Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM

[Stevicus]

So things were better with the KKK running rampant, Hitler rising to
power & starting WW2, segregation, financial collapse, prohibition
causing the organized crime problem, no gay rights, etc?

I think you're confusing the 1920s with the 1930s. Membership in the KKK peaked in the 1920s, yet started to decline in the decades following. Prohibition was ended in the 1930s, but was in force all during the 1920s. The financial collapse also happened in the 1920s, caused by capitalists, while FDR had to slowly repair the damage - and was quite successful at that.

FDR changed many public policies, and a lot of attitudes did change during that period. People developed more of a global social consciousness which planted the seeds for further changes later on, in the 1950s and 60s. @PureX can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what he may have been getting at.

So things were better with Jim Crow laws, McCarthyism, rapidly
increasing risk of nuclear war with USSR, the Korean War, people
being sickened by lead exposure, building poorly designed nuclear
reactors, no seatbelts in cars, forced Christian prayer in public
schools, no gay rights, etc?

Things were improving and attitudes were rapidly changing during the 1950s. And remember, it was the capitalists who embraced the anti-communism which led to McCarthyism, the Korean War, and the increasing risk of nuclear war with the USSR. No one else would have any reason to be that fanatical against communism, unless they were capitalists who had something to lose.

As for the Jim Crow laws, the 1950s saw the Civil Rights movement start to gain enough momentum to directly challenge those laws and other institutions of racial injustice. The KKK had a brief resurgence during this period, although many of them tried to justify themselves by claiming that they were "fighting communism."

As for people being sickened by lead exposure, poorly designed nuclear reactors, and no seatbelts in cars - I suppose one could blame capitalists for this as well, although they didn't know as much back then as we do now. Humans learn through trial and error.

It's fairly clear that you & have very different values.
To me, the "good old days" weren't that good.
I say that greatly improved civil liberties, scientific &
technological advancements, are progress.
If this is "sinking deeper and deeper in the mire", then
gimmee more of that mire.

I'll grant one looming problem....over-population.

The problem is not so much a hearkening of the "good old days" but even back then, there were people who were living through difficult times, but had a shared goal of getting through them and making the country a better place. While it may have been worse, once the public was awakened to the problem and saw the task ahead of them, they came together and made the collective effort to make it happen.

In terms of real economic growth and noticeable improvements, the 40s, 50s, and 60s showed much greater expansion and real wage increases than we've since that time. It might have been even better overall, if not for those in the ruling class who appeared to have a deep obsession with communism and the Cold War. If we had taken a live-and-let-live approach with the USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc., we could have saved ourselves a great deal of national angst and heartache.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think you're confusing the 1920s with the 1930s. Membership in the KKK peaked in the 1920s, yet started to decline in the decades following. Prohibition was ended in the 1930s, but was in force all during the 1920s. The financial collapse also happened in the 1920s, caused by capitalists, while FDR had to slowly repair the damage - and was quite successful at that.

FDR changed many public policies, and a lot of attitudes did change during that period. People developed more of a global social consciousness which planted the seeds for further changes later on, in the 1950s and 60s. @PureX can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that's what he may have been getting at.



Things were improving and attitudes were rapidly changing during the 1950s. And remember, it was the capitalists who embraced the anti-communism which led to McCarthyism, the Korean War, and the increasing risk of nuclear war with the USSR. No one else would have any reason to be that fanatical against communism, unless they were capitalists who had something to lose.

As for the Jim Crow laws, the 1950s saw the Civil Rights movement start to gain enough momentum to directly challenge those laws and other institutions of racial injustice. The KKK had a brief resurgence during this period, although many of them tried to justify themselves by claiming that they were "fighting communism."

As for people being sickened by lead exposure, poorly designed nuclear reactors, and no seatbelts in cars - I suppose one could blame capitalists for this as well, although they didn't know as much back then as we do now. Humans learn through trial and error.



The problem is not so much a hearkening of the "good old days" but even back then, there were people who were living through difficult times, but had a shared goal of getting through them and making the country a better place. While it may have been worse, once the public was awakened to the problem and saw the task ahead of them, they came together and made the collective effort to make it happen.

In terms of real economic growth and noticeable improvements, the 40s, 50s, and 60s showed much greater expansion and real wage increases than we've since that time. It might have been even better overall, if not for those in the ruling class who appeared to have a deep obsession with communism and the Cold War. If we had taken a live-and-let-live approach with the USSR, PRC, Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, etc., we could have saved ourselves a great deal of national angst and heartache.

Still, to focus upon some positives in each era, while ignoring
the problems, is to long for "good old days" that weren't any
better than today overall. I say they were even worse.
Would you rather have lived then than now?
And then consider your answer if you were black or gay.
And if you needed surgery.

 

[icehorse]

Okay. I won't read the book and you make whatever point you think is in the book or whatever you want. Your move.

Go reread the thread - you're the person who brought up "bias" in the first place. Kahneman won a Nobel Prize, he's got just a tad of credibility.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Go reread the thread - you're the person who brought up "bias" in the first place. Kahneman won a Nobel Prize, he's got just a tad of credibility.

Yes, you answered that we all have biases and I asked you about which biases you have?

So we are back there.

 

[Stevicus]

Still, to focus upon some positives in each era, while ignoring
the problems, is to long for "good old days" that weren't any
better than today overall. I say they were even worse.
Would you rather have lived then than now?
And then consider your answer if you were black or gay.
And if you needed surgery.

But it's not really about the "good old days" as much as looking at comparative approaches to solving problems. I agree that in many ways, those days were worse than today. But the difference is that they were able to recognize the problem and pull together to solve it. We're not doing that today. I'm not sure that very many people are capable of recognizing the problem, let alone come up with any solutions for solving it.

The right-wing offers vague, nebulous ideas of "make America great again," while the left-wing basically says that "it's all over America, better get used to whatever enormous crap comes our way in the future." If China or Russia doesn't get us, then global warming will. Or maybe Cuba, North Korea, or Iran may get us. You never know who's out there plotting to destroy America, so we have to be ever vigilant.

There seems to be an overall sense of hopelessness and helplessness pervading the culture, coupled with strong trends towards narcissism and selfishness. Such attitudes are not conducive towards people pulling together and working for change.

So it's not really a question of the present or past, but the future. In the past, even when things were "worse," they still had hope and saw a path to a better future. Now, even though things are "better," they can only get worse from here; we can only go down, because no one is offering a better future.

 

[Revoltingest]

The right-wing offers vague, nebulous ideas of "make America great again," while the left-wing basically says that "it's all over America, better get used to whatever enormous crap comes our way in the future." If China or Russia doesn't get us, then global warming will. Or maybe Cuba, North Korea, or Iran may get us. You never know who's out there plotting to destroy America, so we have to be ever vigilant.

There seems to be an overall sense of hopelessness and helplessness pervading the culture, coupled with strong trends towards narcissism and selfishness. Such attitudes are not conducive towards people pulling together and working for change.

So it's not really a question of the present or past, but the future. In the past, even when things were "worse," they still had hope and saw a path to a better future. Now, even though things are "better," they can only get worse from here; we can only go down, because no one is offering a better future.

I'm more optimistic than a great many on both the right & the left,
both of whom see terrible things, imagine the worst, & remember
better times. I've heard the sky-is-falling complaints & prognostications
so many times. And yet, I see so much overall improvement.

 

[icehorse]

That's not what I asked you. What I asked was very specific:

So do you or do you not understand that stating "the majority of people the police kill are white" is a misuse of statistics that creates an inaccurate impression of the actual problems of police violence against (and targeting of) black people?

Yes or no?

I think I have a handle on the overall picture that clearly shows that what you said was both misleading and useless.

Do you understand that when you say "targeting of", you're making a statistical claim as well? Do you have the stats to back up that claim?

Ok, I went back thru many pages of this thread, and I did use some data in post #123. However I didn't find any time when I said "the majority of people the police kill are white". I might be wrong, but I didn't find it. If you can find me saying that, I'll stand corrected.

My best guess is that you didn't read post #123 carefully. Based on the data I used in post #123, YOU seemed to infer that I was making the bolded claim above. But that's YOUR inference, not my intention.

 

[icehorse]

Yes, you answered that we all have biases and I asked you about which biases you have?

So we are back there.

red herring. I await your return to the topic.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I'm not an expert, never claimed to be one. But I know a few stats, and they lead me to believe that this is a hysterical response, not a logical one. What I'm not hearing from the protestors are well reasoned solutions. I've read the BLM website, no well reasoned, specific recommendations there.

To be fair, I have a sort of engineering bias. I'm biased towards concrete, workable solutions. That almost always starts with an "as objective as possible" description of the problem to be solved.

So, as I understand it, there are something like 10 million adversarial encounters between police and citizens in the US each year. And there are about 1000 fatal shootings. And black people are way less than half of those shootings. So it's probably not too far off to say that when a black person gets adversarial with a cop, they have a 1/30,000 chance of being killed. When I white person gets adversarial with a cop, it might be a little more dangerous, maybe 1/25,000.

So this is a problem? Sure. But where does it rank on our list of problems? Let's say that we go all out and cut those numbers in half. (And BTW, is it racist when an officer of color kills a citizen of color?) Maybe, just maybe, we could save 200 black lives / year. There are FAR MORE impactful ways we could improve the lives of the black community.

Well, I have seen other statistics, so please give sources.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

red herring. I await your return to the topic.

Okay, what makes an expert an expert?

 

[icehorse]

Okay, what makes an expert an expert?

The scientists who study expertise use the following definition: "An expert in a domain is someone who, when given representative tasks in that domain, performs RELIABLY well."

For example, I play chess sometimes. And sometimes I make a move that a chess master would agree with. But the problem is I don't make those master-level moves reliably. So I am not a chess master.

==

Not sure where you're headed with this, but..

 

[icehorse]

This is the same sort of unhelpful argument as 'I'm colorblind' (in reference to racial context.) All it leads to us refusing to see the inequality taking place. We are not, all of us, treated the same by society and we should not pretend we are. All it does is lead to ignoring the inequalities that exist.

Respectfully, I think you took that quote WAY out of context.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The scientists who study expertise use the following definition: "An expert in a domain is someone who, when given representative tasks in that domain, performs RELIABLY well."

For example, I play chess sometimes. And sometimes I make a move that a chess master would agree with. But the problem is I don't make those master-level moves reliably. So I am not a chess master.

==

Not sure where you're headed with this, but..

So what domain does racism belong to?

 

[icehorse]

So what domain does racism belong to?

It's a good question. I would say it probably can be viewed from several different domains; social sciences, anthropology, biology, ethnobiology, indigenous studies, politics, and economics to name a few.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It's a good question. I would say it probably can be viewed from several different domains; social sciences, anthropology, biology, ethnobiology, indigenous studies, politics, and economics to name a few.

Okay, good answer.

 

[PureX]

But it's not really about the "good old days" as much as looking at comparative approaches to solving problems. I agree that in many ways, those days were worse than today. But the difference is that they were able to recognize the problem and pull together to solve it. We're not doing that today. I'm not sure that very many people are capable of recognizing the problem, let alone come up with any solutions for solving it.

The right-wing offers vague, nebulous ideas of "make America great again," while the left-wing basically says that "it's all over America, better get used to whatever enormous crap comes our way in the future." If China or Russia doesn't get us, then global warming will. Or maybe Cuba, North Korea, or Iran may get us. You never know who's out there plotting to destroy America, so we have to be ever vigilant.

There seems to be an overall sense of hopelessness and helplessness pervading the culture, coupled with strong trends towards narcissism and selfishness. Such attitudes are not conducive towards people pulling together and working for change.

So it's not really a question of the present or past, but the future. In the past, even when things were "worse," they still had hope and saw a path to a better future. Now, even though things are "better," they can only get worse from here; we can only go down, because no one is offering a better future.

But Revoltingest doesn't believe there is a problem. He believes that greed, selfishness, and stupidity are innate to human nature and therefor a wast of time and energy to try and combat. Better to simply get good at them, so as to be the exploiter rather than the exploited. He doesn't believe that the past was ever any better than now, nor will the future be, because he doesn't believe that humans can or will ever change. He is a socio-economic Darwinist. A pragmatist as opposed to an idealist.

Sure Trump is scum, but the scum have the money and power. They always have and always will. So a wise man rides their coattails and enables them. So as to gain a share of the spoils.

 

[Revoltingest]

But Revoltingest doesn't believe there is a problem.

That's woefully inaccurate.
I say there are many problems.
I complain about them endlessly here.
But I disagree with you that things are worsening.

He believes that greed, selfishness, and stupidity are innate to human nature and therefor a wast of time and energy to try and combat. Better to simply get good at them, so as to be the exploiter rather than the exploited. He doesn't believe that the past was ever any better than now, nor will the future be, because he doesn't believe that humans can or will ever change. He is a socio-economic Darwinist. A pragmatist as opposed to an idealist.

So much to correct there.
I'll just say....

Sure Trump is scum, but the scum have the money and power. They always have and always will. So a wise man rides their coattails and enables them. So as to gain a share of the spoils.

IOW, learn to cope with one's environment,
not wallow in angst & despair. Appreciate
the good things in life.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...

IOW, learn to cope with one's environment,
not wallow in angst & despair. Appreciate
the good things in life.

Yeah, that would make someone a good prison guard in a dictatorship.

I do believe that is more to life than that. And I also believe that you believe there is more.

 

[Revoltingest]

But Revoltingest doesn't believe there is a problem. He believes that greed, selfishness, and stupidity are innate to human nature and therefor a wast of time and energy to try and combat. Better to simply get good at them, so as to be the exploiter rather than the exploited. He doesn't believe that the past was ever any better than now, nor will the future be, because he doesn't believe that humans can or will ever change. He is a socio-economic Darwinist. A pragmatist as opposed to an idealist.

Sure Trump is scum, but the scum have the money and power. They always have and always will. So a wise man rides their coattails and enables them. So as to gain a share of the spoils.

A word of useful advice here.....
When you call someone out & misrepresent their views,
particularly without alerting them, you risk rule violation.
While I'll survive <sniff> <sniff>, don't run afoul of the mods.
I prefer your being active here.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yeah, that would make someone a good prison guard in a dictatorship.

Wearing a government uniform in order to crush the enemy
is your line of work, not mine. (I'm unsuited for both uniforms
and government employment.) But yes, you'd benefit from a
sunnier outlook when facing society's woes. Optimism &
equanimity are good for the mind and the immune system.

I do believe that is more to life than that. And I also believe that you believe there is more.

I don't know what that means, but it sounds almost charitable.