Legalized judicial racism…

We've talked about implicit bias before, and I think I previously linked this same article but in a different context.

In summary, people see Black men as larger and more threatening than While men of the same size. Worth noting that even Black participants were found to have some of the biases, so it's not necessarily abject racism in the classic sense. Seems possible to me that judges might subconsciously give a harsher sentence to someone who the judge views as more threatening and dangerous. That would also explain why men might be sentenced more harshly than women, assuming that's true.

People see Black men as larger, more threatening than same-sized White men

Wilson and his colleagues conducted a series of experiments involving more than 950 online participants (all from the United States) in which people were shown a series of color photographs of white and black male faces of individuals who were all of equal height and weight. The participants were then asked to estimate the height, weight, strength and overall muscularity of the men pictured.


“We found that these estimates were consistently biased. Participants judged the black men to be larger, stronger and more muscular than the white men, even though they were actually the same size,” said Wilson. “Participants also believed that the black men were more capable of causing harm in a hypothetical altercation and, troublingly, that police would be more justified in using force to subdue them, even if the men were unarmed.”


Even black participants displayed this bias, according to Wilson, but while they judged young black men to be more muscular than the young white men, they did not judge them to be more harmful or deserving of force.


In one experiment, where participants were shown identically sized bodies labeled either black or white, they were more likely to describe the black bodies as taller and heavier. In another, the size bias was most pronounced for the men whose facial features looked the most stereotypically black.

 

literally a classless thing to say to someone.
Sad.

 

More chickenshit attempts to whip the non-conforming into mindless conformity.

But at least @gatordavisl signs his posts when he engages.

I see you got dinged by again by the cowardly @Gator40 , who does nothing but fly-by rate without ever engaging...

In contrast to that weaselly crap, I'll take @gatordavisl , all day..

(Let's have it '40... hit me with the smells good... I'm only trying to guess if it'll be a DL or double bacon...).

 

And like the rest of your posts...hyperbolic and incorrect.

At least you're consistent.

As for Bluke? The king of dislikes and memes with no content? "Nasty posts" as he says of others. Sans multiple hissyfits, he's a grown boy sometimes.

Who even goes and looks at all of everyone's ratings? Funny enough, if hitting a button isn't "signing" it, then how do you know who it is? It's not anonymous.

I give out way more agrees and winners anyway. You even got one on post 271!

Signed,
Me

Now back on topic....davisl (who Bluke called "classless" and you liked that comment? Shameful) and mutz among others were putting out some great content.

 

1. He called the post classless, not the poster;

2. If you think Mutz was putting out great content in exchange with X (I believe it was UFlawyer), then one might be inclined to conclude that applauding a post by Y (davisl) seeking to shut said exchange down, might be a tad contradictory.

...if one were seeking to reconcile that contradiction, consistently.

But of course, the true reconciliation is found in the 'go team' political hackery thread--or rather, the suspending fluid--that fills the snowglobe.

Either way, I suppose I should thank you for deigning to engage, and manning your ratings.