The Long Tail of the Attica Prison Riot
themorningnews.org
themorningnews.org
This isn't surreal, this isn't random, and it's also not "man being a beast". Some are. Many more are made so, on purpose.
> Behind the blind bestiality of the SA, there often lay a deep hatred and resentment against all those who were socially, intellectually, or physically better off than themselves, and who now, as if in fulfillment of their wildest dreams, were in their power. This resentment, which never died out entirely in the camps, strikes us as a last remnant of humanly understandable feeling. The real horror began, however, when the SS took over the administration of the camps. The old spontaneous bestiality gave way to an absolutely cold and systematic destruction of human bodies, calculated to destroy human dignity; death was avoided or postponed indefinitely. The camps were no longer amusement parks for beasts in human form, that is, for men who really belonged in mental institutions and prisons; the reverse became true: they were turned into "drill grounds," on which perfectly normal men were trained to be full-fledged members of the SS.
-- Hannah Arendt, "The Origins of Totalitarianism"
Edit: Try zooming in and out on the paragraph below "There seemed to be a revolution underway, but, like many revolutions, it would end tragically." chrome on android, can't replicate it on other pages on tmn, just that one.
It vibrates whenever one of the larger font quotations (like the one you mention) is at a particular position on the screen.
I'm experiencing the same problem on iOS. If i keep a finger on the screen and try to scroll gradually as I read, then it jitters. If I just scroll then release, read, scroll then release, etc. it is smooth.
Although Andrew (above) can replicate this, I haven't been able to. But I know it's not just you. Are there any other details you can give? Do other stories on the site do the same? What kind of iOS device do you have?
Sorry about this! It's the first we've heard of it and I wonder if it's something in this article.
EDIT: I just recreated it. It looks like a continually switching class causing the text to re-flow. I'm going to disable that JS temporarily while I figure out why it's flapping. Thanks for reporting it!
EDIT 2, 1:23PM Eastern US: I deployed a hotfix. We'll do a more permanent fix on Monday. If anyone else has trouble, let me know.
I sure wish it said "...Jackson State and Kent State shootings..." White lives matter. So do black lives.
White lives defacto matter which is why there was never an explicit white lives matter movement. When black lives matter, all lives will matter.
Edit: I was unfamiliar with Jackson State and mistook your point.
I think that is the same kind of thinking that leads to people saying that minorities can't be racist, or that women can't be sexist.
I think all lives matter too.
As a white male, I've never had to worry or been bothered by black racism or female sexism because I live in a society where the white male has power. The reality is that this is America today: http://i.imgur.com/zrTnEkW.jpg
What power do I have as a white male? Please be specific. Don't show how I'm treated better than others, show how I have power.
I've never shown up at a job interview unqualified... and been told "Yup, you get the job because of your skin color and your genitals".
While there are systemic racial differences in the US, they're not always what you think. Which race has the highest average income? Is that because that race is part of the majority?
It's not. So... how come if society is here to keep "white men" in power, that Asian-Americans have the highest average income? Are they the secret power behind the throne? [1]
Well, no one on their right mind would say so. Yet people are happy to claim that there's some kind of conspiracy to keep another race in power. I dunno... I've never been contacted and asked to join the conspiracy.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_wage_gap_in_the_United_...
For starters, If you're convicted of a crime, you are much more likely to receive a shorter prison sentence than a minority. The sentencing difference between whites caught with cocaine and blacks caught with crack is an example of this. In general, when interacting with law enforcement for whatever reason (traffic stop, suspicion of drug possession of marijuana, etc.), you are much more likely to receive a warning and not be arrested or given a ticket compared to a minority. Also, when driving across the panhandle of Texas, the police are less likely to stop you. Whenever I've driven through there, police take one look at me and like clockwork, pull me over, often times calling their K9 unit out.
On dating websites, you're more likely to appeal to more women than a minority. And if you date outside of your race, the parents of your significant other are more likely be more accepting of you than someone who is black.
If you were accepted to a prestigious university or received a job offer for a lucrative position, you wouldn't have to endure people questioning your abilities and whispering "He's only here because of affirmative action." I've experienced this despite scoring above the mean in all relevant categories. If you want a recent example of this type of behavior on HackerNews, look here and ctrl-f for gydfi: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13779165
> "Yup, you get the job because of your skin color and your genitals".
I don't think anyone has ever said this specifically. I believe that you're falling into the same trap as the individual that I pointed out above, assuming that you are at a disadvantage for a job because you don't get extra consideration for being a woman or a minority. There is no advantage. In fact, it is still a disadvantage. Even in Silicon Valley, a woman gets paid less for doing the same work as their male colleagues. If you want a recent example, look at the revelations coming out of the sinking ship that is Uber.
That not withstanding, In my experience as part of the team that does hiring where I work (tech company), I find other members show a bias for those who resemble their culture, that culture being people familiar with dank memes and who play video games. They don't realize that when choosing their preferred candidate that they have a preference. It doesn't mean they are racist, sexist, etc. It just means that they have a cognitive bias that they may not be aware of.
> Yet people are happy to claim that there's some kind of conspiracy to keep another race in power. I dunno... I've never been contacted and asked to join the conspiracy.
It's not a conspiracy headed by some cartoonish, mustache twirling villain. It is just the historical remnant of a time when the social order was segregated by race. Just because the civil rights act was passed in the 1960's does not magically wash away the effects of institutionalized racism. Institutions take time to change. It's certainly better than it was, but it's not perfect.
Your argument is largely that I may get treated better than others. How, exactly, does that show I have power, as the GP comment suggested?
And did you read my other comment? The overwhelming better treatment is due to sex, not gender. Being male means you're treated much more poorly than being female. Being a minority is just (nasty) icing on the cake.
> Even in Silicon Valley, a woman gets paid less for doing the same work as their male colleagues.
You are are that that's been illegal since the late 1960's, right?
If you want some comments as to where those "gaps" come from, see Thomas Sowell, who's been deconstructing that gap since the 1980's:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pQ7KXv0o0
> It just means that they have a cognitive bias that they may not be aware of.
Sure... but how does that give me, the (alleged) recipient of such bias... power? How do I use that bias to become one of the .0001% of society which is ruling the country?
The short answer (of course) is I don't. Saying I am powerful because share the same skin color and gender as politicians is just a ludicrous statement to make.
> Just because the civil rights act was passed in the 1960's does not magically wash away the effects of institutionalized racism. Institutions take time to change
Well, they take a short period of time to change if the people involved are willing. See the changes in the LA police attitude since the Rodney King riots. It's not perfect, but it does seem a lot better;
And you're also discounting my comments about Asian-Americans. If society is so controlled by The White Male, and is so racist, how come Asian-Americans are doing better than white people on average? Is The White Male secretly biased in favor of Asians? Or is something else going on?
I think the answer here is at least in part poverty. If you're poor, it doesn't really matter what your skin color is. You get treated poorly by everyone. And it's damned hard to get out of the trap of poverty.
That fact alone explains why the descendants of poor ex-slaves have a hard time getting ahead. Their families have been poor for 130 years... getting ahead is hard.
You're being a bit disingenuous. I don't know if this is purposeful or not. Would we agree the Sunni had power in Iraq under Saddam and today the Shia have power? In China, is it far to say that the Han have power? That doesn't mean that every Shia today in Iraq has power.
I was mainly trying to rebut your argument that minorities and women receive favorable treatment in society due to policies such as affirmative action and relaying that to you with details from my own personal experiences.
> Your argument is largely that I may get treated better than others. How, exactly, does that show I have power, as the GP comment suggested?
You don't take the logical leap. Receiving preferential treatment affords one greater mobility whether it is in the social, professional, or administrative realm. Accordingly, I think we can both agree that being treated better gives one greater access to power, increasing the probability that you can exercise power. I cannot prove how you specifically have greater power because I don't know you.
> And did you read my other comment? The overwhelming better treatment is due to sex, not gender. Being male means you're treated much more poorly than being female. Being a minority is just (nasty) icing on the cake.
I showed you a specific example on this very site on how women are not treated better, it is the opposite. Jennifer Widom's worthiness for being Engineering Dean at Stanford was questioned, despite her impressive credentials being just a google search away. I also don't know what you're insinuating by calling minorities a "nasty" icing on the cake.
> If you want some comments as to where those "gaps" come from, see Thomas Sowell, who's been deconstructing that gap since the 1980's: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_pQ7KXv0o0
He makes a fair argument over the traditional wage gap but some of the conclusions he comes to are a bit wonky. Especially the argument he makes that if women make . 75 cents on the dollar, firms would be falling over themselves to hire the cheaper labor. He makes the assumption that hiring decisions are based chiefly on getting the most for your dollar when it is somewhat obvious that people hire for individuals that they get along with. I was specifically referring to today's climate. Again, I offered an anecdote. If you actually care about the truth, not what anyone else says, if there is a woman where you work in the same position as you what she makes.
(Side note) I actually have a degree in Economics from Stanford and had the opportunity to chat with him while meeting with one of my professors (John Cogan). I don't take academic economists seriously. It's good for explaining the broad strokes of history, but it just does not accurately model human behavior. As a field, it's closer to philosophy than science and often times it is treated like a religion. I'll be brief as to why,..(1)Economic models make simplifying assumptions without explicitly stating them, the rational economic actor being chief among them (2) Economics theory is better described as hypothesis since hardly any vidence by way of experiment is ever presented (3) Preponderance of a cult of personality
> Sure... but how does that give me, the (alleged) recipient of such bias... power? How do I use that bias to become one of the .0001% of society which is ruling the country?
I'm not making any claims about your specific level of power. It's the .00001% as you state, By definition, you don't get in the club ONLY because of your skin color. Being born to the right family helps (I'll leave to you the demographics of those families), If you aren't born into it, you need not only a certain ability, but the will to exercise power. I You do have a greater chance of getting into that rarified group than a woman or a minority, who face additional hurdles. How much weight to give them, I don't know.
> If society is so controlled by The White Male, and is so racist, how come Asian-Americans are doing better than white people on average? Is The White Male secretly biased in favor of Asians? Or is something else going on?
> I think the answer here is at least in part poverty. If you're poor, it doesn't really matter what your skin color is. You get treated poorly by everyone. And it's damned hard to get out of the trap of poverty. That fact alone explains why the descendants of poor ex-slaves have a hard time getting ahead. Their families have been poor for 130 years... getting ahead is hard.
You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, making assumptions about things I never said, and veering into the political. I believe that we agree on most points. All I'm trying to say is that women and minorities do not get preferential treatment. Poverty is likely the most significant factor in mobility, but not the only. People do not cross the street when they see a group of asian teens coming towards them. People like me do face the type of cognitive bias that causes others to go on the other side of the street when they see me approaching.
I'm trying to understand just, what, exactly people mean by "power". You've used it repeatedly in subsequent examples. But haven't given explanations.
Your examples largely amount to "people in charge have power", or "the majority of the population has power". That's nice, but it doesn't mean a whole lot.
> I was mainly trying to rebut your argument that minorities and women receive favorable treatment in society due to policies such as affirmative action
I never said any such thing.
> You don't take the logical leap.
Exactly. I'm asking you to explain the logical leap. And to explain what, exactly you mean by "power". I'm not sure I buy the argument that being treated better is "power". At least, "power" in the way many people mean it.
When I (as a white male), get accused of being part of the "patriarchy", or "having male power", I question just what the heck people mean by that. The answers tend to be tautological statements, or sophistry.
It would be more accurate (and more honest) to say that the people in power tend to keep it. (i.e. rich, upper class people). And that the majority race / religion / whatever in a society tends to get by as the "default" group, which makes things easier for them.
Is that "power" in the same way that a king has power over his subjects? I don't think so. Yet that is precisely how it's commonly being used. And it makes me worried.
> I showed you a specific example on this very site on how women are not treated better, it is the opposite.
One data point does not a conclusion make. While individual anecdotes are compelling, we should not draw larger conclusions from them.
Instead, we should draw conclusions about society by examining... society. i.e. via statistics.
> He makes a fair argument over the traditional wage gap but some of the conclusions he comes to are a bit wonky. Especially the argument he makes that if women make . 75 cents on the dollar, firms would be falling over themselves to hire the cheaper labor. He makes the assumption that hiring decisions are based chiefly on getting the most for your dollar when it is somewhat obvious that people hire for individuals that they get along with
The unstated implication here is that there won't be women that employers can get along with.
i.e. Given a pool of qualified applicants, employers will find a subset that they can get along with. In those subset, there are some men and women. If they can hire women at 75 cents on the dollar, why wouldn't they?
The only way to refute that conclusion is to say that there are no qualified female applicants. In which case you can't do wage comparisons, because the men applying will have different skills than the women who don't apply.
If you care to look, about 95% of the wage gap is explained by people doing different jobs, or who have different education, or different work experience. And, unmarried childless women under 30 make the same (or now slightly more), than men their same age. That's been true for about 30 years now.
But if you don't believe that, you've go to believe that despite it being illegal for almost 50 years, and despite the overwhelming propaganda about the wage gap, and despite most HR / accounting departments being a majority female, that the wage gap still exists for people doing the same job with the same experience and the same skills.
The only way you can believe that is to posit some massive secret conspiracy. That way lies madness.
> Being born to the right family helps (I'll leave to you the demographics of those families)
Because most of the people who immigrated to the US before 1880 where white (ish) European? And most of the blacks before then were slaves?
Hmm... so the people that were rich and powerful 150 years ago tend to be the related to the people who are rich and powerful now. Gosh, how the heck does that work? It's almost like it's hard to make money. And that it's hard for a poor person to make money in the face of entrenched and wealthy opposition.
Where you see racial divides, I see demographic divides. I think my view is a little simpler, and explains history a bit better.
> You're putting a lot of words in my mouth, making assumptions about things I never said, and veering into the political.
I was making a point by using an extreme example.
> All I'm trying to say is that women and minorities do not get preferential treatment.
I think that in many aspects of society, women do get preferential treatment. And the statistics (CDC, DoJ, department of labor) support this position.
> People like me do face the type of cognitive bias that causes others to go on the other side of the street when they see me approaching.
Sure. I've had people do the same thing to me... as a large white male walking alone down a street late at night.
People fear the unusual and unknown. Evolution shows us that people without such fears get eaten.
It's not nice to have people avoid you. But their reasons are not just racism.
I've had similar experiences with religious relatives. 30 years ago, it was "What are those damned gays doing? Why are they trying to destroy our society?" Now, it's "My next door neighbour is gay. I don't understand any of it, but he gave me some nice petunias".
Familiarity helps a lot. Along with understanding that there are reasons why such behaviors are economically encouraged, or evolutionary adaptations.
Watching this play out, it's like watching a flat earther--that would be you in this situation--argue that the world couldn't possibly be round, we'd all just fall off it!
Let me guess... you think there's a secret government conspiracy to watch your every movement, and you have this magic tinfoil hat to protect you?
If you were to discuss this rationally, I'd ask that you summarize what you think my argument is. And I predict you'd get it 90% wrong.
So... which sex is more likely to be arrested, charged, convicted, sentenced to prison time, and less likely to be let out on parole?
I'll give you a hint. It's not women.
And what is larger? Race differences in sentencing? Or sex differences?
Hint: One is larger than the other by about a factor of six.
And which sex is more likely to die on the job? By about a factor of 20...
If find the whole notion of "patriarchy" to be bizarre. It is either a pretty much a tautology (most of the people in power are men), or a conspiracy theory that would make 9/11 truthers blush with embarrassment.
i.e. "Patriarchy is a system where men rule the world for their own benefit".
Uh... right. Where 95% of workplace deaths are male. Where 99% of war deaths are male. Where 3/4 of suicides are male. Where the criminal courts treat men many times worse than women. Where the family courts treat men like scum who deserve to pay and never see their kids.
Really? If that's a system run for the sole benefit of men, I have a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
> I think it's exceptional see a person of color or woman using their status within a system to subjugate a white man in America
Largely because they don't have power. That's statistics, not "one race is better than another".
A simpler statement is to say "people in power tend to abuse the people who don't have power." That happens everywhere. It's human nature.
> simply because of privilege granted by the racist/sexist system
So.. Bill Gates treats me well because we're both white males? I don't think so.
> As a black man, I imagine that's difficult for a white person to take in without getting defensive,
As a man, you should be well aware the the largest oppression you face is not because you're black, but because you're male.
> but there are literally powerful white men on the record throughout our country's existence stating that the system was built for white men.
So? There are many people saying many delusional things. That doesn't mean they're true.
I think you're also missing a key point here. The system is run by RICH people who run it for their friends and relatives. As the son of penniless immigrants, I have no more hope of getting into that power structure than you do.