for white people you can think of the net benefit of being white as:
Net Privilege = White Privilege - Affirmative Action programs
hondoheel says he has doesnt experience any benefit at all... i get the impression he is referring to the net privilege. even if his net privilege is 0, or even slightly negative, that does not mean white privilege does not exist.
I can point to countless studies that show the same thing. You can point to what again? Besides your brilliantly insightful views on the role of race in America? Yes, everyone else keeps running biased and faulty studies -- no chance any of them are actually right and you're wrong. For now, I'll just keep asking for you to provide some statistical data and research proving your viewpoint. I'm sure you realize, like almost everyone else does who is reading this thread, that you're just embarrassing yourself at this point. The only two options here are that either a) you are deliberately sticking your head in the sand and refusing to even look for something to support your views, or b) you're trying to find some study somewhere that supports your position, but are coming up short and thus continuing to make silly arguments. I'm not sure which one makes you look better, but let's add another post to the ongoing count of posts where I ask you to provide some unbiased, non-cherry picked data that supports your view.
WTF? Why does everything need to be spelled out? The google linking is an accurate way of showing that I'm not cherry picking anything. Any single result on that page for "death penalty race" would have supported my point of view. I was just using that to show how laughable it is to have YOU accuse anyone of cherrypicking anything. If you think I'm cherry picking data, then YOU show me the search YOU are running to find data to support YOUR point of view. What are we up to now? 25 posts where you've been asked to provide some "non cherry picked" data to support your viewpoint?
OK. Apply the advanced search filter on Google to only return results from the .gov domain. Now try the 3rd link down. It actually discusses the Paternoster study in detail.
for white people you can think of the net benefit of being white as:
Net Privilege = White Privilege - Affirmative Action programs
hondoheel says he has doesnt experience any benefit at all... i get the impression he is referring to the net privilege. even if his net privilege is 0, or even slightly negative, that does not mean white privilege does not exist.
Who cares what he experiences? He'd have to be retarded to think that anyone is arguing that every single white person in history experiences the benefits of white privilege. It's like arguing whether racism exists. Some black guy showing up to say he hasn't experienced it doesn't mean racism doesn't exist. He can't even get himself to admit that it may exist as a broader and more general matter.
OK. Apply the advanced search filter on Google to only return results from the .gov domain. Now try the 3rd link down. It actually discusses the Paternoster study in detail.
SHOW ME STATISTICAL FINDINGS THAT PROVE YOUR POINT. Trying to find a million ways to say that things that prove my point may not prove my point as much as I think they do doesn't get you there. Seriously, take a logical reasoning class or something. Proof of Not A does not equal proof of B.
Actually, don't bother responding anything I said above ... it's probably just going to annoy me. There's literally no way for me to continue this discussion without resorting to ad hominems. [Don't worry, I don't have this problem in court. Most judges are smarter than I am, so they have no trouble understanding whatever I'm arguing. And all judges generally agree with whatever side has the weight of the evidence in its favor. Needless to say, that isn't you on this one.] But whatever, you can keep living your life firm in the belief that there is no white privilege and if anything, whites are somehow discriminated against in today's world.
SHOW ME STATISTICAL FINDINGS THAT PROVE YOUR POINT. Trying to find a million ways to say that things that prove my point may not prove my point as much as I think they do doesn't get you there. Seriously, take a logical reasoning class or something. Proof of Not A does not equal proof of B.
One of my very first posts on the subject showed that whites are executed disproportionately to the number of murders they commit.
Here's the link I mentioned, straight from the Maryland Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention:
LOL. I'm really not getting back into this thread after my last post, but I can't help chime in to say the following: so you dismissed the Maryland study cited and discussed above even though it was requested by the Maryland Governor because universities are somehow known to be liberal ... and then you cite a study whose author is from the Federalist Society? I'm going to break cover here ... but as a member of the Federalist Society ... kill yourself.
Ultimately, the AG decided to seek the death penalty for 38 percent of the 115 white defendants but for only 24 percent of the 473 nonwhite defendants.
From "Race and the Decision to Seek the Death Penalty in Federal Cases"
Perhaps the best-known study finding race-of-victim effects was conducted by Baldus, Pulaski, and Woodworth (1983) in Georgia. They examined a sample of over 1,000 post-Furman death-penalty cases. Overall, the authors found that sentencing decisions were significantly related to victim race before but not after controlling for case characteristics. They found a greater (although still not significant) race-of-victim effect for defendants who had a middling probability of the prosecutor seeking the death penalty than they did for cases with relatively high or low probabilities, i.e., where the probabilities were based on the heinousness of the crime. Baldus and his colleagues concluded that victim race is most influential in cases that fell within this “gray area.” Barnett (1985) obtained similar findings (but not nearly as strong) in his reanalysis of the Georgia data.
Other studies have also found that victim-race effects in sentencing disappear after there is control on case characteristics (Klein and Rolph, 1991; Morton and Rolph, 2000; Baldus, Woodworth, Grosso, and Christ, 2002–2003; Baime, 2002; Paternoster and Brame, 2003). The differences in findings across studies could be related to the researchers investigating cases from different states, using different control variables, and employing different statistical methods.
LOL. I'm really not getting back into this thread after my last post, but I can't help chime in to say the following: so you dismissed the Maryland study cited and discussed above even though it was requested by the Maryland Governor because universities are somehow known to be liberal ... and then you cite a study whose author is from the Federalist Society? I'm going to break cover here ... but as a member of the Federalist Society ... kill yourself.
OK, your awesome rhetorical skills sucked me in again. I just had to look up that one based on your 'it's from the Governor's Office!!' rhetoric.
Dear Mr. Cherry Picker,
You know what's an example of cherry picking? Pointing to a study and appealing to authority by saying that it comes from the Maryland Governor's Office of Crime Control and Prevention ... and failing to mention that ... wait for it ... wait for it ... after reviewing multiple studies and data, including the very study you cite ... wait for it ... THE COMMISSION VOTED TO RECOMMEND THAT MARYLAND ABOLISH THE DEATH PENALTY.
Anyway, someone else can deal with this trainwreck of a thread tomorrow. I'll just point out once more that your repeated 'look at the federal gov. stats' rhetoric ignores the fact that we have a system whereby states impose the death penalty too (and in larger numbers than the feds). Do you realize that the federal government didn't even execute people until the late 1980s after Furman? Of course racial disparity is less of a issue, if not a complete non-issue, among the feds -- most of the problems talked about are state level issues for myriad reasons. The federal system is 100 times better than the system in the states, especially states with runaway juries and podunk towns where anything goes. It's a far cry from a federal system where all you need is for an AG to whip people into shape. I have plenty of confidence in the ability of the feds to be very, very good about this issue (and just about anything else related to any litigation of any kind).
Last edited by lockedinside; 08-02-2010 at 02:59 AM.
You conveniently ignored the very next paragraph after whatever it is that you quoted above:
Quote:
Other studies have also found that victim-race effects in sentencing disappear after there is control on case characteristics (Klein and Rolph, 1991; Morton and Rolph, 2000; Baldus, Woodworth, Grosso, and Christ, 2002–2003; Baime, 2002; Paternoster and Brame, 2003). The differences in findings across studies could be related to the researchers investigating cases from different states, using different control variables, and employing different statistical methods. In sum, previous research has identified several factors that are related to some of the observed racial disparities in death penalty charging and sentencing decisions. These past studies are limited mainly to cases processed in state courts and, just like the studies discussed in this report, they cannot account for all of the variables that might influence case processing decisions. Moreover, the state-level cases are generally not as complex as those prosecuted at the federal level, and thus many of the variables that are important for state cases may not be applicable to federal cases (and vice versa).
That study goes out of its way to say that it is only researching 300 odd federal cases and then warns people not to make judgments about the data these guys did not research independently (i.e., state level data), expressly warning readers not to extrapolate any results to make judgments about different circumstances and different jurisdictions .
Quote:
In summary, given the inherent problems in using statistical models under these circumstances, our results need to be interpreted cautiously. There are many reasonable ways to adjust for case characteristics, but no definitive way to choose one approach over another. Bias could occur at points in the process other than the ones studied, such as the decision by federal prosecutors to take a case. Results could be different with other variables, methods, and cases. Extrapolating beyond the data we analyzed here to other years, other defendants, other points in the decisionmaking process, or other jurisdictions would be even more problematic.
That's a pretty classic conservative rejoinder to race relations and affirmative action policies (i.e., blacks need to get over the victim mentality and help themselves and stop waiting for the government to help them), but that article doesn't exactly prove anything about white privilege being a myth. In fact, much of it just proves the existence of white privilege ... as the article notes, however, there are no easy solutions anywhere when it comes to remedying many of our social and racial problems.
That's a pretty classic conservative rejoinder to race relations and affirmative action policies (i.e., blacks need to get over the victim mentality and help themselves and stop waiting for the government to help them), but that article doesn't exactly prove anything about white privilege being a myth. In fact, much of it just proves the existence of white privilege ... as the article notes, however, there are no easy solutions anywhere when it comes to remedying many of our social and racial problems.
IMO it wasn't addressing the issue of whether white privilege exists; it was an assertion that government isn't a very good solution to any perceived, or real, inequality. It's a fairly obvious point, because legislation only creates fertile ground for real change, not the change itself. Some of the historical evidence cited by the author was really interesting.
Linear Mode
