Black Lives Matter and Systemic Racism

SpecialEdition said:
I made a guess hence starting my response with "probably."

Are you wasting your time by asking people why they're wasting their time having a discussion about it instead of acting?

I don't know why people can't do both. There's value in having these conversations. If someone brings up a point from the other side of the argument that I haven't heard or don't have information on, then I can then take the time to actually look into it for myself and learn more. If I don't have the information, how do I know what I can actually do to be helping? How do I know who to vote for? How do I get the information needed to write to my MPP about my concerns? How do I encourage others to do the same without having a discussion? If there are a lot of people who don't think there's an issue and no one takes the time to share with them information to demonstrate that there is, then they may never change their mind and step up to the cause.

Sharing information, reading the studies, engaging people with different ideas are all different forms of action. Protesting is a form of action. Voting for people who are about equality is taking action. Willing to engage in the discussion is an action. Is it the "right" action? Is it "enough" action? Is it performative and self congratulatory to talk about what action we're all taking or is it an opportunity to share with others what they can also do? I don't know.

Is this response a waste of time?
Click to expand...
Yes me questioning you was wasting my own time as well as your response. I just didn't catch it in time
 
slant said:
Yes me questioning you was wasting my own time as well as your response. I just didn't catch it in time
Click to expand...
So it goes! And here we are.
 
SpecialEdition said:
So it goes! And here we are.
Click to expand...
I gave it a lot of thought and I realized that the best response is to try to figure out why people are wanting to talk about it and make them feel understood, because that's generally the core desire behind these types of conversations.

That empathy is the best practice and even if I find the topic frustrating/annoying/pointless, I can't think about the conversation as a literal conversation about that topic. The conversation is about someone having an emotion that they need validated, that they need to feel understood. That doesn't mean I need to agree or even engage in the conversation.

I can respond,

"This sounds like it's really stressful for you. That must overwhelming to be feeling right now. "


Or
"I agree that these things are distressing. They upset me too."

Then maybe ask something to change the focus,

"What are you doing to take care of yourself? What things are going on in your personal life? Is there anything I can do to help?"

I am going to try these tactics in real life to see if they help. It's just sometimes hard to have people really upset and wanting to draw you into something that is not helpful for you to think about or focus on. Maybe trying to focus on the person behind the "problem" is the best approach.
 
slant said:
I gave it a lot of thought and I realized that the best response is to try to figure out why people are wanting to talk about it and make them feel understood, because that's generally the core desire behind these types of conversations.

That empathy is the best practice and even if I find the topic frustrating/annoying/pointless, I can't think about the conversation as a literal conversation about that topic. The conversation is about someone having an emotion that they need validated, that they need to feel understood. That doesn't mean I need to agree or even engage in the conversation.

I can respond,

"This sounds like it's really stressful for you. That must overwhelming to be feeling right now. "


Or
"I agree that these things are distressing. They upset me too."

Then maybe ask something to change the focus,

"What are you doing to take care of yourself? What things are going on in your personal life? Is there anything I can do to help?"

I am going to try these tactics in real life to see if they help. It's just sometimes hard to have people really upset and wanting to draw you into something that is not helpful for you to think about or focus on. Maybe trying to focus on the person behind the "problem" is the best approach.
Click to expand...
Isn't that a little patronising?

Why are you so convinced that people aren't expressing what they actually mean?
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
Isn't that a little patronising?

Why are you so convinced that people aren't expressing what they actually mean?
Click to expand...
It's not that they're not expressing what they actually mean, it's that I don't want to have the conversation and that upsets them, so perhaps engaging in empathy and validating their feelings would satisfy them on some level
 
slant said:
It's not that they're not expressing what they actually mean, it's that I don't want to have the conversation and that upsets them, so perhaps engaging in empathy and validating their feelings would satisfy them on some level
Click to expand...
This is really sad.

For the first time in ages, all of our sensor friends have more to talk about than smalltalk bollocks, and you can't go there :(


I once sat through a 20 minute conversation about car insurance. I don't think I've ever stared into space so hard. I would've killed for some current affairs to fill up these people's brains.
 
How about a country where the police are not an occupying force that is not bound to the law. how about a country where black mothers dont have to teach their sons how to not be killed by the police. how about a country where money is given to social problems with the desire to solve the problem rather then incarcerate people for being homeless, mentally ill. addicted, etc. how about a country where we are colorblind. . how about a country that owns up to it's disgusting past, ,how about a country where we don't spray people with tear gas who don't agree with the police. . how about if we allow everyone to vote without trying to steal elections.. .hoe about a country where blacks and whites are treated exactly the same, and let's also include, brown, yellow and every other color. . how about a country where we stop strangling people during incarceration and arrest. .there's a lot of shit this country needs to fix, and now is the time to get started, since we have been unwilling up until now
 
We influence each other. Conversing online is a way to learn new things and grow. It may seem pointless and with some people it definitely is. But still others are are able to learn things they wouldn't normally and genuinely have their eyes opened to the 'other side'. I wouldn't say that's necessarily pointless.
 
Milktoast Bandit said:
We influence each other. Conversing online is a way to learn new things and grow. It may seem pointless and with some people it definitely is. But still others are are able to learn things they wouldn't normally and genuinely have their eyes opened to the 'other side'. I wouldn't say that's necessarily pointless.
Click to expand...
Funnily enough, I actually have an 'expert opinion' about this since my field is social epistemology.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
This is really sad.

For the first time in ages, all of our sensor friends have more to talk about than smalltalk bollocks, and you can't go there :(


I once sat through a 20 minute conversation about car insurance. I don't think I've ever stared into space so hard. I would've killed for some current affairs to fill up these people's brains.
Click to expand...
I don't want to be part of this perpetual cycle of emotional upset to every little thing that happens and every time it's treated like the most momentous and awful thing in the world is happening, THE SKY IS FALLING OH NO,

I'm getting cortisol fatigue. I can't shoulder the entire country's problems 24/7 as if I can single handedly solve them and I shouldn't be expected to put myself though that consistent, never-ending emotional state of distress to prove that I'm a good human being. No. I'm done.

And I'm beginning to realize how futile it was to try to use this forum as a means of social support while my open mics are closed because everyone here is stuck in that cycle- that's why we're here. And I get a rush off of knowing that someone replied to what I said when ultimately it's all pointless.

I understand now why people hide in their blogs. Because that's the only real sense of community that exists here, everything else is part of this dopamine hit fueled cycle that never ends. And I leave this forum typically more upset than I do feeling satiated and it's my own fault. I'm addicted to the debate and the negative feedback.... Just like we all are on social media and with the news...

I obviously cannot use this in a responsible, constructive manner. It's sad.
 
Milktoast Bandit said:
Let's hear it! Or read it!
Click to expand...
I regretted that post almost as soon as I clicked reply for this very reason, lol.

It's just about the efficacy of 'discussion' in the modern climate from the perspective of social epistemology and social network theory. I'll keep it concise, though.

1. 'Discourse Synthesis'
We're in an age now where the discourse is synthesised very rapidly and efficiently - where similar ideas are rolled into each other and categorised under the same label. In the past, this used to have to be done through various instruments (each a kind of 'breakthrough' in their own right) like encyclopedias, journals, parliamentary debates, &c. The critical infancy of the formation of ideas and the growth of movements is this phase of 'discourse synthesis' which is only really achieved by discussion like this. The sorting and sifting of concepts is real work; it's 'action'. In fact we had an example earlier on this forum where a bunch of people agreed on the difference between systematic and systemic racism - that's discourse synthesis, and it no longer takes years.

2. Social Network clique formation
There's a mountain that's been published about social media and social networks already because it's super in-vogue (whereas social epistemology is more niche), of course, but what this kind of 'discussion' does is promote the formation of 'cliques' within social networks (think of processes of polarisation). This is usually seen as a 'bad' thing, but it's very necessary for the articulation of ideas on the macro-scale in democracies and in allowing novel ideas to move rapidly through the network through densely connected 'hubs'. Clique formation is like discourse synthesis but for people - people arrange themselves into new structures of information movement very rapidly, and are not isolated from the rest of the structure.

These two mechanisms work in tandem to generate directed momentum almost organically - even without 'leadership', the foundational concepts and the preferred solutions emerge naturally from the system, but it only works if people engage with it.

Disengagement only serves to relinquish 'epistemic authority' to the traditional elites and outlets. The overnight generation and synthesis of ideas on macroscopic scales through processes like this is not something to be scoffed at, and having it labelled as 'pointless ego-stroking' or whatever is absurd in the extreme. I suppose it's just difficult to come to terms with the fact that individuals themselves feel like they have very little overall power, but influence cascades throughout the broader network simply by impacting one's local network. It's almost never wasted.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Milktoast Bandit said:
Indeed. Admittedly it does feel like it a lot of times.
Click to expand...
It's not difficult to roll back a causal chain, though, and imagine our place within the broader network.

Just think of your own immediate social network - there are probably people within it who have power over the lives of others. Maybe they're managers or business owners - whatever. Even if you can't think of anyone, there's probably someone like that within two degrees of separation. The average coterie around an individual is 200 people. The next degree of separation makes that 40,000; another makes it 8,000,000.

This shit is very counter-intuitive, for sure, though.


EDIT: apparently the average American knows 600 people according to Google.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
slant said:
I don't want to be part of this perpetual cycle of emotional upset to every little thing that happens and every time it's treated like the most momentous and awful thing in the world is happening, THE SKY IS FALLING OH NO,

I'm getting cortisol fatigue. I can't shoulder the entire country's problems 24/7 as if I can single handedly solve them and I shouldn't be expected to put myself though that consistent, never-ending emotional state of distress to prove that I'm a good human being. No. I'm done.

And I'm beginning to realize how futile it was to try to use this forum as a means of social support while my open mics are closed because everyone here is stuck in that cycle- that's why we're here. And I get a rush off of knowing that someone replied to what I said when ultimately it's all pointless.

I understand now why people hide in their blogs. Because that's the only real sense of community that exists here, everything else is part of this dopamine hit fueled cycle that never ends. And I leave this forum typically more upset than I do feeling satiated and it's my own fault. I'm addicted to the debate and the negative feedback.... Just like we all are on social media and with the news...

I obviously cannot use this in a responsible, constructive manner. It's sad.
Click to expand...

Ok I am going to ignore your original response to me and focus on this because this is something that I actually deeply understand. I was diagnosed with Adrenal Fatigue and my cortisol was so low that my doctor didn't even know how I was getting out of bed in the morning let alone functioning at all. This was from a lifetime of panic disorder and chronic stress. The ultra low cortisol made dealing with things absolutely exhausting. I'm not saying how this is how it manifests for you, but for ME I didn't want to hear about anything that was going to make it worse. I didn't want to hear about every new news story, every new tragedy, every dumbfuck thing Trump said on Twitter. I didn't want to watch anything that would cause a stress response. I didn't want to talk to people who were challenging because I was so fucking EXHAUSTED that I felt like I had to fully shelter myself for a few years from engaging in any of it. Again, not saying this is how you feel, but I do fully understand how it physically and mentally feels to have your cortisol fucked up. It's been 4 years since that diagnosis and it's juuuuuuuuust barely back to the normal range.

With current events, if this is what you're feeling, I don't blame you for not wanting to engage and I also understand the expectation that some people have about behaving or engaging a certain way to prove that you care and are a good person. It IS exhausting.

This kind of thing is exactly why I personally used to hide in my blog because any time I came out in the forum I just ended up in a bunch of conflict and it was extremely annoying to me.

So anyway, all this to say, I think I understand you. But I don't think people will stop talking about this kind of thing. I don't think it's all performative either but we all are responsible for stepping away to take care of ourselves too. If not engaging in these kinds of discussions is what is best for you and your health, then don't do it. I think it's pretty simple unless you have people in your actual life pelting you over it.
 
Deleted member 16771 said:
I regretted that post almost as soon as I clicked reply for this very reason, lol.

It's just about the efficacy of 'discussion' in the modern climate from the perspective of social epistemology and social network theory. I'll keep it concise, though.

1. 'Discourse Synthesis'
We're in an age now where the discourse is synthesised very rapidly and efficiently - where similar ideas are rolled into each other and categorised under the same label. In the past, this used to have to be done through various instruments (each a kind of 'breakthrough' in their own right) like encyclopedias, journals, parliamentary debates, &c. The critical infancy of the formation of ideas and the growth of movements is this phase of 'discourse synthesis' which is only really achieved by discussion like this. The sorting and sifting of concepts is real work; it's 'action'. In fact we had an example earlier on this forum where a bunch of people agreed on the difference between systematic and systemic racism - that's discourse synthesis, and it no longer takes years.

2. Social Network clique formation
There's a mountain that's been published about social media and social networks already because it's super in-vogue (whereas social epistemology is more niche), of course, but what this kind of 'discussion' does is promote the formation of 'cliques' within social networks (think of processes of polarisation). This is usually seen as a 'bad' thing, but it's very necessary for the articulation of ideas on the macro-scale in democracies and in allowing novel ideas to move rapidly through the network through densely connected 'hubs'. Clique formation is like discourse synthesis but for people - people arrange themselves into new structures of information movement very rapidly, and are not isolated from the rest of the structure.

These two mechanisms work in tandem to generate directed momentum almost organically - even without 'leadership', the foundational concepts and the preferred solutions emerge naturally from the system, but it only works if people engage with it.

Disengagement only serves to relinquish 'epistemic authority' to the traditional elites and outlets. The overnight generation and synthesis of ideas on macroscopic scales through processes like this is not something to be scoffed at, and having it labelled as 'pointless ego-stroking' or whatever is absurd in the extreme. I suppose it's just difficult to come to terms with the fact that individuals themselves feel like they have very little overall power, but influence cascades throughout the broader network simply by impacting one's local network. It's almost never wasted.
Click to expand...
I like it.
 
SpecialEdition said:
Let's assume your interpretation of the stats is correct and Larry Elder is correct and we can table the discussion of police brutality against Black people. Then we have to look at things such as racial bias that leads some prosecutors, for example, to file charges against African-Americans for low-level drug offenses more frequently than against whites, even though studies show that white people use illicit drugs at higher rates (this doesn't even get into racial profiling and the War on Drugs which there's a lot of debate about). Why are there studies indicating that White people are more likely to have charges dropped against them than Black people? There's also concerns that Black people get longer sentences than White people. I believe there are a few studies out on this specifically including this one: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3036726

San Francisco is experimenting with Blind Charging for this reason to see if it makes a meaningful difference in this area. We will see what comes of that.

Black people are also more often wrongly convicted for crimes as well.

But if you want to put all that aside, we can think about what sociologist William Wilbanks says about this. His argument is that yes, there, are inequalities between White and Black people in arrest rates, incarceration and other areas of criminal justice but it's not necessarily racial, it's due to poverty. Assuming that's true then why is the rate of poverty so much higher among the Black population? There is a LOT to unpack there as well.
Click to expand...

This is a good example, specifically that black first time offenders receive harsher punishments than whites for the same crime. There could be other factors of course: whites being able to afford better lawyers, or differences in location (judges in districts with higher crime rates might give harsher punishments in general). More research should be done on why this is happening. But overall, yes that can be a valid problem that needs fixing. And frankly, hiring a better lawyer with your rich dad's money should not give you a free pass.

Larry also gives an explanation for this but it's not very convincing tbh.

Blind charging experiment sounds very interesting and I would like to read the results when they become available. This also has the potential to fix the difference in sex profiling: men usually receive longer sentences than women for the same crime.

As for the connection between crime and poverty, I do not think that it's straightforward. Sure, there is some correlation that richer countries tend to have lower crime rates, but maybe it's the other way around - they got rich because of low crime and corruption? Also Brasil has poverty rate of 20%, while India has 80%, yet somehow the former is ahead in crime. In the US you have other communities that are poor: illegal immigrants from Mexico and southeast Asia for example, but somehow they do not standout in crime reports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top