|
Anosmoman posted:Do the jury the jury selection and interviews through a computer with the jurors sitting in a separate room. Gender, race, religion, appearance etc- none of it should matter. Would be cool if the jury never got to know the gender and race of the defendant either but small steps. A cool idea, but the prosecution would probably still figure out a way to game the system and profile the jurors based on the details and answers given. Or it might just turn into systematically striking off poor jurors which I guess would be a slight improvement.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 23:01 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:31 |
|
Jarmak posted:Apparently you didn't because that part was talking specifically about the 1987 case One court case is still more informative than your unsupported speculation, unless you think the 1987 case was some crazy outlier. If prosecutors were striking black jurors for the reason you propose, they'd give that reason when faced with a Batson challenge. But they don't.
|
# ? Nov 5, 2015 23:51 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:One court case is still more informative than your unsupported speculation, unless you think the 1987 case was some crazy outlier. If prosecutors were striking black jurors for the reason you propose, they'd give that reason when faced with a Batson challenge. But they don't. And you know this based on the fact a single prosecutor in a single court case that happened almost 30 years ago in the deep south didn't?
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 01:04 |
|
Antti posted:A cool idea, but the prosecution would probably still figure out a way to game the system and profile the jurors based on the details and answers given. Wouldn't either of those require asking at least a noticeable number of obviously irrelevant questions? And is it really that common for bigoted shitheads to have the necessary cultural knowledge to accurately strike the intended people?
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 04:21 |
|
Jarmak posted:Apparently you didn't because that part was talking specifically about the 1987 case quote:"Numerous studies demonstrate that prosecutors use peremptory strikes to remove black jurors at significantly higher rates than white jurors."
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 08:42 |
|
It seems like one of two things are going on 1. Prosecutors are deliberately axing black jurors because of racism on thier part in a broken jury selection process. 2. Prosecutors have good reasons to ax black jurors because black jurors are more likely to have a criminal record, or know the defendant, or be poorly educated, or any of several other reasons. These realities are the result of racism in the rest of society, not a broken juror selection process or racist prosecutors. It seems similar to the problem of racial profiling. Even if a police department did not contain a single racist, the racist effects of our society means that blacks commit more crime, so racial profiling becomes a valuable strategy.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 14:12 |
|
Jarmak posted:That racially disparate outcomes in jury selection are second order effects from racial disparity in other aspects of the system/society. That the selection process itself is not broken as some posters have declared, and loving with it is going to cause more harm then good. If the process allows for racial disparity to manifest, it is broken, regardless of where that disparity stems from.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 14:16 |
|
WorldsStrongestNerd posted:It seems like one of two things are going on The problem with #2 is that prosecutors are allowed to ask jury members questions, and if they face a Barton challenge then they have to tell the judge the non-racist reason that they struck the juror, even if it was a peremptory strike. If they think the juror is poorly educated or has a criminal record, which they have the ability to find out without resorting to blind profiling, they'd just give that reason. That's what makes it so egregious - if they really had a non-racist reason to strike the jurors, they'd just give that reason. The fact that they often give vague reasons, or don't strike white jurors for the same reason they gave for striking black jurors, suggests racism. Another reason #2 doesn't hold up is that racial profiling to filter for things like education level or criminal record is unnecessary because they can directly ask about those things. They don't need to guess at education level based on skin color, they can ask a juror what their education level is. That's how they manage to filter out highly educated jurors without spending all their strikes purging the jury of white people because they're statistically more likely to be well educated.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 15:14 |
|
Except we were talking about the part of the article that talks about the reasons the prosecutor gives, what does the section you quoted have to do with that at all? Have you read the thread? Cause you don't seem to even understand what Painframe and I are arguing about. Main Paineframe posted:The problem with #2 is that prosecutors are allowed to ask jury members questions, and if they face a Barton challenge then they have to tell the judge the non-racist reason that they struck the juror, even if it was a peremptory strike. If they think the juror is poorly educated or has a criminal record, which they have the ability to find out without resorting to blind profiling, they'd just give that reason. That's what makes it so egregious - if they really had a non-racist reason to strike the jurors, they'd just give that reason. The fact that they often give vague reasons, or don't strike white jurors for the same reason they gave for striking black jurors, suggests racism. You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down? Useful Distraction posted:If the process allows for racial disparity to manifest, it is broken, regardless of where that disparity stems from. This is an absolutely ridiculous, contemptible statement. Yes let's gently caress with a core constitutional right without understanding the problem in depth, I'm angry, lazy, and critical thinking is too hard.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 16:31 |
|
How many black people do you keep off juries Jarmak? On average? (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 16:53 |
|
Useful Distraction posted:If the process allows for racial disparity to manifest, it is broken, regardless of where that disparity stems from.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 17:19 |
|
Jarmak posted:You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down? I'm sorry, but I believe that prosecutors who assure themselves they're being realistic by focusing racially, that they're just professionals trying to win their case, are still absolutely racist. Just because they don't gain any personal satisfaction from acting so doesn't make their actions right.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 17:27 |
|
tentative8e8op posted:"Blacks from low income areas are less likely to convict, and as a result you don't want those people on your jury." Well yes, that's the position I'm arguing? The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I'm going into the why black jurors from low income areas are less likely to convict. Main Paineframe is trying to rebut this for some reason.
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 17:34 |
|
Jarmak posted:Except we were talking about the part of the article that talks about the reasons the prosecutor gives, what does the section you quoted have to do with that at all? Have you read the thread? Cause you don't seem to even understand what Painframe and I are arguing about. No, I understand perfectly well that you're trying to argue that blacks are struck from Juries at disproportionately high rates because they are also more likely to fall into the other kinds of categories that prosecutor's like to eliminate. The problem is that you're providing no evidence while seriously misrepresenting what the article posted in the op actually says. For instance you claim that the article only deals with a case from the 1980s when in fact the article mentions various other studies that find a continued and systematic bias. You also claim that there's universal support for the current system of striking jurors amongst both defense attornies and prosecutors - a claim that is, again, contradicted by the article posted in the op, where we find attorneys and judges criticizing the system and its outcomes. You also keep trying to downplay the presence of racism in the system by pretending that racism only happens in the deep south or that race relations in the late 80s have absolutely no bearing on contemporary race relations. These arguments are not convincing and you don't provide any evidence for them at all. quote:You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down? Quite the opposite I think prosecutors are aware that black jurors are less likely to give convictions than white jurors and therefor find spurious reasons to remove black jurors. The reason is not merely because blacks have higher rates of criminality but also because they are much more familiar with the systemic injustices of the contemporary American legal system. The fact they are excluded at higher rates totally demolishes the foundational justifications for jury selection and makes a mockery of what are supposed to be the systems most basic principles of fairness and democracy. In that video from the op, for instance, the prosecutor explicitly advises that you should select for the dumbest jurors possible. There's absolutely zero reason to think that this piece of advice is out dated: in fact there's a great deal of circumstantial evidence to suggest that this is an entirely logical approach for prosecutors to take. So if you really want to defend a system where legal authorities intentionally look for the dumbest (and, one has to think, probably the most racist) jurors possible so as to maintain high conviction rates then go ahead, but maybe put a bit more effort into your arguments than just repeatedly saying "no no your wrong". Anyway your claims about why black jurors get selected, as well as your claims that any problems are confided to the 20th century deep south, seem pretty implausible in light of articles such as the following: Judicial Toleration of Racial Bias in the Minnesota Justice System, 25 Hamline Law Review 235-270, 263-264 (Winter, 2002) posted:William E. Martin and Peter N. Thompson
|
# ? Nov 6, 2015 21:53 |
|
Helsing posted:No, I understand perfectly well that you're trying to argue that blacks are struck from Juries at disproportionately high rates because they are also more likely to fall into the other kinds of categories that prosecutor's like to eliminate. Jesus Christ I'm not misrepresenting anything, I was responding specifically to Painframe's allegation that prosecutors never use any excuses other then bullshit like "he looked nervous" , of which he was concluding solely from that single case. The rest of your post is split between restating my own argument with a slightly different nuance, coming up with additional reasons that would clearly be covered by my statement that I wasn't providing an exhaustive list, and somehow being unable to read the original article that clearly states there is universal support for the peremptory strike system so its unlikely to change. Oh and a really loving bizarre flip out rant about the adversarial system. No, prosecutors trying to win is exactly how the system is supposed to function.
|
# ? Nov 7, 2015 02:02 |
|
Jarmak posted:Jesus Christ I'm not misrepresenting anything, I was responding specifically to Painframe's allegation that prosecutors never use any excuses other then bullshit like "he looked nervous" , of which he was concluding solely from that single case. Do you think it is possible that any prosecutor anywhere, aside from a single case in 1987 , has used peremptory strikes, intentionally or not, for racist reasons?
|
# ? Nov 7, 2015 02:26 |
|
Jarmak posted:Jesus Christ I'm not misrepresenting anything, I was responding specifically to Painframe's allegation that prosecutors never use any excuses other then bullshit like "he looked nervous" , of which he was concluding solely from that single case. Unless you're completely autistic then I think you must be aware of how your comments in this thread come off as massively dismissive and eager to blame any problems on the past, or on very selective geographic parts of the country, or on a few bad apples. quote:The rest of your post is split between restating my own argument with a slightly different nuance, coming up with additional reasons that would clearly be covered by my statement that I wasn't providing an exhaustive list, and somehow being unable to read the original article that clearly states there is universal support for the peremptory strike system so its unlikely to change. "Most trial lawyers" is in no way synonymous with "universal support". quote:Oh and a really loving bizarre flip out rant about the adversarial system. No, prosecutors trying to win is exactly how the system is supposed to function. Yes, it is truly bizarre to think that a system that explicitly selects for the dumbest and least educated jurors and which displays a clear, persistent and systematically racist bias is bad. Don't worry, nobody is suggesting that the entire adversarial court system should be scrapped altogether but it's remarkable how quick you are to defend a set of institutional arrangements with such manifestly dysfunctional, racist system. The way in which most American jurisdictions deal with criminal issues is broken and it's pretty hard to read your constant nit picking and misleading presentations of what the original article says as anything other than an attempt to imply that the system is basically working as intended with only minor flaws.
|
# ? Nov 8, 2015 21:59 |
|
Jarmak posted:You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down? You obviously know this isn't how racism works, so what's the point of even saying it. Someone doesn't have to be cackling and twirling a mustache about successfully keeping the black man down another day to be a racist or to discriminate or to let racial prejudice affect how they do their job, you know that right?
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 08:26 |
|
VitalSigns posted:You obviously know this isn't how racism works, so what's the point of even saying it. Someone doesn't have to be cackling and twirling a mustache about successfully keeping the black man down another day to be a racist or to discriminate or to let racial prejudice affect how they do their job, you know that right? Yes I do, which is why I'm saying it, because it being a deeper systemic issue is what I keep saying and I was trying to mock the person who keeps trying to rebut that. But this thread has turned into people trying very very hard to twist what I'm saying into "there's not racism" so they have a villain to yell at instead of engaging what I'm actually saying, which is that this is a symptom of a deeper systemic racial disparity.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 13:20 |
|
The first five or six posts you made in this thread were dismissive statements like "this case is from 1987", along with implications that the problem was geographically confined to the South, etc. There's no need to re-litigate those arguments but you should be able to understand why people think you're downplaying the issue. Practically speaking, if you think the current system for striking jurors is simply irreplaceable, then what practical alternatives are there to deal with the disproportionate and racially motivated exclusion of black jurors?
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 19:31 |
|
The fundamental problem with addressing racism in society is that, while it's entirely possible to prove that widespread racism exists, it's often (if not usually) impossible to prove it on an individual basis. So you end up with a situation where, even if you know that, statistically, a person's actions were likely motivated by racism, you can't really prove it or justify them being legally punished. The key assumption of posters like Jarmak is that loosening the burden of proof in cases suspected to involve racism (and the more frequent wrongful convictions of racism/discrimination-related crimes that would result) is more harmful than the results of the racism itself. While I think it's possible that this may be true and is definitely an argument worth considering, I believe it is definitely wrong to just assume that it must be the case. People like this seem to ignore the fact that the status quo is causing substantial harm and use "but this solution would also cause harm" as an argument against it, when that's completely irrelevant if the harm caused by the solution would be less than the harm caused by the status quo. My personal feeling is that it is doubtful the harm caused by loosening the burden of proof in potential instances of racism/discrimination is greater than the harm of the racism/discrimination itself. I also have a really difficult time thinking of a situation where someone is accused of racism/discrimination and is not actually guilty of it to some degree, so I doubt that wrongful convictions would be that common even if you did loosen the burden to some extent. Helsing posted:Don't worry, nobody is suggesting that the entire adversarial court system should be scrapped altogether but it's remarkable how quick you are to defend a set of institutional arrangements with such manifestly dysfunctional, racist system. The way in which most American jurisdictions deal with criminal issues is broken and it's pretty hard to read your constant nit picking and misleading presentations of what the original article says as anything other than an attempt to imply that the system is basically working as intended with only minor flaws. I don't think that the issue is so much that Jarmak wants to maintain the status quo (though he clearly doesn't consider changing it to be a high priority). I think that he just has this image in his head of a dumb/naive leftist and cannot bring himself to appear to agree with one (or someone he perceives to be one). I think this actually applies to many of the people who do nothing but attack and nitpick the arguments people make on various social justice-related issues like this. They're not so dumb that they actually believe the racism/discrimination in situations like this to be actually good or justified, but they also don't want to be associated with the people who are more actively against it.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 20:02 |
|
Proving racism isn't any more difficult than proving any other form of intent or motivation that the courts routinely deal with. The only problem complicating the issue of racial discrimination in the carceral system is that the stewards of that system don't want to actually fix it.
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 20:44 |
|
Woozy posted:Proving racism isn't any more difficult than proving any other form of intent or motivation that the courts routinely deal with. The only problem complicating the issue of racial discrimination in the carceral system is that the stewards of that system don't want to actually fix it. Proving intent or motivation is almost impossible though, which is why a standard such as avoiding the appearance of impropriety is necessary (and as an added bonus it's also a face-saving measure).
|
# ? Nov 9, 2015 20:48 |
|
Jarmak posted:You've still yet to establish this fact pattern whatsoever. What's your alternative? You think prosecutors are intentionally hurting their cases by wasting their challenges on the personal satisfaction of keeping the black man down? Why not? Plenty of business owners have intentionally hurt their business by refusing to serve black customers, at least back when it was legal to do so. Besides, considering the likelihood of the accused being a minority, ensuring a jury as close to all-white as possible is unlikely to hurt the prosecution. Besides, there are real, known examples backing up my fact pattern. You've offered nothing but conjecture for yours. Jarmak posted:Well yes, that's the position I'm arguing? The only difference between what you're saying and what I'm saying is that I'm going into the why black jurors from low income areas are less likely to convict. A prosecutor assuming that a juror will be less likely to convict based solely on the color of their skin is almost as racist as a police officer assuming that a hoodie-wearing youth is more likely to be aggressive or criminal based on the color of their skin, and imposing adverse consequences based solely on those racial assumptions without attempting to individually confirm or investigate them is absolutely objectionable. Judging people based exclusively on racial profiling is still racist even if it might statistically be effective. It might be true that black jurors tend to be more likely, statistically, to fall into groups that prosecutors are unlikely to want in a jury. But if a prosecutor goes ahead and strikes black people based entirely on that statistical likelihood, when there was in fact an option to determine it individually, then it's absolutely racist.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 00:38 |
|
Useful Distraction posted:If the process allows for racial disparity to manifest, it is broken, regardless of where that disparity stems from. Similarly, the problem of prosecutors being motivated to use their peremptory strikes to eliminate black jurors for being less likely to convict isn't best solved by eliminating peremptory strikes, it's best solved by addressing the underlying issues of distrust and racism that make black Americans have such a different experience of the justice system in the first place. Woozy posted:Proving racism isn't any more difficult than proving any other form of intent or motivation that the courts routinely deal with. The only problem complicating the issue of racial discrimination in the carceral system is that the stewards of that system don't want to actually fix it. Ytlaya posted:I don't think that the issue is so much that Jarmak wants to maintain the status quo (though he clearly doesn't consider changing it to be a high priority). I think that he just has this image in his head of a dumb/naive leftist and cannot bring himself to appear to agree with one (or someone he perceives to be one). I think this actually applies to many of the people who do nothing but attack and nitpick the arguments people make on various social justice-related issues like this. They're not so dumb that they actually believe the racism/discrimination in situations like this to be actually good or justified, but they also don't want to be associated with the people who are more actively against it.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 09:01 |
|
Is there a way for me to blend "Jarmak is right and probably the most sensible person in this thread" with "it's extremely lovely that this is so obviously a thing" cause that's kind of where I am atm
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 09:23 |
|
Dead Reckoning posted:This is hella dumb. Standardized academic testing routinely has racially disparate outcomes. This is not because the college board or academia as a whole are secretly sneering racists, it's because the systemic issues of race in America mean that students of color are less likely to go to high quality schools or have access to specialized test prep materials than whites. The problem is not that asking people which word is most like the other or having them solve algebra problems is somehow racist, and the solution is not to abolish the concept of academic testing; it's to solve the underlying issues that disadvantage minority students in the first place. There's plenty of direct institutional racism in the school system itself, including in standardized tests themselves. It's not all just economic class-based effects from things like going to worse schools or not being able to afford high-powered tutors - there is a distinct racial factor as well. In fact, the race-disparate design of standardized tests has been one of the most publicized aspects of that. Courts deal with motivation all the time, it's a critical factor in determining many crimes. For example, one critical aspect of any drug case is what you intended to do with them, as it determines whether you're getting charged with possession or possession with intent to distribute.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 15:08 |
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Is there a way for me to blend "Jarmak is right and probably the most sensible person in this thread" with "it's extremely lovely that this is so obviously a thing" cause that's kind of where I am atm Yeah, it's easy. All you have to do is actually say why you think Jarmak is right, then defend it when people say why they think you're wrong.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 16:13 |
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Is there a way for me to blend "Jarmak is right and probably the most sensible person in this thread" with "it's extremely lovely that this is so obviously a thing" cause that's kind of where I am atm Jarmak posted:That the selection process itself is not broken as some posters have declared, and loving with it is going to cause more harm then good. Of course Mainframe is on point for all of slowbus Race Realist: Main Paineframe posted:A prosecutor assuming that a juror will be less likely to convict based solely on the color of their skin is almost as racist as a police officer assuming that a hoodie-wearing youth is more likely to be aggressive or criminal based on the color of their skin, and imposing adverse consequences based solely on those racial assumptions without attempting to individually confirm or investigate them is absolutely objectionable. Judging people based exclusively on racial profiling is still racist even if it might statistically be effective. The real answer is that barring Jarmak from the job over that extra criteria that I don't apply to other races would be a lovely thing to do. But Jarmak would think that I should find out why white people are rape kiddy fiddlers before I stop applying my obtuse extra metric for white people. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:10 |
|
Jarmak posted:Oh yes I'm quite sure that if you cherry pick the worst of the south it's completely hosed to this day So the issue of juror racial discrimination is only a problem when applied to the South, where the majority of black americans live? great thanks 4 the valuable insight
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:25 |
|
Why would you ever have a black defendant be tried correctly
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:26 |
|
Jarmak posted:Oh yes I'm quite sure that if you cherry pick the worst of the south it's completely hosed to this day Look at or talk about in any way="cherry pick"
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:47 |
|
Aesop Poprock posted:Is there a way for me to blend "Jarmak is right and probably the most sensible person in this thread" with "it's extremely lovely that this is so obviously a thing" cause that's kind of where I am atm Jarmak is right that it is a symptom, not the disease. He is wrong that you can not/should not take steps to mitigate symptoms while also looking to address the underlying disease.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 17:54 |
|
Helsing posted:The first five or six posts you made in this thread were dismissive statements like "this case is from 1987", along with implications that the problem was geographically confined to the South, etc. There's no need to re-litigate those arguments but you should be able to understand why people think you're downplaying the issue. I was being dismissive of the over the top hyperbole of the OP and the people who thought the really horrible examples of this like the training video and the jurors marked with "B"s were contemporary events. Main Paineframe posted:A prosecutor assuming that a juror will be less likely to convict based solely on the color of their skin is almost as racist as a police officer assuming that a hoodie-wearing youth is more likely to be aggressive or criminal based on the color of their skin, and imposing adverse consequences based solely on those racial assumptions without attempting to individually confirm or investigate them is absolutely objectionable. Judging people based exclusively on racial profiling is still racist even if it might statistically be effective. This is how jury selection is done for everyone though, much of it is gut decisions based on intuition and demographics, by both the defense and the prosecutor, there simply isn't a lot of information to make the decisions on and extremely biased people will absolutely either lie or honestly believe they're not biased during questioning. The process isn't so much about finding the most "capable" pool so much as its about trying to make sure a "bad" juror doesn't get through who will poison the entire process. We're arguing past each other right now because I'm talking about racist in motivation and intent, and you're talking about racist in effect. This is part of the reason there's no good way to fix this issue without causing more harm then good, its far too nebulous. Main Paineframe posted:Courts deal with motivation all the time, it's a critical factor in determining many crimes. For example, one critical aspect of any drug case is what you intended to do with them, as it determines whether you're getting charged with possession or possession with intent to distribute. You're conflating motivation with intent tezcat posted:Long story short Jarmak thinks loving with the laws about this is bad for "his side" because he wants to be able to to say "i didn't hire this guy because statistically hes too black" and not get in trouble for it. I'm sure he'd scream bloody blue murder if he was barred from a job because statistically white men are more likely to be pedophiles or rapist than people of color and I ask him "do you like kids or women?" If he says yes (opps he likes them to much, get rid of him), no (he's a kid & woman hater who wants to harm them, get rid of him). What the gently caress does this have to do with employment?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 18:05 |
|
Main Paineframe posted:There's plenty of direct institutional racism in the school system itself, including in standardized tests themselves. It's not all just economic class-based effects from things like going to worse schools or not being able to afford high-powered tutors - there is a distinct racial factor as well. In fact, the race-disparate design of standardized tests has been one of the most publicized aspects of that. IANAL, but possession with intent to distribute is usually assumed based on having drugs in greater amounts than are suitable for personal use. The prosecutor doesn't have to reach into the defendant's mind and show he was planning to sell drugs, just that he was in possession of wholesale quantities. This is actually similar to how Batson challenges work: if a prosecutor disproportionately eliminates black jurors, it is assumed it was for racial reasons unless the prosecutor can provide a non-racial justification for the strikes. In the case before the Supreme Court now, even the non-racial justifications are being scrutinized, because the prosecutor communicated his intent to strike jurors on the basis of race, much like how a defendant's communications with customers might be used to counter his defense that he truly did intend to smoke all that weed himself.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 18:12 |
|
Jarmak posted:What the gently caress does this have to do with employment?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 19:34 |
|
archangelwar posted:Jarmak is right that it is a symptom, not the disease. He is wrong that you can not/should not take steps to mitigate symptoms while also looking to address the underlying disease. What steps do you think can/should be taken?
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 19:47 |
|
tezcat posted:I mean I get why a white guy wants to keep the status quo but it makes your position and statements in the thread no less pathetic. I'm a rural lily-white guy and I have no goddamn idea why people want to keep the status quo. I've got friends and family that suffer from this bullshit, but even if I didn't, fixing it would still be the right thing to do.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:12 |
|
Jarmak posted:I was being dismissive of the over the top hyperbole of the OP and the people who thought the really horrible examples of this like the training video and the jurors marked with "B"s were contemporary events. Helsing posted:
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:28 |
|
|
# ? May 15, 2024 03:31 |
|
I already said I didn't think one exists edit: unless you're asking me how I plan on fixing the holistic social and economic racial disparity in the US, which is way outside the scope of this thread.
|
# ? Nov 10, 2015 20:44 |