LastPommerFan

There's a lot of research into it, and it's pretty stark, and I think it should be addressed, but I am, personally, more interested in the two precursors to the justice system, the bias in arrests vs. crimes committed (stats above are convictions vs sentence) and more importantly, how do these stats hold up when controlled for income/wealth (which I am assuming is the key underlying factor to crime.)

figure worst case crime ratio is 4:1 and likely much lower since murder and rape are rare compared to assault and drug crimes. (ignoring the fact that whites may be more likely to never even be charged.) Incarceration rate is almost 6:1. Justice system is racially biased in results.

I'm just saying that I think there is value in asking "why" someone would pass up an opportunity to get ahead. I'll admit it happens, but I don't think that that is basic human nature, so I think it's likely that there are other factors at play. I think that's the value in the "why", to help identify the things we can do to get more people to take advantage of those opportunities.

I encourage you to ask the question "why?". and then ask "why" several more times. Why do these people appear to be lazy? Why are they abusing the system? What is the actual % of abuse, if it's different than the common perception, why is the common perception different?

Let me put it this way. If you're being mindful enough to use the most respectful language you know of, and are open to possibly adjusting that in the future at the request of someone who legitimately wants you to use a different term, then you're being PC (aka respectful of human dignity). If you are honestly putting the effort in to be respectful, and someone is hassling you over some little detail or constantly changing the targets, then that person is in the wrong, not you.

I would gladly sit quietly on the banks drinking a whiskey and smoking a cigar and listening to the water roll by. I've got nothing against fishing, but I'd just assume sit quietly.

Referring to gay men as fags. Referring to trans-gendered people by pronouns other than the ones they have identified. Referring to women as , chicks, etc.

You'll need enough ice to get them to Canandaigua, at which point I will clean and prepare them for you, and possibly even allow you to taste some of it.

Because human brains classify things for ease of understanding. These classifications are applied to groups or types of people and they become labels. Sometimes these labels are useful, sometimes they're not. While I agree that the language police often cross the line. I don't think it's difficult to respect someone who chooses to use certain words to describe themselves, and exclude others. And I'll second Hoss, Marcellus has interjected his classic (and often hilarious) stream of consciousness ravings into this conversation, and I believe, it has veered the discussion off course.

PC is not about using special labels vs not using labels. PC is about using the correct/preferred titles when you do use a label. For instance, on a personal note: PC is not about calling my son "Ollie" vs calling my son retarded/slow/stupid. PC is about calling him autistic, special needs, or delayed rather than calling him retarded/slow/stupid.

Just because I don't want my point to be confused with PC policing. I am referring to the words: Racist, Racism, privilege, etc. it's hard to have a discussion about these ideas because the word racist evokes images of white hoods and burning crosses. People can then say, "I'm not a Klansman, therefore I'm not racist." Or "There aren't any crosses burning or lynchings any more, so we are in a post racial America." I really don't about PC except that I personally like to give people the dignity of being referred to using the words they choose, and not the words someone else chooses for them.

I missed the n-body problem being solved ;)

Less than 100 years ago, respected scientists thought that the Universe was static, that the continents were generally stable and had remained in their current positions since the earth's beginnings, and that the earth was between 20 and 40 million years old. 100 years from now I fully expect most of Einstein's theories and all of Newtons to be found to be largely in error.

I think some of the solutions will be race neutral, but if they benefit the people at the bottom, they will primarily benefit people of color, since they make up the majority of the bottom rungs of the economic ladder. These may very well be the easiest solutions to implement, since the will appear to be more "fair".

I'm not certain, I've never fitted him for a suit.

If there was any doubt, this should firmly place 100% of hockey control in the hands of GMTM.

I don't care to do the actual fishing, but my Brother and Cousin love it. My job is to clean and cook the catch. I'm more than happy to do it. There's nothing quite like eating cast iron pan fried bass while the corpse is still flopping around on the cutting board.

I have no idea. I'm still trying to figure out how to change the language we use around the issues of race so that everyone isn't so offended by even the thought of having a discussion about race in America. Every word we use is just so emotionally loaded. I imagine the first solutions will be economic, but they aren't the economic "entitlement" tools that we have today.

I didn't have anything to do with setting up a system where white people start with the vast majority of the resources and, at the end of the day, almost regardless of effort, end with the cat majority or resources. I still feel like ignoring the unfairness of that system is not a good idea, and that the country will be better of if we work to change it. I don't feel guilty about the privileges that my race has granted me, but I would like to see them extended to more Americans.

JJ, I'm not talking about individual racism. I'm referring to structural racism that denies minorities from full participation in our society. This article does an ok job at explaining what I'm trying to get at. http://www.salon.com/2015/04/10/white_americas_racial_illiteracy_why_our_national_conversation_is_poisoned_from_the_start_partner/

I am not a racist person. I partake in, gain advantage from, and openly support multiple institutions that systematically exclude minorities from full participation in all the benefits of this great country. Saying, "I don't see the racist people" is not the same as saying "America doesn't have a race problem".

It was about insurance issues a year ago too. So says the article. And the insurance issues are being pushed by the unions, no doubt.

http://www.wgrz.com/story/news/local/2014/07/25/lyft-operations-to-cease-in-buffalo-august-1/13159609/ Tl;dr- lyft is Uber's fellow peer to peer ride company. they sacrificed buffalo and rochester to get access to NYC.

Agreed. We don't need gun legislation to prevent crime.

Which is identical to the 34% drop in the 9 years before the law was passed. The evidence for your contention simply isn't contained in this data.