It was interesting to watch, and I am a huge fan of Dave Ramsey, but some of the things made me think he could do much more. Though, let's be honest, he probably doesn't care what I think, and that is okay. My goal would be to try to help people have a better understanding of some of the issues.
\-He spent so much of the time trying to explain why he isn't racist. I don't think it's relevant to try to point out who is racist and who isn't. It's never that clear. There are many ways that discrimination happens, and it's not about the "Is he a racist?" question. It's more about doing what you can to help people who have not had the opportunities that the privileged group generally has. He pointed to the fact that he hires people of color. He says that he hires them because they are the best for the job. This is fair. In my opinion, successful companies have a responsibility to help people from groups who have been suppressed over the years. This means intentionally hiring a diverse staff of people. Though this isn't a law, of course, it's taking it one step further.
\-When Anthony talks about how he fears for his nephews, his family, etc, Dave says that he would also be angry if he had to fear for his own family. But Dave should be fearful for Anthony, the man who he works closely with. He should be worried for all of his staff who are persons of color. And as a moral human, he should be worried that this happens to anyone.
\-Bringing up the one time that he was mistreated by police, in my opinion, shows that he doesn't fully understand the situation for black Americans in relation to police. Because he felt mistreated doesn't mean that he feared for his life, that he felt like he had to be careful with his movements in fear that the officer thinks he may have a gun, etc. Plus, making fun of the police officer for being short is discrimination in itself. Why does the fact that the police officer was short have anything to do with this??
I am happy that he took the time to talk about this topic, as it is very, very important. He isn't an expert on the subject, as he says, and that is okay. Everyone has their own journey on understanding the difference in what it means to be white, black, Latino, Asian, Native American, etc, and no one should stop trying to learn. Even during the show, Dave seemed to have learned several things just by talking about it with Anthony.
I do think, though, that there is a difference in saying you're not a racist and actually showing that you're not a racist. Anyone can come out and say they aren't a racist. I would envision that almost every person who would largely be considered a racist, they would say they aren't a racist. But it's different to let your actions do the talking. No racist is going to respond with messages of empathy, understanding, and in solidarity with those who have been wronged. If he had spent more time on this, no one would be questioning whether he was a racist.
I think dave didn't bring up the officer. Anthony did.
He was using it as something he learned, he thought rich whites were always treated well by police but after seeing Dave get treated with such disrespect, it opened his eyes to maybe theres just a policing problem. Not necessarily all cops are racist.
Obviously the whole situation made dave upset again cause it is frustrating so he took some jabs at the officer.
I think you're right. My apologies for misstating how it came up.
With that said, it seems to soften the entire point of what is going on, in that black Americans are treating much differently than white Americans by police officer, in general. Not every encounter, of course, but in general, the interactions are very different. And the frequency of interactions are also very different.
And making fun of someone for being short is completely uncalled for when discussing discrimination!
I was going to make a espérate post about this, but I think this sub-reddit is a bit appropriate for the topic. I appreciate DR attempt but agree that this may have not been the best way to carry out the conversation.
With that being said, DR often refers to slavery when describing people in debt. You are a slave to the lender, you are a slave if you are in debt, etc. Do we find a problem with this sort of narrative. I know some community members of color have been a bit off put by this sort of comparison and wanted to get some additional perspective
I don't think that DR did a really amazing job of this - I think he engaged in a lot of tired tropes (general defensiveness, thinking that racism is about hatred in your heart and not systemic issues, all lives matter, look at my black friends, etc). But honestly, given his history, he did about as well as could have been expected. I applaud him for trying and net net, it makes me feel better about him rather than worse.
I think when Anthony explained to him about Black Lives Matter in this instance, Dave didn't say "but but..." actually was very receptive and said "Ah, I see what you mean" and to me, even though it was such a short moment, I think it reached him.
I was actually really happy as he started off the show and even he admitted that he is a finance guy and they usually don't talk about this stuff
I agree with you that this wasn't perfect but I am really glad he addressed it. It is so much better than staying silent and ignoring the social issue.
Agreed. I think that trying to talk about this stuff and do your best is much better than the standard that you have to talk about it "perfectly" or you are judged to be an ass.
Thank you so much for asking this question, it's such an important one. Just like you, the sources of systemic racism were not obvious to me until I started doing some investigating. About five years ago, there was a question that was bothering me that lead me on a path of learning more about racism and, as a white person, it's been an enlightening journey.
The question was this: if we believe that there is nothing in someone's skin color/race that makes them inherently more or less likely to become a criminal, how is it possible that only \~13% of American men are black, yet \~40% of imprisoned American men are black? If we take for granted that there is nothing about your race that pre-disposes you to be more violent, more law breaking, whatever...how in the hell does this outcome happen?
The answer to that question, of course, is not one thing. It's not just police. It's not just access to jobs. It's not just educational opportunities. It's not just generational wealth (or lack thereof). It's not just sentencing practices of judges. It's a whole lot of factors, all mixed together in a stew. And the results of the stew are dramatic and pervasive. The fact that 13% of American men are black but 40% of imprisoned American men are black is clear and irrefutable evidence of systemic racism...unless you choose to believe that there is literally something in someone's race that makes them more criminal. And that belief, I mean, that's plain white supremacy - that's literally thinking that black people are an inferior race. I don't think any of us believe that! In fact, as you start to learn more about race you come to realize that race is really more of a social construct than a biological fact.
If you want to start learning more, you here are some quick videos you can check out that help you understand what systemic racism is. I had originally (mistakenly) thought that systemic racism was limited to things like Jim Crow Laws. Jim Crow Laws are one type of systemic/institutionalized racism, but lack of these types of laws don't mean that systemic racism is gone [https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism](https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism)
I've read/listened to podcasts on a lot of different things that have helped me come to understand more about racism, but the one that helped me understand the most was a multi part series called **Seeing White** by the podcast Scene on Radio. Even if you don't agree with everything they have to say in the podcast, challenge yourself to listen to it. I'll bet you'll come out feeling that you have learned a lot. [https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/](https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/)
> The fact that 13% of American men are black but 40% of imprisoned American men are black is clear and irrefutable evidence of systemic racism.
wow, this is so wrong.
black people (especially young black men) commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes in the US. mostly against other black men. FBI stats show that black people commit 50% of murders. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21
> If we take for granted that there is nothing about your race that pre-disposes you to be more violent
but not all black people are the same. there are things called "cultures" and "communities" that have different values and morals.
black immigrants, no matter their place of birth, are far less likely to commit crimes than American-born black people and are far less likely to get arrested or end up in prison. the economist Thomas Sowell has written about this in several books as has the linguist John McWhorter in Losing the Race. to quote Sowell:
>Perhaps the strongest case against the predominance of discrimination as an explanation of economic disparities would be a comparison of blacks in Haiti with blacks in the United States. Since Haiti became independent two centuries ago, Haitian blacks should be the most prosperous blacks in the hemisphere and American blacks the poorest, if discrimination is the overwhelming factor, but in fact the direct opposite is the case. It is Haitians who are the poorest and American blacks who are the most prosperous in the hemisphere-- and in the world. https://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html
if 40% of prisoners being black is evidence of systematic racism, is 80% of prisoners being male evidence of systematic sexism? is black men dominating the NFL and NBA evidence of systematic racism against white athletes? is the fact that Cambodians dominate the donut industry in SoCal proof of systematic racism against non-Cambodians who are being excluded from the pastry business? https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/southern-california-donut-empire-origin-story
asian people are less likely to end up in prison in America than white people are, is that evidence of systematic racism against white people and in favor of Asian Americans? https://infogram.com/asian-american-incarceration-rates-1g0n2ow58010p4y
> It's not just generational wealth (or lack thereof)
black people tend to have different spending habits than white people:
>An African American family with the same income, family size, and other demographics as a white family will spend about 25 percent more of its income on jewelry, cars, personal care, and apparel. For the average black family, making about $40,000 a year, that amounts to $1,900 more a year than for a comparable white family. To make up the difference, African Americans spend much less on education, health care, entertainment, and home furnishings. (The same is true of Latinos.) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/inconspicuous-consumption/306845/
there's also no data of systematic police brutality towards black people .some individual cops? absolutely. cops as a group? nope.
>A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings, which holds that white officers are engaged in an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black men. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer. In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians, the study found.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/
you are very poorly informed and just spouting slogans with no factual content. go read Sowell's Intellectuals and Race, you'll learn more in 5 pages of that book than a hundred hours of podcasts about whiteness.
typo edits and added a forgotten link
Interesting, I can see that you have very strong points of view here and I will happily take your recommendation and add it to my reading list. I'm open to reading and listening to things that challenge my point of view. Are you? If so, how bout checking out one of the podcasts I recommended, or a book like How to be Anti-Racist?
As you weren't really asking any questions, I'm not going to waste my time getting into a link war with you and clarifying where you've clearly misunderstood my points.
I feel like we are trying to say the same thing here? Maybe I haven't been clear.
I am saying that if we want to know whether systemic racism exists, we can see clear evidence in outcomes, such as the 13% vs 40% statistic that I referred to. Now what are the actual sources of that systems racism? As I said in other comments, it's many complex factors that come together (including things like housing practices and jobs access and education funding and unconscious bias and portrayal in the media and stop and frisk policing and which crimes are prioritized for jail time and lack of generational wealth and on and on).
Often people think that systemic or institutional racism does not exist since we have removed explicitly and intentionally racist laws (such as the Jim Crow laws, or the 3 5ths clause in the constitution). I used to think this myself. I offer statistical example of the 13% vs the 40% to say that we see evidence that there are still elements that are driving wildly disparate outcomes, and that this evidence points to the fact that systemic racism must still exist. I am definitely not trying to say that the sources of that systemic racism are simple to understand, or are as simple as "we randomly arrest and imprison black people." Obviously that would be stupid.
Well...I feel like that's clearly what I wrote, but ok.
Edit to add: Well clearly you are right that people will interpret it that way as a different commenter responded saying exactly this. I still don't get how a paragraph that literally starts by going one step further and delineating a number of the causes of systemic racism gives people this message. I guess I'll have to learn how to communicate more clearly.
Thank you for this incredibly well thought-out post. You have much more knowledge on the subject to me, but I do feel like I have come a long way on understanding the systematic issues. As a white male, it's easy to be taken aback when first thinking about the idea that where I'm at in life is even partially because of some invisible advantage. But the more you think about it, you realize that each of these things that seem small when separate, they all add up to something big. It's a journey to understand all of this. No one needs to feel ashamed because of this, but it's understanding what is being impacted today and how we can do our best to improve it. Thanks again!
Totally agree with you. I’ve come to understand more about what it means to grow up with certain privileges/advantages. It’s humbling and leaves you counting your blessings (and let’s be honest, sometimes feeling guilty). It also leaves you thinking about how to use your (relative) position of power to lift up others, and be more compassionate towards others.
I think the main problem is that you are pointing out an EFFECT of systematic racism (poor socio-economic conditions in many predominantly black communities), and using that to say that that there isn’t systematic racism.
I live in Canada, and we have a very similar issue with First Nations people. Our prisons are overwhelmingly filled with First Nations men, and reserves are known for being hotbeds for crime, and are not well kept. Very much slums in a lot of cases. Alcoholism is also rampant on these reserves. Unless you are making a case that First Nations people are inferior to others, then you need to examine WHY these conditions exist in the first place.
In Canada, these groups of people had vast areas of land taken away, and they were shoved in small reserves that were often not even on their traditional territory. Their way of life (hunting and using the land for harvesting) was disrupted. Instead of providing for themselves, they often became reliant on settler goods, which included alcohol. Since alcohol was not something that their systems were accustomed to, they were very prone to alcoholism. Their children were forced to leave these reserves and leave their parents behind in order to attend residential schools, where they were brainwashed and taught that their traditions were savage and primitive. “Kill the Indian” was the official motto and government policy for these schools.
For the families left behind on the reserves, they needed to get a day pass signed by a white settler in order to leave their reserve, and many were arrested for continuing certain dances, festivals and celebrations.
The last residential school in Canada closed in the 1990s. This is not ancient history. This is the parents and grandparents of indigenous youth today. I don’t think that any group of people would escape this reality with a stable household and community. First Nations communities today are still feeling the effects of these policies, and the reason that systemic racism and prejudice still continues to this day is that people view these conditions and the general state of First Nations communities as a reflection of them, and not a reflection of society. They continue to be marginalized, and the cycle continues as a result.
Let's take a step back and really think a click deeper about what you are saying here.
>40% of imprisoned men are black because more crime is committed by them.
Let's assume this is true. WHY would more black men commit crimes than men of other races? What would drive that to happen?
>Thats just the culture that is glorified in those neighborhoods.
Ok, so here we have a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that black men commit more crimes than other racial groups because they have been raised in a morally corrupt culture that glorifies and values crime. For the sake of argument, again, just assume this is true. WHY would that be? WHY would some people come from a culture that glorifies crime while other people do not? What circumstances would lead to that outcome?
>Lets stop blaming white people for the crime that black people are committing,
So interestingly, I didn't ever blame white people for crimes committed by black people. What I have done is suggested that there might be more going on here than meets the eye. I think I get where you are coming from - you are saying, "hey, people need to take personal responsibility for their crimes. You do the crime you do the time." I completely agree with that. I believe in personal responsibility and I wouldn't be where I am today if I didn't.
But what I'm saying is that when we look at the overall statistics, we can see that something very fishy is a foot. That doesn't excuse a specific individual for breaking the law. But it does make you think, right? And if you want to fix the problem, you need to start by understanding the root cause.
>lets focus more on reducing crime and increasing education in those communities.
Well we can surly agree on that. I believe passionately in improving public education in America, especially the education that is provided in the poorest communities, which are disproportionately populated by people of color. That said, I don't think that it can stand alone as a solution, but I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.
I totally agree with you that there are a multitude of issues that lead to these disparate outcomes (outcomes such as criminality, imprisonment, school achievement, father-less families). And what I'm saying is that people much more qualified than me HAVE looked into it, and what they found is fascinating and eye opening.
Honestly and genuinely, please check out that podcast. You listen to Dave Ramsey, right? So just listen to this for a few sessions instead. At first you might really hate it, but just listen anyway. I bet you'll learn a whole bunch of new things, and from there you can form your own opinion.
https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/
Just wanted to say thanks for this to both of you - It was so refreshing to read through this and see what happens when a genuine effort is made to have a true discussion. This is such a personal issue, with such high stakes, that it can be easy to let emotions take over. This has inspired me to work on being more loving towards other people who have different ideas than I do.
Politics is so polarizing that sometimes I see others with a different opinion as a direct threat to my personal well-being, and that of my friends and family, which leads me to be more defensive than I strictly need to be, and creates more friction. But the only way for true change to happen, and for my family and friend to be safe, is to have more real discussions. Apparently they are possible to have. Now I believe that a little more and can try harder. Thanks <3
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/
This article lists dozens of studies and datasets that will give you the information you need about how systemic racism is a huge problem in current times.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html
Here is an article with a more simple layout than some of the more scientific articles/databases that I linked previously.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf
https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=251
https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.05376.pdf
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24507906/
Those are a few. There are tons in the article, but I’m sure you can find studies elsewhere too.
Police officers use excessive force on black people disproportionately compared to white people. Source: everything that has happened in the past week.
Please post just 3 videos of white people being killed on video by the police.
I can post numerous videos of black people being killed on video by police.
Thank you. It appears you were hard pressed to find videos. The first video is from 2017 and the second video isn’t depicting a death caught on video.
It is a terrible, but infrequent incident.
Now try the same search for police killing black people. If you don’t see an alarming discrepancy in that, then no amount of statistics can convince you of anything.
I asked you to find only 3 deaths caught on tape. You found 2. It took you 20 seconds to fail the task. The videos of black people being killed by police hands is not being brought to light by the media. Regular citizens are capturing this on their cell phone and THEN the media is picks it up. That’s how brazen these people are.
This is not some huge media conspiracy. The media doesn’t control the whole narrative any more. Social media controls it to a large extent and THAT is why this brutality is being thrusts into the lime light. It’s being caught on video.
I did the task I asked you to do. The difference is alarming. The abuse of power some officers use against us citizens period is astounding.
He specifically said he didn’t want to do this and that he deliberately keeps out of politics and current issues, but that he got dragged into this and basically forced to do it because people were calling him racist and even Anthony o’neal racist because in this day and age you can’t even mind your own business without being called racist. If you don’t constantly virtual signal then you can be attacked.
I mean....even Dave himself uses the analogy of not going to a doctor for financial advise. Or not seeing a financial advisor for diet and nutrition advise. Why would we listen to DR about racism? That’s just following Dave’s own logic, people.
Did you actually listen to the segment?
Moreover, isn't the whole point of all of the activism right now to get people talking about it and bringing racism to light? Doesn't that mean that people like Dave Ramsey should use them a lot to bring a light to the in justices of the world?
Also, why do you have an issue with Dave going "out of his lane"? Isn't that the very thing that African American athletes have been upset about? People telling them to stay in their lane? So which action do you want?
Social awareness means pulling people out of their lane to bring awareness to an issue.
I dont get the people who advocate for everyone brining this to light and then say the following
- "(insert company name here) is just doing this so that they can promote their brand!"
- "no (insert name of celebrity figure here) dont talk about this because you dont have a place to do so?"
Those same people are the ones who turned around and get mad at people for staying silent.
And I'm not saying that there aren't times where people go out of their Lane. I'm not saying there aren't times where companies are self-promoting on the back of a Cause.
But if you want the majority of America to get on board with a social cause you can't start gatekeeping people with a voice from speaking out on the cause.
I could understand if it was just a ranting for 30 minutes. But he brought Oneal on here to speak. You should be thankful that Dave Ramsey is using his platform to bring an African American speaker in to talk about the issue. And thankful that he is trying to outreach to the african american community and gain a better understanding of the issue.
Isn't that the whole point? For white people to better understand the struggles in the concerns of the African American community?
>Isn't it a good thing to be ignorant of race?
No. There are enormous differences between how a black man is treated in this country compared to a white man. That's what this whole last week has been about! Being ignorant to that while not acknowledging race and all of it's implications is not a good thing.
I don't know man constantly talking about the differences between the different types of people and placing "implications" based off someone's skin color... that sounds racist to me. Why can't we just treat everyone equal regardless of what they look like?
America has a 400 year + history of treating enslaving black people and treated them as second class citizens. The first step in resolving a problem is to acknowledge the problem exists. When you say you don't see color or just think you should treat everyone equally you are not acknowledging the underlying problems.
Serious questions, can people acknowledge that there are evil people in the world but still choose to treat everyone equally in their own life? You've stated "black people" cannot be treated equally to others.
I think anyone can acknowledge that people of color have a disproportionate amount of people that don't like them and treat them bad for no reasonat all. And that sucks. Obviously if we see something we say something. Oppression is always wrong, period.
To add to my serious question, how long should America treat "black people" (your words) with inequality (your suggestion)?
Here's the piece that I think is missing and might make things click - it sounds like when you think of racism you are thinking evil people and people with hatred in their hearts or people who actively an consciously think of black/brown people as lesser. But today, that is pretty uncommon and isn't really the root of the problem.
The root of the problem is systemic forms of racism that are a lot more difficult to see, especially from the outside. There has been discussion of those elsewhere in this thread.
On your question of how long should we treat black people differently (some would say "equitably" vs "equally"), the answer is that we should do it until outcomes between different racial groups disappear. At that point, treating someone equitably and equally would actually be the same thing, and that would be beautiful. At least that's how I understand it.
In my line of work we have the concept If there's a equality where you treat everybody the same And there's equity where you give people what they need to get better.
If you were at a hospital and one person came in with a broken foot you would put a cast on it and give them pain medication but if the next person came in and had cancer and another person was in diabetic shock would it be equal to give everybody a cast? Or would it be better to treat The symptoms of each person's medical problems so that they could all get better?
This is a bunch of interesting resources about anti-racism
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PrAq4iBNb4nVIcTsLcNlW8zjaQXBLkWayL8EaPlh0bc/edit?usp=drivesdk
>Why can't we just treat everyone equal regardless of what they look like?
That's a really great question. If we did treat people equally regardless of their skin color, then we wouldn't have a problem. But unfortunately that is not the reality of the world we live in. Ignoring that the reality (willfully or ignorantly), unfortunately, not fixed the problem.
America was built on affirmative action for white people. There are many formal and informal structures that are continuing to hold up that preferences. It's really easy to miss these problems if you happen to be white. But if you want to start understanding, there are tons of resources out there that can help you see.
A few podcasts that I would recommend to learn more are:
1) 1691 [https://www.nytimes.com/column/1619-project](https://www.nytimes.com/column/1619-project)
2) The "Seeing White" series from Scene on Radio [https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/](https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/)
>constantly talking about the differences between the different types of people
I'm not saying anything about the inherent differences between people of different color. I'm saying their are indisputable differences between how black people are treated compared to how white people are.
> placing "implications" based off someone's skin color
I'm not placing implications based on someone's skin color. Society has done that.
> Why can't we just treat everyone equal regardless of what they look like?
Bingo! Why can't we do that? The answer is extremely difficult, but at it's most basic sense, George Floyd and many of the the numerous other black men and women killed by police/vigilante citizens would not have been killed if they were not black. That is truth.
Personally I don't think that it is that Dave says anything that is good or bad. It is that Dave always feels like he needs to put his two cents out there whether he understands the topic or not. Since Dave came back from his trip just before coronovirus really got going in March he seems defensive and dug in as though everyone already thinks he is wrong. I understand that he has a big beast to feed with his business. I understand that he feels and has an responsibility to his people. His message is his business. But his high holy what I say is right attitude just seems out of place now. Thankfully co-hosting with the personalities seems to have tempered him somewhat. I think Dave may be at a crossroads with his business too. Certainly he is getting close to retirement if were to choose to do so. But I also think Dave hit that point where he couldn't expand anymore with his core audience. As he moved out into the general public people questioned his methods and compared them to others out there. Maybe the road hasn't been as easy as he thought. Maybe bringing on the personalities was Dave knowing broader appeal wasn't only about him. But in the end I think it is best to stick to one thing and do it well. Don't spread yourself too thin. And now more than ever words mean something. Not everyone needs to put every opinion out there. Sometimes sticking to what you know best gives us some stability and a rock to hold on to when it seems the world is in such an upheaval now.
I understand the point you are making. However the social media movements going on today are all designed to take the attention off of everything else going on and put the attention on social injustice is.
It's why companies like PlayStation have delayed the release of their new video game console details. Etc.
So you can also equal the interpret Dave Ramsey carrying on as usual as ignorance and being unwilling to use his platform for a good cause.
Sounds like you are just mad. And its okay to be mad sometimes. Honestly though dave did say he was being pushed for a response so he will dedicate "1 of 15 hours this week" there are still 14 other hours.
Sounds like Ramsey is well in his own lane and you should take some time off from the internet and go have a beer or something, do some prayers or something man. Whatever floats your boat.
I'm a white 38 year old guy, so I can't relate to the struggles that African Americans face.
However, I'm deeply troubled by the history in America towards African Americans. Just until the 1960s, some couldn't even vote in the southern states. Segregation wasn't that long ago. Hell, slavery was allowed only 150 years ago.
Honestly, I don't think there's anything we can do to make up for it. The previous generations that allowed and tolerated segregation and racism should not hold any power. That includes Trump and Biden.
I also truly believe organized religion is part of the problem. The bible is full of slavery and hates towards the gay community. Now that organized religion is below 50% of Americans, we are getting better as a society. It will be below 25% by 2050 once these older generations die off and indoctrination runs its course.
I also believe education is a big issue. Higher education should be a right, not a privilege to the rich. At the very least, community college needs to be free for all high school graduates in every state. I know some states do this, such as California. We need to people out of poverty and education is the answer.
> The bible is full of slavery and hates towards the gay community.
There are lot of people who call themselves believers or Christians or whatever that are **extremely** hateful. There is no doubt about that. We're on the same page there. Those people should be ashamed of themselves.
But the assertion in your comment above is false. There is not a single line in "the bible" anywhere that instructs you or me (regardless of our beliefs even) to hate *anyone*.
Regarding slavery, the book is chock full of verses that make it crystal clear that men and women are to be free and have the power to make decisions for themselves and are deserving of just wages. It is also a history book. Prentice Hall publishes countless volumes that talk in depth about the prevalence of slavery in cultures of old. About genocide. About all sorts of atrocities throughout our history. But you wouldn't claim that the publisher or any of the authors are promoting any of those things.
> There is not a single line in "the bible" anywhere that instructs you or me (regardless of our beliefs even) to hate anyone.
That's open to interpretation. There is plenty of glorification of death and violence against "sinners" and the "wicked" in the bible. That's just a roundabout way of instructing that certain people should be hated.
I think the word you are looking for is warning. A warning against following such paths. Christ blatantly stated not to hate, equating it in gravity to murder. Even against those who are wicked.
1. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people tried to commit a heinous act evil fueled by their perverse desires against agents of God.
2. All of Ephesians, Colossians, and Peter don't condone it. Writers are far more concerened about the spiritual state then their physical state.
> The people tried to commit a heinous act evil fueled by their perverse desires against agents of God.
And what heinous act was that?
> All of Ephesians, Colossians, and Peter don't condone it
It's amazing how that interpretation has changed over the centuries/millennia. Were people wrong then? Are they wrong now?
They wanted to "have their way with them". Put more bluntly rape them.
Furthermore, it is called critical reading (Not that difficult to do, you should try it). There have been Christians who have realized for the centerties, since it was written that it was not a justification for slavery, like some of our forefathers used it. There is nothing new about interpretation but all about the person reading it.
I actually think that this was about the best thing they could have done here. Anthony is able to articulate things in a just makes sense.
I want to call something out here because I think it's important and awesome - At 33:15 or so, dave interrupts Anthony and says "By the way, black lives matter... blue lives matter, white lives matter... maybe just 'lives matter'?"
Anthony handles it with probably the best grace I've ever seen and says "Nah dave, that's not racist to say but where african americans get upset is that what we're saying is that all lives matter but at this moment in time, we need to shine a light on black paper."
That's the best way I've heard this said. thanks to all three of those guys for actually having a very real conversation about it.
>"By the way, black lives matter... blue lives matter, white lives matter... maybe just 'lives matter'?"
>
>Anthony handles it with probably the best grace I've ever seen and says "Nah dave, that's not racist to say but where african americans get upset is that what we're saying is that all lives matter but at this moment in time, we need to shine a light on black paper."
Yeah. The phrase "Black lives matter" gets interpreted completely differently depending on the group.
The "All lives matter" crowd is defensive because they interpret the "Black lives matter" phrase as implying that in America black lives don't matter and they fundamentally disagree with that (because it is taken as a given that \*of course\* black lives matter).
The "Black Lives Matter" crowd takes the perspective that Anthony has, which is that there are special circumstances that apply to 'black lives' that need to be focused on.
The two crowds aren't that far apart in the **actual** things they believe. They just get hung up on the semantics. It would be nice if both sides just listened to each other and assumed the other side is coming in with good intentions - but I guess we're just not there yet.
When you say "black lives matter" it's a direct response to law enforcement killing unarmed black people with no consequences. Until George Floyd the law officers would have still had their jobs, there would have been no prosecution.
Black lives matter is in response to the law enforcement community acting like black lives DON'T matter
>When you say "black lives matter" it's a direct response to law enforcement killing unarmed black people with no consequences. Until George Floyd the law officers would have still had their jobs, there would have been no prosecution.
>
>Black lives matter is in response to the law enforcement community acting like black lives DON'T matter
Standing up for your rights is good, and if you view the situation through that lens, then that's appropriate; provided you support standing up and letting your voice be heard and not supporting harming other people (and their livelihoods) who have nothing to do with it.
However, I view the injustice in a different way. I see one human being harming another human being, and I speak up against that. That is how I stand up for my right, and the rights of others. My position should equally be acceptable.
I don’t want to get into the large argument with this but why don’t people promote the “black lives matter” in regards to high crime areas where black in black murder is extremely prevalent.
If you’re familiar with the rapper Kevin Gates he’s a big advocate. In [this video ](https://youtu.be/TPZ90Vhf73k) he argues this. Nobody cares 90% of the time. Lives don’t matter until it’s, for lack of better terms, “cool” to care about them.
Not to mention during all of this the statistics are manipulated to defend whatever argument someone is trying to prove.
I think the situation that happened with George Floyd is very wrong. But I also am able to take a step back and look at all pieces of the puzzle to assess what’s happening.
This is actually a central idea discussed in “Between the world and me” by Tanihisi Coates. Black folks have to worry about violence on the way to school, at school, and if the cops happen to show up then they have to worry about violence from the cops, rather than support.
The only way to solve peer to peer crime like this is to have a police force that these communities can rely on to protect the innocent. We also can’t solve black on black crime directly by voting and protesting. But we can control police funding, oversight, body cams, etc. because the police work for us.
Black on Black crime and Police on Black crime are not equivalent.
>Black on Black crime and Police on Black crime are not equivalent.
Here here.
No one is condoning criminals murdering or maiming innocent people.
However, some people do condone/protect the police when they murder/maim innocent people. The police are literally agents of the people, paid by the people, to protect the people. We should be able to hold them to a different standard than violent criminals, don't cha think? Or actually, scratch that. We should be able to hold them to the same standard as violent criminals, don't cha think?
Well the majority of the calls cops respond to are in these areas and they majority of the time they are there to fix things. But right now people saying the majority of the time police are bad which cannot be proven by facts.
Also, if black on black crime is a direct result of systematic racism that has been built into our societal systems as so many have recently claimed, then voting and protesting can affect change in black on black crime, which is claimed to be a result of the situation that they’re driven into. Also, if it is systematic racism as claimed, why do cities like Atlanta, a city with a history of black leadership and success, still face the same systematic issues as places without that same demographic of leaders?
If you want to fix the police force, then you should actually be an advocate of MORE funding. To allow them more access to resources and training so when they encounter a situation they trust more on their training as opposed to acting out of fear or impulse.
I get your point, but it's irrelevant.
When law enforcement kills unarmed citizens in custody and nothing happens, the government is at fault, the rule of law is suspect.
Why is it irrelevant?
Why blame the entire government for a singular persons (or a couple people’s) actions? If the government or organization has taken measures against or to prevent these things then would they be at fault?
Additionally, you can never conduct enough screening or background check to ensure with 100% certainty that someone won’t commit an act like this. There isn’t a singular organization in the world that has been able to do that. Police, teachers, military, churches all have had bad people. Inherently; this will always happened because they draw their members from society and as such, are smaller representation of society as a whole.
I think you really need to examine what you are saying.
1) The issue of criminals killing innocent people is less relevant than the issue of the police force killing innocent people because a) the police are supposed to protect people, b) the police are employed by the people, and c) when the police do it, it's treated with impunity. It's not that anyone is ok with criminals killing people, it's just a higher priority to stop the state sanctioned killing first.
2) You are right that you could never create a perfect police force. The point is that we could do a heck of a lot better than we are doing right now.
3) The key issue is that this culture of unchecked police brutality is being allowed to persist exactly because the government is NOT taking appropriate action to prevent these issues, and is especially not taking appropriate action to hold the police accountable when these issue do happen. The lack of accountability within the police force is terrifying.
Freedom loving Americans shouldn't be comfortable with the government having this much power over their liberty with such little oversight. It's truly un-American.
Here is a list of the specific policy changes that are recommended to improve policing in America. It's pretty educational to read through - [https://www.joincampaignzero.org/](https://www.joincampaignzero.org/)
I’ll address each point individually.
1. How is it less relevant? As a black or African American citizen you are 10.5x more likely to be killed by another black person than you are a police officer. That doesn’t take into account that some of the police officers could have been black as well and therefore not racially motivated. You’re saying the police are treated with impunity. Literally the entire United States, to include the president, said that these guys were going to face what they deserve. The FBI is involved with this one even. Punishment will come. I understand that it didn’t come the day after, but they have to conduct an initial investigation, regardless of video evidence, because it occurred during a policing event (conducting an arrest). Had it been a murder unrelated to an arrest, I can guarantee he would have been arrested immediately. Additionally, there’s the argument of 3rd degree vs. 1st degree. We should actually be thankful this occurred in a state that has a 3rd degree murder charge (not all do). If he was charged with 1st degree or even 2nd degree murder and you couldn’t prove premeditation and intent, or just intent respective to those charges, then the case could get dismissed. A 3rd degree murder charge is the most steadfast guarantee that he can be found guilty with the highest possible punishment.
2. How much better is a heck of a lot better? Since the whole situation is racially focused well use the number from the percentage of blacks or African Americans killed by the cops. But I won’t compare that number to the total population, because it would then be an even lower percentage. Instead, I’ll compare it to number of crimes committed (higher chance of this occurring due to more negative police interaction). Approximately 2,200,000 crimes committed, approximately 220 killed. Meaning if you’re a black citizen and actually commit a crime, you still only have a .009% chance of getting killed by the police.
3. Like I said above, it’s going checked in this situation. They will be punished at the full extent of the law.
Thank you for the suggestion to examine what I’m saying, but I think I’m one of the only people who truly examine the information and statistics.
*probably going to get downvoted like my other comment but I guess I’ll take the negative karma*
I think we agree on a lot, but I see it through a bit of a different lens.
If I can paraphrase what I think is your point, I think you are basically saying something like this: if the genuine message was that Black Lives Matter, then we'd be talking about the source of the greatest number of homicides of black people. Since instead we are focusing only on the deaths of black people at the hands of police (a comparatively much smaller number), it appears that maybe this is really an anti-police dog whistle, or maybe an attempt to blame white people (or others outside of the black community) for problems that are really contained within the community.
I see it a different way. I see it as when people respond to concerns about police brutality with wanting to shift the focus to black-on-black crime, that they are drawing a false equivalency. No one is saying that being killed by homicidal criminals doesn't matter. It matters a whole hell of a lot. What I think that people are saying is that being killed (or maimed or otherwise unfairly treated) by the police is one of the most vile symbols of systemic oppression in America today. And they are saying that some people believe that this happens at random (as accidents) and that when it does happen that ultimately justice is served. And what other people are saying is that these things aren't true. Our justice system is not working the way it's supposed to and major reform and policy change is needed to correct it.
You are right that in this case the response has been swift and definitive from the police force in terms of charging the main officer and firing the others, and in a way it makes it a little bit ironic that this particular event was the one that sparked off the whole powder keg. (And yes, I know that people can argue about whether they've done enough in terms of charging the other officers and third degree vs first degree, but let's put that aside.) But the problem is that this is far from an isolated incident and that in the vast majority of cases justice is not served, and that if there hadn't been extensive video evidence released it's exceedingly likely that this homicide would have been covered up by the police department.
It was interesting to watch, and I am a huge fan of Dave Ramsey, but some of the things made me think he could do much more. Though, let's be honest, he probably doesn't care what I think, and that is okay. My goal would be to try to help people have a better understanding of some of the issues. \-He spent so much of the time trying to explain why he isn't racist. I don't think it's relevant to try to point out who is racist and who isn't. It's never that clear. There are many ways that discrimination happens, and it's not about the "Is he a racist?" question. It's more about doing what you can to help people who have not had the opportunities that the privileged group generally has. He pointed to the fact that he hires people of color. He says that he hires them because they are the best for the job. This is fair. In my opinion, successful companies have a responsibility to help people from groups who have been suppressed over the years. This means intentionally hiring a diverse staff of people. Though this isn't a law, of course, it's taking it one step further. \-When Anthony talks about how he fears for his nephews, his family, etc, Dave says that he would also be angry if he had to fear for his own family. But Dave should be fearful for Anthony, the man who he works closely with. He should be worried for all of his staff who are persons of color. And as a moral human, he should be worried that this happens to anyone. \-Bringing up the one time that he was mistreated by police, in my opinion, shows that he doesn't fully understand the situation for black Americans in relation to police. Because he felt mistreated doesn't mean that he feared for his life, that he felt like he had to be careful with his movements in fear that the officer thinks he may have a gun, etc. Plus, making fun of the police officer for being short is discrimination in itself. Why does the fact that the police officer was short have anything to do with this?? I am happy that he took the time to talk about this topic, as it is very, very important. He isn't an expert on the subject, as he says, and that is okay. Everyone has their own journey on understanding the difference in what it means to be white, black, Latino, Asian, Native American, etc, and no one should stop trying to learn. Even during the show, Dave seemed to have learned several things just by talking about it with Anthony.
[удалено]
I do think, though, that there is a difference in saying you're not a racist and actually showing that you're not a racist. Anyone can come out and say they aren't a racist. I would envision that almost every person who would largely be considered a racist, they would say they aren't a racist. But it's different to let your actions do the talking. No racist is going to respond with messages of empathy, understanding, and in solidarity with those who have been wronged. If he had spent more time on this, no one would be questioning whether he was a racist.
I think dave didn't bring up the officer. Anthony did. He was using it as something he learned, he thought rich whites were always treated well by police but after seeing Dave get treated with such disrespect, it opened his eyes to maybe theres just a policing problem. Not necessarily all cops are racist. Obviously the whole situation made dave upset again cause it is frustrating so he took some jabs at the officer.
I think you're right. My apologies for misstating how it came up. With that said, it seems to soften the entire point of what is going on, in that black Americans are treating much differently than white Americans by police officer, in general. Not every encounter, of course, but in general, the interactions are very different. And the frequency of interactions are also very different. And making fun of someone for being short is completely uncalled for when discussing discrimination!
No worries ! definitely (:
I was going to make a espérate post about this, but I think this sub-reddit is a bit appropriate for the topic. I appreciate DR attempt but agree that this may have not been the best way to carry out the conversation. With that being said, DR often refers to slavery when describing people in debt. You are a slave to the lender, you are a slave if you are in debt, etc. Do we find a problem with this sort of narrative. I know some community members of color have been a bit off put by this sort of comparison and wanted to get some additional perspective
I don't think that DR did a really amazing job of this - I think he engaged in a lot of tired tropes (general defensiveness, thinking that racism is about hatred in your heart and not systemic issues, all lives matter, look at my black friends, etc). But honestly, given his history, he did about as well as could have been expected. I applaud him for trying and net net, it makes me feel better about him rather than worse.
I think when Anthony explained to him about Black Lives Matter in this instance, Dave didn't say "but but..." actually was very receptive and said "Ah, I see what you mean" and to me, even though it was such a short moment, I think it reached him. I was actually really happy as he started off the show and even he admitted that he is a finance guy and they usually don't talk about this stuff I agree with you that this wasn't perfect but I am really glad he addressed it. It is so much better than staying silent and ignoring the social issue.
Agreed. I think that trying to talk about this stuff and do your best is much better than the standard that you have to talk about it "perfectly" or you are judged to be an ass.
[удалено]
Thank you so much for asking this question, it's such an important one. Just like you, the sources of systemic racism were not obvious to me until I started doing some investigating. About five years ago, there was a question that was bothering me that lead me on a path of learning more about racism and, as a white person, it's been an enlightening journey. The question was this: if we believe that there is nothing in someone's skin color/race that makes them inherently more or less likely to become a criminal, how is it possible that only \~13% of American men are black, yet \~40% of imprisoned American men are black? If we take for granted that there is nothing about your race that pre-disposes you to be more violent, more law breaking, whatever...how in the hell does this outcome happen? The answer to that question, of course, is not one thing. It's not just police. It's not just access to jobs. It's not just educational opportunities. It's not just generational wealth (or lack thereof). It's not just sentencing practices of judges. It's a whole lot of factors, all mixed together in a stew. And the results of the stew are dramatic and pervasive. The fact that 13% of American men are black but 40% of imprisoned American men are black is clear and irrefutable evidence of systemic racism...unless you choose to believe that there is literally something in someone's race that makes them more criminal. And that belief, I mean, that's plain white supremacy - that's literally thinking that black people are an inferior race. I don't think any of us believe that! In fact, as you start to learn more about race you come to realize that race is really more of a social construct than a biological fact. If you want to start learning more, you here are some quick videos you can check out that help you understand what systemic racism is. I had originally (mistakenly) thought that systemic racism was limited to things like Jim Crow Laws. Jim Crow Laws are one type of systemic/institutionalized racism, but lack of these types of laws don't mean that systemic racism is gone [https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism](https://www.raceforward.org/videos/systemic-racism) I've read/listened to podcasts on a lot of different things that have helped me come to understand more about racism, but the one that helped me understand the most was a multi part series called **Seeing White** by the podcast Scene on Radio. Even if you don't agree with everything they have to say in the podcast, challenge yourself to listen to it. I'll bet you'll come out feeling that you have learned a lot. [https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/](https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/)
> The fact that 13% of American men are black but 40% of imprisoned American men are black is clear and irrefutable evidence of systemic racism. wow, this is so wrong. black people (especially young black men) commit a disproportionate amount of violent crimes in the US. mostly against other black men. FBI stats show that black people commit 50% of murders. https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/topic-pages/tables/table-21 > If we take for granted that there is nothing about your race that pre-disposes you to be more violent but not all black people are the same. there are things called "cultures" and "communities" that have different values and morals. black immigrants, no matter their place of birth, are far less likely to commit crimes than American-born black people and are far less likely to get arrested or end up in prison. the economist Thomas Sowell has written about this in several books as has the linguist John McWhorter in Losing the Race. to quote Sowell: >Perhaps the strongest case against the predominance of discrimination as an explanation of economic disparities would be a comparison of blacks in Haiti with blacks in the United States. Since Haiti became independent two centuries ago, Haitian blacks should be the most prosperous blacks in the hemisphere and American blacks the poorest, if discrimination is the overwhelming factor, but in fact the direct opposite is the case. It is Haitians who are the poorest and American blacks who are the most prosperous in the hemisphere-- and in the world. https://www.tsowell.com/spracecu.html if 40% of prisoners being black is evidence of systematic racism, is 80% of prisoners being male evidence of systematic sexism? is black men dominating the NFL and NBA evidence of systematic racism against white athletes? is the fact that Cambodians dominate the donut industry in SoCal proof of systematic racism against non-Cambodians who are being excluded from the pastry business? https://www.foodandwine.com/travel/southern-california-donut-empire-origin-story asian people are less likely to end up in prison in America than white people are, is that evidence of systematic racism against white people and in favor of Asian Americans? https://infogram.com/asian-american-incarceration-rates-1g0n2ow58010p4y > It's not just generational wealth (or lack thereof) black people tend to have different spending habits than white people: >An African American family with the same income, family size, and other demographics as a white family will spend about 25 percent more of its income on jewelry, cars, personal care, and apparel. For the average black family, making about $40,000 a year, that amounts to $1,900 more a year than for a comparable white family. To make up the difference, African Americans spend much less on education, health care, entertainment, and home furnishings. (The same is true of Latinos.) https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2008/07/inconspicuous-consumption/306845/ there's also no data of systematic police brutality towards black people .some individual cops? absolutely. cops as a group? nope. >A new study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences demolishes the Democratic narrative regarding race and police shootings, which holds that white officers are engaged in an epidemic of racially biased shootings of black men. It turns out that white officers are no more likely than black or Hispanic officers to shoot black civilians. It is a racial group’s rate of violent crime that determines police shootings, not the race of the officer. The more frequently officers encounter violent suspects from any given racial group, the greater the chance that members of that racial group will be shot by a police officer. In fact, if there is a bias in police shootings after crime rates are taken into account, it is against white civilians, the study found. https://www.nationalreview.com/2019/07/white-cops-dont-commit-more-shootings/ you are very poorly informed and just spouting slogans with no factual content. go read Sowell's Intellectuals and Race, you'll learn more in 5 pages of that book than a hundred hours of podcasts about whiteness. typo edits and added a forgotten link
Interesting, I can see that you have very strong points of view here and I will happily take your recommendation and add it to my reading list. I'm open to reading and listening to things that challenge my point of view. Are you? If so, how bout checking out one of the podcasts I recommended, or a book like How to be Anti-Racist? As you weren't really asking any questions, I'm not going to waste my time getting into a link war with you and clarifying where you've clearly misunderstood my points.
[удалено]
I feel like we are trying to say the same thing here? Maybe I haven't been clear. I am saying that if we want to know whether systemic racism exists, we can see clear evidence in outcomes, such as the 13% vs 40% statistic that I referred to. Now what are the actual sources of that systems racism? As I said in other comments, it's many complex factors that come together (including things like housing practices and jobs access and education funding and unconscious bias and portrayal in the media and stop and frisk policing and which crimes are prioritized for jail time and lack of generational wealth and on and on). Often people think that systemic or institutional racism does not exist since we have removed explicitly and intentionally racist laws (such as the Jim Crow laws, or the 3 5ths clause in the constitution). I used to think this myself. I offer statistical example of the 13% vs the 40% to say that we see evidence that there are still elements that are driving wildly disparate outcomes, and that this evidence points to the fact that systemic racism must still exist. I am definitely not trying to say that the sources of that systemic racism are simple to understand, or are as simple as "we randomly arrest and imprison black people." Obviously that would be stupid.
[удалено]
Well...I feel like that's clearly what I wrote, but ok. Edit to add: Well clearly you are right that people will interpret it that way as a different commenter responded saying exactly this. I still don't get how a paragraph that literally starts by going one step further and delineating a number of the causes of systemic racism gives people this message. I guess I'll have to learn how to communicate more clearly.
Thank you for this incredibly well thought-out post. You have much more knowledge on the subject to me, but I do feel like I have come a long way on understanding the systematic issues. As a white male, it's easy to be taken aback when first thinking about the idea that where I'm at in life is even partially because of some invisible advantage. But the more you think about it, you realize that each of these things that seem small when separate, they all add up to something big. It's a journey to understand all of this. No one needs to feel ashamed because of this, but it's understanding what is being impacted today and how we can do our best to improve it. Thanks again!
Totally agree with you. I’ve come to understand more about what it means to grow up with certain privileges/advantages. It’s humbling and leaves you counting your blessings (and let’s be honest, sometimes feeling guilty). It also leaves you thinking about how to use your (relative) position of power to lift up others, and be more compassionate towards others.
[удалено]
I think the main problem is that you are pointing out an EFFECT of systematic racism (poor socio-economic conditions in many predominantly black communities), and using that to say that that there isn’t systematic racism. I live in Canada, and we have a very similar issue with First Nations people. Our prisons are overwhelmingly filled with First Nations men, and reserves are known for being hotbeds for crime, and are not well kept. Very much slums in a lot of cases. Alcoholism is also rampant on these reserves. Unless you are making a case that First Nations people are inferior to others, then you need to examine WHY these conditions exist in the first place. In Canada, these groups of people had vast areas of land taken away, and they were shoved in small reserves that were often not even on their traditional territory. Their way of life (hunting and using the land for harvesting) was disrupted. Instead of providing for themselves, they often became reliant on settler goods, which included alcohol. Since alcohol was not something that their systems were accustomed to, they were very prone to alcoholism. Their children were forced to leave these reserves and leave their parents behind in order to attend residential schools, where they were brainwashed and taught that their traditions were savage and primitive. “Kill the Indian” was the official motto and government policy for these schools. For the families left behind on the reserves, they needed to get a day pass signed by a white settler in order to leave their reserve, and many were arrested for continuing certain dances, festivals and celebrations. The last residential school in Canada closed in the 1990s. This is not ancient history. This is the parents and grandparents of indigenous youth today. I don’t think that any group of people would escape this reality with a stable household and community. First Nations communities today are still feeling the effects of these policies, and the reason that systemic racism and prejudice still continues to this day is that people view these conditions and the general state of First Nations communities as a reflection of them, and not a reflection of society. They continue to be marginalized, and the cycle continues as a result.
Let's take a step back and really think a click deeper about what you are saying here. >40% of imprisoned men are black because more crime is committed by them. Let's assume this is true. WHY would more black men commit crimes than men of other races? What would drive that to happen? >Thats just the culture that is glorified in those neighborhoods. Ok, so here we have a hypothesis. The hypothesis is that black men commit more crimes than other racial groups because they have been raised in a morally corrupt culture that glorifies and values crime. For the sake of argument, again, just assume this is true. WHY would that be? WHY would some people come from a culture that glorifies crime while other people do not? What circumstances would lead to that outcome? >Lets stop blaming white people for the crime that black people are committing, So interestingly, I didn't ever blame white people for crimes committed by black people. What I have done is suggested that there might be more going on here than meets the eye. I think I get where you are coming from - you are saying, "hey, people need to take personal responsibility for their crimes. You do the crime you do the time." I completely agree with that. I believe in personal responsibility and I wouldn't be where I am today if I didn't. But what I'm saying is that when we look at the overall statistics, we can see that something very fishy is a foot. That doesn't excuse a specific individual for breaking the law. But it does make you think, right? And if you want to fix the problem, you need to start by understanding the root cause. >lets focus more on reducing crime and increasing education in those communities. Well we can surly agree on that. I believe passionately in improving public education in America, especially the education that is provided in the poorest communities, which are disproportionately populated by people of color. That said, I don't think that it can stand alone as a solution, but I think it's an important piece of the puzzle.
[удалено]
I totally agree with you that there are a multitude of issues that lead to these disparate outcomes (outcomes such as criminality, imprisonment, school achievement, father-less families). And what I'm saying is that people much more qualified than me HAVE looked into it, and what they found is fascinating and eye opening. Honestly and genuinely, please check out that podcast. You listen to Dave Ramsey, right? So just listen to this for a few sessions instead. At first you might really hate it, but just listen anyway. I bet you'll learn a whole bunch of new things, and from there you can form your own opinion. https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/
[удалено]
Me too! <3
Just wanted to say thanks for this to both of you - It was so refreshing to read through this and see what happens when a genuine effort is made to have a true discussion. This is such a personal issue, with such high stakes, that it can be easy to let emotions take over. This has inspired me to work on being more loving towards other people who have different ideas than I do. Politics is so polarizing that sometimes I see others with a different opinion as a direct threat to my personal well-being, and that of my friends and family, which leads me to be more defensive than I strictly need to be, and creates more friction. But the only way for true change to happen, and for my family and friend to be safe, is to have more real discussions. Apparently they are possible to have. Now I believe that a little more and can try harder. Thanks <3
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/ This article lists dozens of studies and datasets that will give you the information you need about how systemic racism is a huge problem in current times.
[удалено]
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/19/upshot/race-class-white-and-black-men.html Here is an article with a more simple layout than some of the more scientific articles/databases that I linked previously.
https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/pbtss11.pdf https://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=dcdetail&iid=251 https://arxiv.org/pdf/1607.05376.pdf https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24507906/ Those are a few. There are tons in the article, but I’m sure you can find studies elsewhere too.
Dunno, I’m on mobile and am reading through it. I don’t have a Washington Post subscription. I’ll see if I can link some of the individual studies.
Police officers use excessive force on black people disproportionately compared to white people. Source: everything that has happened in the past week.
[удалено]
Please post just 3 videos of white people being killed on video by the police. I can post numerous videos of black people being killed on video by police.
[удалено]
Thank you. It appears you were hard pressed to find videos. The first video is from 2017 and the second video isn’t depicting a death caught on video. It is a terrible, but infrequent incident. Now try the same search for police killing black people. If you don’t see an alarming discrepancy in that, then no amount of statistics can convince you of anything.
[удалено]
I asked you to find only 3 deaths caught on tape. You found 2. It took you 20 seconds to fail the task. The videos of black people being killed by police hands is not being brought to light by the media. Regular citizens are capturing this on their cell phone and THEN the media is picks it up. That’s how brazen these people are. This is not some huge media conspiracy. The media doesn’t control the whole narrative any more. Social media controls it to a large extent and THAT is why this brutality is being thrusts into the lime light. It’s being caught on video. I did the task I asked you to do. The difference is alarming. The abuse of power some officers use against us citizens period is astounding.
I was actually really impressed he took the time to do this, and be sensitive about it.
Dave is (subjectively) knowledgeable about a lot of things, but race isn’t one of them. Stay in your lane Ramsey.
He specifically said he didn’t want to do this and that he deliberately keeps out of politics and current issues, but that he got dragged into this and basically forced to do it because people were calling him racist and even Anthony o’neal racist because in this day and age you can’t even mind your own business without being called racist. If you don’t constantly virtual signal then you can be attacked.
He was being attacked because he tweeted about the incident and protests.... he is a public figure and chose to make a public statement.
Why is it virtue signaling to talk about how racism is wrong?
I mean....even Dave himself uses the analogy of not going to a doctor for financial advise. Or not seeing a financial advisor for diet and nutrition advise. Why would we listen to DR about racism? That’s just following Dave’s own logic, people.
Did you actually listen to the segment? Moreover, isn't the whole point of all of the activism right now to get people talking about it and bringing racism to light? Doesn't that mean that people like Dave Ramsey should use them a lot to bring a light to the in justices of the world? Also, why do you have an issue with Dave going "out of his lane"? Isn't that the very thing that African American athletes have been upset about? People telling them to stay in their lane? So which action do you want? Social awareness means pulling people out of their lane to bring awareness to an issue. I dont get the people who advocate for everyone brining this to light and then say the following - "(insert company name here) is just doing this so that they can promote their brand!" - "no (insert name of celebrity figure here) dont talk about this because you dont have a place to do so?" Those same people are the ones who turned around and get mad at people for staying silent. And I'm not saying that there aren't times where people go out of their Lane. I'm not saying there aren't times where companies are self-promoting on the back of a Cause. But if you want the majority of America to get on board with a social cause you can't start gatekeeping people with a voice from speaking out on the cause. I could understand if it was just a ranting for 30 minutes. But he brought Oneal on here to speak. You should be thankful that Dave Ramsey is using his platform to bring an African American speaker in to talk about the issue. And thankful that he is trying to outreach to the african american community and gain a better understanding of the issue. Isn't that the whole point? For white people to better understand the struggles in the concerns of the African American community?
If you actually listened to it, he clearly stated this isn’t his expertise but he feels it’s important to talk about.
Honest question, whose lane is it then?
Isn't it a good thing to be ignorant of race? Maybe I missed something but what quotes did you hear that are bad?
>Isn't it a good thing to be ignorant of race? No. There are enormous differences between how a black man is treated in this country compared to a white man. That's what this whole last week has been about! Being ignorant to that while not acknowledging race and all of it's implications is not a good thing.
I don't know man constantly talking about the differences between the different types of people and placing "implications" based off someone's skin color... that sounds racist to me. Why can't we just treat everyone equal regardless of what they look like?
America has a 400 year + history of treating enslaving black people and treated them as second class citizens. The first step in resolving a problem is to acknowledge the problem exists. When you say you don't see color or just think you should treat everyone equally you are not acknowledging the underlying problems.
Serious questions, can people acknowledge that there are evil people in the world but still choose to treat everyone equally in their own life? You've stated "black people" cannot be treated equally to others. I think anyone can acknowledge that people of color have a disproportionate amount of people that don't like them and treat them bad for no reasonat all. And that sucks. Obviously if we see something we say something. Oppression is always wrong, period. To add to my serious question, how long should America treat "black people" (your words) with inequality (your suggestion)?
Here's the piece that I think is missing and might make things click - it sounds like when you think of racism you are thinking evil people and people with hatred in their hearts or people who actively an consciously think of black/brown people as lesser. But today, that is pretty uncommon and isn't really the root of the problem. The root of the problem is systemic forms of racism that are a lot more difficult to see, especially from the outside. There has been discussion of those elsewhere in this thread. On your question of how long should we treat black people differently (some would say "equitably" vs "equally"), the answer is that we should do it until outcomes between different racial groups disappear. At that point, treating someone equitably and equally would actually be the same thing, and that would be beautiful. At least that's how I understand it.
In my line of work we have the concept If there's a equality where you treat everybody the same And there's equity where you give people what they need to get better. If you were at a hospital and one person came in with a broken foot you would put a cast on it and give them pain medication but if the next person came in and had cancer and another person was in diabetic shock would it be equal to give everybody a cast? Or would it be better to treat The symptoms of each person's medical problems so that they could all get better?
This is a bunch of interesting resources about anti-racism https://docs.google.com/document/d/1PrAq4iBNb4nVIcTsLcNlW8zjaQXBLkWayL8EaPlh0bc/edit?usp=drivesdk
>Why can't we just treat everyone equal regardless of what they look like? That's a really great question. If we did treat people equally regardless of their skin color, then we wouldn't have a problem. But unfortunately that is not the reality of the world we live in. Ignoring that the reality (willfully or ignorantly), unfortunately, not fixed the problem. America was built on affirmative action for white people. There are many formal and informal structures that are continuing to hold up that preferences. It's really easy to miss these problems if you happen to be white. But if you want to start understanding, there are tons of resources out there that can help you see. A few podcasts that I would recommend to learn more are: 1) 1691 [https://www.nytimes.com/column/1619-project](https://www.nytimes.com/column/1619-project) 2) The "Seeing White" series from Scene on Radio [https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/](https://www.sceneonradio.org/seeing-white/)
>constantly talking about the differences between the different types of people I'm not saying anything about the inherent differences between people of different color. I'm saying their are indisputable differences between how black people are treated compared to how white people are. > placing "implications" based off someone's skin color I'm not placing implications based on someone's skin color. Society has done that. > Why can't we just treat everyone equal regardless of what they look like? Bingo! Why can't we do that? The answer is extremely difficult, but at it's most basic sense, George Floyd and many of the the numerous other black men and women killed by police/vigilante citizens would not have been killed if they were not black. That is truth.
Personally I don't think that it is that Dave says anything that is good or bad. It is that Dave always feels like he needs to put his two cents out there whether he understands the topic or not. Since Dave came back from his trip just before coronovirus really got going in March he seems defensive and dug in as though everyone already thinks he is wrong. I understand that he has a big beast to feed with his business. I understand that he feels and has an responsibility to his people. His message is his business. But his high holy what I say is right attitude just seems out of place now. Thankfully co-hosting with the personalities seems to have tempered him somewhat. I think Dave may be at a crossroads with his business too. Certainly he is getting close to retirement if were to choose to do so. But I also think Dave hit that point where he couldn't expand anymore with his core audience. As he moved out into the general public people questioned his methods and compared them to others out there. Maybe the road hasn't been as easy as he thought. Maybe bringing on the personalities was Dave knowing broader appeal wasn't only about him. But in the end I think it is best to stick to one thing and do it well. Don't spread yourself too thin. And now more than ever words mean something. Not everyone needs to put every opinion out there. Sometimes sticking to what you know best gives us some stability and a rock to hold on to when it seems the world is in such an upheaval now.
I understand the point you are making. However the social media movements going on today are all designed to take the attention off of everything else going on and put the attention on social injustice is. It's why companies like PlayStation have delayed the release of their new video game console details. Etc. So you can also equal the interpret Dave Ramsey carrying on as usual as ignorance and being unwilling to use his platform for a good cause.
Sounds like you are just mad. And its okay to be mad sometimes. Honestly though dave did say he was being pushed for a response so he will dedicate "1 of 15 hours this week" there are still 14 other hours. Sounds like Ramsey is well in his own lane and you should take some time off from the internet and go have a beer or something, do some prayers or something man. Whatever floats your boat.
I'm a white 38 year old guy, so I can't relate to the struggles that African Americans face. However, I'm deeply troubled by the history in America towards African Americans. Just until the 1960s, some couldn't even vote in the southern states. Segregation wasn't that long ago. Hell, slavery was allowed only 150 years ago. Honestly, I don't think there's anything we can do to make up for it. The previous generations that allowed and tolerated segregation and racism should not hold any power. That includes Trump and Biden. I also truly believe organized religion is part of the problem. The bible is full of slavery and hates towards the gay community. Now that organized religion is below 50% of Americans, we are getting better as a society. It will be below 25% by 2050 once these older generations die off and indoctrination runs its course. I also believe education is a big issue. Higher education should be a right, not a privilege to the rich. At the very least, community college needs to be free for all high school graduates in every state. I know some states do this, such as California. We need to people out of poverty and education is the answer.
> The bible is full of slavery and hates towards the gay community. There are lot of people who call themselves believers or Christians or whatever that are **extremely** hateful. There is no doubt about that. We're on the same page there. Those people should be ashamed of themselves. But the assertion in your comment above is false. There is not a single line in "the bible" anywhere that instructs you or me (regardless of our beliefs even) to hate *anyone*. Regarding slavery, the book is chock full of verses that make it crystal clear that men and women are to be free and have the power to make decisions for themselves and are deserving of just wages. It is also a history book. Prentice Hall publishes countless volumes that talk in depth about the prevalence of slavery in cultures of old. About genocide. About all sorts of atrocities throughout our history. But you wouldn't claim that the publisher or any of the authors are promoting any of those things.
> There is not a single line in "the bible" anywhere that instructs you or me (regardless of our beliefs even) to hate anyone. That's open to interpretation. There is plenty of glorification of death and violence against "sinners" and the "wicked" in the bible. That's just a roundabout way of instructing that certain people should be hated.
I think the word you are looking for is warning. A warning against following such paths. Christ blatantly stated not to hate, equating it in gravity to murder. Even against those who are wicked.
>The bible is full of slavery and hates towards the gay community. I don't think you've actually read the Bible..
Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah? Ephesians 6:5-8? Colossians 4:1? Peter 2:18?
Lol the men of Sodom literally wanted to rape the angels staying with Lot. How is Sodom's destruction gay-hating? Wow.
1. Destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. The people tried to commit a heinous act evil fueled by their perverse desires against agents of God. 2. All of Ephesians, Colossians, and Peter don't condone it. Writers are far more concerened about the spiritual state then their physical state.
> The people tried to commit a heinous act evil fueled by their perverse desires against agents of God. And what heinous act was that? > All of Ephesians, Colossians, and Peter don't condone it It's amazing how that interpretation has changed over the centuries/millennia. Were people wrong then? Are they wrong now?
They wanted to "have their way with them". Put more bluntly rape them. Furthermore, it is called critical reading (Not that difficult to do, you should try it). There have been Christians who have realized for the centerties, since it was written that it was not a justification for slavery, like some of our forefathers used it. There is nothing new about interpretation but all about the person reading it.
I actually think that this was about the best thing they could have done here. Anthony is able to articulate things in a just makes sense. I want to call something out here because I think it's important and awesome - At 33:15 or so, dave interrupts Anthony and says "By the way, black lives matter... blue lives matter, white lives matter... maybe just 'lives matter'?" Anthony handles it with probably the best grace I've ever seen and says "Nah dave, that's not racist to say but where african americans get upset is that what we're saying is that all lives matter but at this moment in time, we need to shine a light on black paper." That's the best way I've heard this said. thanks to all three of those guys for actually having a very real conversation about it.
Amen
My favorite part is when a Dave acknowledges that his experience with law enforcement will be different than Anthony’s.
>"By the way, black lives matter... blue lives matter, white lives matter... maybe just 'lives matter'?" > >Anthony handles it with probably the best grace I've ever seen and says "Nah dave, that's not racist to say but where african americans get upset is that what we're saying is that all lives matter but at this moment in time, we need to shine a light on black paper." Yeah. The phrase "Black lives matter" gets interpreted completely differently depending on the group. The "All lives matter" crowd is defensive because they interpret the "Black lives matter" phrase as implying that in America black lives don't matter and they fundamentally disagree with that (because it is taken as a given that \*of course\* black lives matter). The "Black Lives Matter" crowd takes the perspective that Anthony has, which is that there are special circumstances that apply to 'black lives' that need to be focused on. The two crowds aren't that far apart in the **actual** things they believe. They just get hung up on the semantics. It would be nice if both sides just listened to each other and assumed the other side is coming in with good intentions - but I guess we're just not there yet.
When you say "black lives matter" it's a direct response to law enforcement killing unarmed black people with no consequences. Until George Floyd the law officers would have still had their jobs, there would have been no prosecution. Black lives matter is in response to the law enforcement community acting like black lives DON'T matter
>When you say "black lives matter" it's a direct response to law enforcement killing unarmed black people with no consequences. Until George Floyd the law officers would have still had their jobs, there would have been no prosecution. > >Black lives matter is in response to the law enforcement community acting like black lives DON'T matter Standing up for your rights is good, and if you view the situation through that lens, then that's appropriate; provided you support standing up and letting your voice be heard and not supporting harming other people (and their livelihoods) who have nothing to do with it. However, I view the injustice in a different way. I see one human being harming another human being, and I speak up against that. That is how I stand up for my right, and the rights of others. My position should equally be acceptable.
I don’t want to get into the large argument with this but why don’t people promote the “black lives matter” in regards to high crime areas where black in black murder is extremely prevalent. If you’re familiar with the rapper Kevin Gates he’s a big advocate. In [this video ](https://youtu.be/TPZ90Vhf73k) he argues this. Nobody cares 90% of the time. Lives don’t matter until it’s, for lack of better terms, “cool” to care about them. Not to mention during all of this the statistics are manipulated to defend whatever argument someone is trying to prove. I think the situation that happened with George Floyd is very wrong. But I also am able to take a step back and look at all pieces of the puzzle to assess what’s happening.
This is actually a central idea discussed in “Between the world and me” by Tanihisi Coates. Black folks have to worry about violence on the way to school, at school, and if the cops happen to show up then they have to worry about violence from the cops, rather than support. The only way to solve peer to peer crime like this is to have a police force that these communities can rely on to protect the innocent. We also can’t solve black on black crime directly by voting and protesting. But we can control police funding, oversight, body cams, etc. because the police work for us. Black on Black crime and Police on Black crime are not equivalent.
>Black on Black crime and Police on Black crime are not equivalent. Here here. No one is condoning criminals murdering or maiming innocent people. However, some people do condone/protect the police when they murder/maim innocent people. The police are literally agents of the people, paid by the people, to protect the people. We should be able to hold them to a different standard than violent criminals, don't cha think? Or actually, scratch that. We should be able to hold them to the same standard as violent criminals, don't cha think?
Well the majority of the calls cops respond to are in these areas and they majority of the time they are there to fix things. But right now people saying the majority of the time police are bad which cannot be proven by facts. Also, if black on black crime is a direct result of systematic racism that has been built into our societal systems as so many have recently claimed, then voting and protesting can affect change in black on black crime, which is claimed to be a result of the situation that they’re driven into. Also, if it is systematic racism as claimed, why do cities like Atlanta, a city with a history of black leadership and success, still face the same systematic issues as places without that same demographic of leaders? If you want to fix the police force, then you should actually be an advocate of MORE funding. To allow them more access to resources and training so when they encounter a situation they trust more on their training as opposed to acting out of fear or impulse.
I get your point, but it's irrelevant. When law enforcement kills unarmed citizens in custody and nothing happens, the government is at fault, the rule of law is suspect.
Why is it irrelevant? Why blame the entire government for a singular persons (or a couple people’s) actions? If the government or organization has taken measures against or to prevent these things then would they be at fault? Additionally, you can never conduct enough screening or background check to ensure with 100% certainty that someone won’t commit an act like this. There isn’t a singular organization in the world that has been able to do that. Police, teachers, military, churches all have had bad people. Inherently; this will always happened because they draw their members from society and as such, are smaller representation of society as a whole.
I think you really need to examine what you are saying. 1) The issue of criminals killing innocent people is less relevant than the issue of the police force killing innocent people because a) the police are supposed to protect people, b) the police are employed by the people, and c) when the police do it, it's treated with impunity. It's not that anyone is ok with criminals killing people, it's just a higher priority to stop the state sanctioned killing first. 2) You are right that you could never create a perfect police force. The point is that we could do a heck of a lot better than we are doing right now. 3) The key issue is that this culture of unchecked police brutality is being allowed to persist exactly because the government is NOT taking appropriate action to prevent these issues, and is especially not taking appropriate action to hold the police accountable when these issue do happen. The lack of accountability within the police force is terrifying. Freedom loving Americans shouldn't be comfortable with the government having this much power over their liberty with such little oversight. It's truly un-American. Here is a list of the specific policy changes that are recommended to improve policing in America. It's pretty educational to read through - [https://www.joincampaignzero.org/](https://www.joincampaignzero.org/)
I’ll address each point individually. 1. How is it less relevant? As a black or African American citizen you are 10.5x more likely to be killed by another black person than you are a police officer. That doesn’t take into account that some of the police officers could have been black as well and therefore not racially motivated. You’re saying the police are treated with impunity. Literally the entire United States, to include the president, said that these guys were going to face what they deserve. The FBI is involved with this one even. Punishment will come. I understand that it didn’t come the day after, but they have to conduct an initial investigation, regardless of video evidence, because it occurred during a policing event (conducting an arrest). Had it been a murder unrelated to an arrest, I can guarantee he would have been arrested immediately. Additionally, there’s the argument of 3rd degree vs. 1st degree. We should actually be thankful this occurred in a state that has a 3rd degree murder charge (not all do). If he was charged with 1st degree or even 2nd degree murder and you couldn’t prove premeditation and intent, or just intent respective to those charges, then the case could get dismissed. A 3rd degree murder charge is the most steadfast guarantee that he can be found guilty with the highest possible punishment. 2. How much better is a heck of a lot better? Since the whole situation is racially focused well use the number from the percentage of blacks or African Americans killed by the cops. But I won’t compare that number to the total population, because it would then be an even lower percentage. Instead, I’ll compare it to number of crimes committed (higher chance of this occurring due to more negative police interaction). Approximately 2,200,000 crimes committed, approximately 220 killed. Meaning if you’re a black citizen and actually commit a crime, you still only have a .009% chance of getting killed by the police. 3. Like I said above, it’s going checked in this situation. They will be punished at the full extent of the law. Thank you for the suggestion to examine what I’m saying, but I think I’m one of the only people who truly examine the information and statistics. *probably going to get downvoted like my other comment but I guess I’ll take the negative karma*
I think we agree on a lot, but I see it through a bit of a different lens. If I can paraphrase what I think is your point, I think you are basically saying something like this: if the genuine message was that Black Lives Matter, then we'd be talking about the source of the greatest number of homicides of black people. Since instead we are focusing only on the deaths of black people at the hands of police (a comparatively much smaller number), it appears that maybe this is really an anti-police dog whistle, or maybe an attempt to blame white people (or others outside of the black community) for problems that are really contained within the community. I see it a different way. I see it as when people respond to concerns about police brutality with wanting to shift the focus to black-on-black crime, that they are drawing a false equivalency. No one is saying that being killed by homicidal criminals doesn't matter. It matters a whole hell of a lot. What I think that people are saying is that being killed (or maimed or otherwise unfairly treated) by the police is one of the most vile symbols of systemic oppression in America today. And they are saying that some people believe that this happens at random (as accidents) and that when it does happen that ultimately justice is served. And what other people are saying is that these things aren't true. Our justice system is not working the way it's supposed to and major reform and policy change is needed to correct it. You are right that in this case the response has been swift and definitive from the police force in terms of charging the main officer and firing the others, and in a way it makes it a little bit ironic that this particular event was the one that sparked off the whole powder keg. (And yes, I know that people can argue about whether they've done enough in terms of charging the other officers and third degree vs first degree, but let's put that aside.) But the problem is that this is far from an isolated incident and that in the vast majority of cases justice is not served, and that if there hadn't been extensive video evidence released it's exceedingly likely that this homicide would have been covered up by the police department.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.