If you had said:

Lots of Mexicans (legal and not) do drive drunk. It’s like saying that lots of black children are born out of wedlock. lots of black people are lazy.

I’d think the comparison in the two statements would make a lot more sense. Because they’re both stereotypes that one could use to race-bait, but neither is laid out in hard numbers.

You see what I’m saying? The “lazy” comment could be said about “lots” of people of any race, so it compares better to “lots” of Mexicans driving drunk, because that goes for any race too. But the out of wedlock birth rate among blacks DOES statistically stand out among races.

I understand the point you’re making, and that my objection to the comparison isn’t actually relevant to the discussion you two were having, I just thought you could have used something in place of the out of wedlock birth rates.

May I offer assistance?

Say I have a coat that is red. And some other chick has one that’s the same design, except that it’s green. I say “hey, your coat is like mine.” She says “no it’s not; it’s a different color.” I’m comparing design and she’s comparing color. We’re talking about two different characteristics.

Just like I’m comparing “race-baiting” characteristics of the two statements (you’ll note that I never used the word ‘most’) while you’re comparing numbers.

Hope that helps.

baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 10:47 PM

I’ll accept your explanation, however I still don’t see it as a valid comparison really… One is based entirely on known statistics, the other isn’t. I suppose they could both be used for race baiting, but I guess simply making the statements (in context) doesn’t make them comparable, to me.

But yeah, I definitely have no idea what Esthier was talking about.

Alden Pyle on June 20, 2007 at 3:30 PM

The jumping seems to have an African tribal influence to me. The US has been receiving many people from Samolia and other African nations in recent years. I feel sorry for the unimmaginable emotional toll the hundreds of years of domination and degredation the American Blacks have endured and suffered. For African Americans to start to emerge with their own identity and holidays I think is healthy. Junteenth is a tribute to the Countries progress. I view it as a sign of healing and progress. What we should be looking at here is making life better. Alcohol could have played a part in the violence. I think for a beating death to occur is a tragedy for all concerned. Both the willing participants or apathy of bystanders is inexcusable. The fact is the Black community needs better leadership to challange individuals to a higher standard. We need Lt.Gov.Steele and people like him to take a stand here and denounce the bad apples and head off the likes of Jackson/Sharpton. God Bless our Black Bretheren. To assign this tragedy to racism only is like saying a victim who dies at the hands of a drunk driver got killed because the driver drank alcohol. The drinking is only a symptom of a deeper emotional dilemma. Black Leadership is the key to a Black solution.

I just don’t buy the comparison of the two things.

If you’re talking about the ‘lots versus most’ idea, then there’s no reason to buy it; but that isn’t what was being compared. It isn’t what we were talking about. You disagreeing with something I didn’t say and an idea that I didn’t have.

except that Esthier for some reason couldn’t stand a fact being reported, and had to make up (still not understood) reasons for objecting to the simple idea of stating facts.

Which goes back to the alleged “race-baiting” quality of my analogy and not to a numbers comparison. And I too still don’t understand where he was coming from.

Actually I didn’t compare likelihood; I compared the “racism” of the statements.

baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 9:06 PM

Well, you said:

Lots of Mexicans (legal and not) do drive drunk. It’s like saying that lots of black children are born out of wedlock.

baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 4:23 PM

All I was saying is that saying these two thinks aren’t really close at all… You’d be hard pressed to find any statistics even showing that a significant MINORITY of Mexicans drive drunk, while it’s an established fact that the vast majority of blacks are born out of wedlock. This doesn’t mean anything or have anything to do with the conversation you and Esthier were having really, I just don’t buy the comparison of the two things. It was basically over and done with when I said it, except that Esthier for some reason couldn’t stand a fact being reported, and had to make up (still not understood) reasons for objecting to the simple idea of stating facts.

Thanks RB.

Glad you popped back in the thread. I am with you all the way. See, I think that the Conservatives in this country are united by values, despite the fact that we can sure go at each other while discussing issues or events in the news.

And I contend that those values included conceding when you’re bested, apologizing when you’re wrong, shaking hands afterwards, and joining in solidarity to face our real opponents.

Big Hug from Texas for you, Baldilocks.

She tried to compare the likelihood of a Mexican driver to be drunk with a black child being born out of wedlock.

Actually I didn’t compare likelihood; I compared the “racism” of the statements.

Had you taken the chip of your shoulder and simply said, “Yes, Esthier, the man’s last name does indicate something else about the crime that others might not have noticed.” Then all of this could have been avoided.

I don’t see why I have jump to answer the questions about my motives when the questioner indicates by the very wording of the question that he had already made up his/mind about my motives. “Are you trying to make excuses for black crime or are you a victicrat looking for racists under the bed? Which is it?”

You didn’t ask me what my motives were, not really. You said under the guise of “asking a question” that my motives for making the statement were to hurl accusations of racism at HA’s mostly white guests or look for racism that’s not there.

You insulted me without any reason for doing so. So, yeah, I got PO’d. Still am.

Esthier said:

mentioning racial tensions between blacks and hispanics DOES change the crime

How?

I am willing to bet that it was left over Katrina “victims” who were transported to Texas after the storm.

SouthernGent on June 20, 2007 at 6:51 PM

Anything’s possible, but I’m inclined to doubt it. The east side of Austin has long been, well, let’s just say, a frontier.

No, so again, why are we even discussing this? Why is it that upon learning the victim’s last name, the question of him being illegal and/or drunk is being brought up?

Look, it’s a racial stereotype which is, by definition, racist. That’s the point I was making.

Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 6:14 PM

That was baldilocks’ beef, and I never indicated by any stretch of the imagination that I was on her side of that (which again, is why I thought I was going to come down on your side of the debate with her… at first)

I couldn’t care less about what the guy’s last name means, etc. etc. Drop that, because that was entirely baldilocks, and she’s gone.

I simply argued with her, AGAIN:

But the point (originally) was a disagreement with baldilocks. She tried to compare the likelihood of a Mexican driver to be drunk with a black child being born out of wedlock. I said this was ridiculous because an extreme majority of black children are born out of wedlock, while you’d struggle to make a case that even a noticeable minority of Mexicans drive drunk. I spoke the truth, the vast majority of blacks are born out of wedlock. You can get mad and say that acknowledging this doesn’t benefit anyone (which again isn’t actual correct), but then I guess anyone who reads or studies odds or stats should just stop wasting their time right?

RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 6:12 PM

Oh, and this is a gem:

I’m not angry, and that’s certainly not the point.

Acknowledging statistics is one thing, making assumptions based on those statistics is another.

Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 6:17 PM

So you’re advocating burying our heads in the sand? It’s simply odds, most blacks are born out of wedlock. Acknowledging that isn’t racist or bigoted or relating to ancient history of “white oppression” as you tried to compare it to earlier. It’s simply a fact. Now someone might have a problem if seeing a black child immediately makes them wonder whether the child was born out of wedlock, instead of just walking on by, not seeing something other than another person… but that’s irrelevant to the discussion, all together. I’m simply stating the fact that the extreme majority of black children are born out of wedlock, but acknowledging this bothers you for some reason or else you wouldn’t keep whining about it… I’m just not sure what irritates you about me stating a known fact, especially when it was DONE ORIGINALLY TO COUNTER THE CLAIM ABOUT DRUNK MEXICAN DRIVERS!

You can get mad and say that acknowledging this doesn’t benefit anyone (which again isn’t actual correct), but then I guess anyone who reads or studies odds or stats should just stop wasting their time right?

RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 6:12 PM

I’m not angry, and that’s certainly not the point.

Acknowledging statistics is one thing, making assumptions based on those statistics is another.

I’m so effing sick of all this race crap. The problem is that people in most cities, even “enlightened” Austin, don’t know how to behave themselves in public.

In my town we celebrate everything; anything is an excuse to party, and the folks and the police know how to behave.

juliesa on June 20, 2007 at 5:35 PM

ANd the reason for this is that anyone with morals and a work ethic worked their way out of inner city ghettos and moved into neighborhoods filled with people who shared those qualities. People who had bad habits stayed put. The Left used to wring their hands about “Black flight” from the cities – those would be the people with their heads screwed on right who didn’t want their impressionable children to learn gangsta habits.
The Left revealed their racism by trying to come up with ways to keep the Black people inside the cities – all one confined group, making no allowances for people who understood that removing their kids and settling them into better neighborhoods was the best solution to raise decent and productive citizens.
Therefore, trying to predict people’s behavior on color alone is poor judgment. It’s ethnicity/culture that trumps all. What does that person BELIEVE? People are social creatures, like-minded hang out with like minded. A neighborhood of Black white collar professionals is not going to riot, no matter what the provocation. A neighborhood of skilled contractors, salaried people of any “color” ain’t going to riot either. Like everyone else, they are used to working in the system.
All bets are off in a marginal, cruddy section of town with high unemployment and crime – no matter what “race.”

The “reason” to assume it is because in all likelihood, if you see a black child he was born out of wedlock.

What I mean is, what’s the purpose?

What, do you think I see a black kid with his mother on the street and say “that kid’s parents must not be married!”

No, so again, why are we even discussing this? Why is it that upon learning the victim’s last name, the question of him being illegal and/or drunk is being brought up?

Look, it’s a racial stereotype which is, by definition, racist. That’s the point I was making.

And the reason to assume this is….? How does that assumption help you?

Does assuming all blacks are b@st@rds until proven wrong somehow make your life or the lives of black people any easier? Does it help you understand another culture?

What? Where’s the benefit?

Esthier on June 20, 2007 at 5:55 PM

The “reason” to assume it is because in all likelihood, if you see a black child he was born out of wedlock.

Who says the assumption helps anyone? Does the assumption that a homeless person is a drunk or a crackhead “help” or “benefit” anyone? Does recognizing that dropouts are more likely to be on welfare “help” or “benefit” anyone? Does assuming a serial killer is white “help” or “benefit” anyone?

WTF are you even talking about? You’re spinning around like crazy now… that has nothing to do with anything. What, do you think I see a black kid with his mother on the street and say “that kid’s parents must not be married!”… The issue was brought up by baldilocks, and I responded specifically… It’s not that I dwell on the out of wedlock birthrate among blacks. However if you want to be stupid about the “benefit”, one could make the case that recognizing a problem is the first step to solving it, rather than pretending it’s not there (the same could be said for all those other examples I used to mock your complaint of lack of benefit for recognizing odds).

I thought I was going to be on your side of this thing, but you’ve not only said some ridiculous things but now you’re being dishonest out of some kind of desperation.

RightWinged on June 20, 2007 at 5:56 PM

You said Eminem wannabes. I didn’t assume that anyone would read our discussion and without reading your own words. I was quoting you and talking to you, specifically addressing the specific words I had quoted.

I didn’t include the part about whites, because even there, you only mentioned a specific segment of whites, ones that act like gansters, basically whites that act like blacks.

And really, that ignores every other poor segment of whites who might likely have had children out of wedlock.

I assume, right or wrong, that people do not judge anyone here by something one of us chooses to quote.

Just to be clear, I wasn’t being dishonest. I was only quoting the part of your response that I was responding to specifically without ignoring the rest of what you’d written. I only quoted that for you, not for the benefit of anyone else.

- The notion of white paranoia never really entered my mind, as I don’t imagine my White-Male self to be under physical attack, in particular.
Jaibones on June 20, 2007 at 4:08 PM

That’s probably what all the white people at the Dallas Cowboys ’92 Superbowl victory parade thought too. Until some “young people” (all black) decided to go through the crowd beating the hell out of people. Old or young, male or female, didn’t matter. But what did matter was the color of your skin, because they only went after white people. It was the biggest race riot Dallas has ever had. And these “young people” afterwards said flat out that they just wanted to crack whitey’s head open.

baldilocks on June 20, 2007 at 5:55 PM

Just a side note (though if you look just above your post, you’ll see that I already responded to this), mentioning racial tensions between blacks and hispanics DOES change the crime.

So half of my question was right.

Had you taken the chip of your shoulder and simply said, “Yes, Esthier, the man’s last name does indicate something else about the crime that others might not have noticed.” Then all of this could have been avoided.

Instead, you brought up drunk illegal discussions.