thought freedom of expression ended at my property marker.  Tsk tsk on my Old Testament thinking. 

throw me in with that thinking.

[prisonchaplain]

Uh...you're welcome. 

 

PC is just unintentionally killing his thread with his comment to himself..ignore him he's not laying blame. I had a comment already and saw his post and figured he wanted it to die so I bailed.

...nice going PC 

 

[Guest]

Some day, perhaps even in this century, the vast majority of Americans will be multiracial, and there will be fewer Fergusons because nobody will identify as totally of one race.

 

 

That's perhaps ironic. We can't stop being racist so let's hope we get so blended that our nationality identifies itself as one American race.

I guess that's where a true melting pot takes us

 

 

What I was thinking before (but didn't say) was this--wouldn't it be awesome if we realized that we are all the same race, just different colors and stopped judging each other.  What I mean about us all being the same race is that we are all defended from Adam and Eve...

 

 

Not happening anytime soon... Maybe not even until Christ comes...

 

I'd like to point out that even in the Philippines - where most are all brown skinned, short, pug nosed people... there is still discrimination!  Sure, we love the Joes (whites) and fear the Negros (blacks) but that's beside the point.  Even if you take all the Joes and Negros out of the country, there is still discrimination against the Prom-dis ("prom de probins - or From The Province" who are the chocolate browns) by the Mestiso (milk browns).  There's discrimination against the short by the talls.  There's discrimination against the flat nosed by the long nosed... there's discrimination by Promdis against Mestisos too - the Spanish word for Milk is profanity in my language - referring to the light skin tone as an indication of depraved morality.

 

So that, even if genetic engineering advances so far as to make cookie cutter clones of each other, I am 100% certain we'll find a way to discriminate one against the other - he was molded from China, we are molded in Taiwan...

Edited December 4, 2014 by anatess

[PolarVortex]

So that, even if genetic engineering advances so far as to make cookie cutter clones of each other, I am 100% certain we'll find a way to discriminate one against the other - he was molded from China, we are molded in Taiwan...

 

I'm afraid you are right.  I come from a family with deaf members, and it's my understanding (I am not deaf) that there is a mild form of discrimination even among deaf people.  Adults who were born hearing but then lost their hearing later in life are on the lowest rung.  The next rung contains people who were born deaf in families with mostly hearing siblings and parents.  The top rung is the so-called "double-D" deaf (referring to the sign language gesture), or people born deaf to parents who themselves were born deaf. 

 

At least this is what my sign language teachers have told me, maybe someone can comment further or correct me.

 

I doubt whether this leads to job discrimination or hate crimes, but if it's true then it's just one more chunk of evidence that humans have this goofy instinct to divide the world into us vs. them, even if the divisions are downright ludicrous. 

 

My extended family is an icy mixture of Catholics, Protestants, Mormons, and Jews.  They have organized themselves into little clans based on religion and openly discriminate against each other.  As a result, I have come to really dislike people who discriminate... one could say, I suppose, that I discriminate against people who discriminate.