Hey guys, thanks for the good discussion, some great points in here. I pretty much agree with most of what Only_Humean said. I argue that whatever statistics you think you have, you still don’t have anywhere near a full picture. Trying to base behavior on such limited information is silly.
Let me give a little bit of context. One of my opposition’s main points was that there has been a concerted effort, specifically by the left, to avoid mentioning facts regarding “troubles in black communities” and how those influence racism. Liberals usually think about this the other way around. They discuss facts about trouble in black communities when discussing the effects of racism. But not how those troubles “understandably” contribute to prejudice. He argues that ignoring this reduces the sense of responsibility troubled black communities should have in improving their situation.
My opposition believes that racism does exist, and the government should try to help improve the circumstances of troubled black communities, but that the help will only be effective if those communities acknowledge that their communities are “deficient.” He has argued that the picture being painted by the left, that of an oppressed minority that is fundamentally equal to the majority and whose socioeconomic troubles are only a result of that oppression, is not realistic. In reality he says, the oppressed minority is not equal culturally and ethically. Regardless of the reason, even if historically most of the fault lies with white people’s oppression, they are not currently equal. They could be equal, but they have to first admit that large portions of their communities are culturally and ethically deficient before they can improve their situation.
From this we began arguing about whether the troubles in black communities make reasonable a person’s prejudice. My opposition has a hard time believing that prejudice springs up for no good reason. He feels prejudice is mostly a result of people’s life experiences that reasonably inform them that they should take extra caution around black people. I argue that, first of all, prejudice does spring up for no good reason all the time. People are indoctrinated into it, media plays a big role in perpetuating it, and there are plenty more unreasonable ways people learn to be racist. To which he responds: “Nobody ever indoctrinated me, how come I came to have these prejudices? If you see black people as villains so often on TV, isn’t that just a reflection of people’s life experiences?”
My other argument was that, even if people live in a troubled black community and do deal with black criminals at a significantly higher rate, establishing a blanket prejudice for all black people, while understandable for someone thats not an intellectual, should still be considered poor, incomplete reasoning. The proof being that had they grown up in a better community where all the black people they ran into were great, they would likely not have developed such a strong prejudice if at all. If anything, prejudices should be more nuanced, such as being location or circumstance based. “When in a bad neighborhood, beware of black people” is at least a tiny bit better than “beware of black people.” But even this “improved” reasoning promotes very troublesome ideas, and you might be better off just going with “beware of bad neighborhoods.”
Ultimately, I would argue we are not well-informed enough and simply not smart enough to be able to come up with reasonable prejudices, especially when it comes to people. And so it is important for schools, such as the liberal school I went to, or parents or whatever, to teach kids about these complexities. To help kids understand that even anecdotal life experiences are not sufficient to establish reasonable prejudices. We should teach the history of the negative impact of prejudice and tell kids that, because of the potential harm of prejudice, they should, as best they can, avoid prejudicial reasoning. To which, I imagine my opposition would argue: “Yours is an unrealistic utopia! Though it would be great if things could be as you say, the world can’t function that way! If you are a police officer and you have crime statistics, it is pure silliness not to profile. If you are in a troubled black community and you break up a fight between a black person and a white person, and the crime stats say a black person is more likely to commit violent crime in this community, it would be stupid not to give the black person more scrutiny!”
I will leave off here for now for you guys to comment, but I plan on saying more about my opposition’s position regarding “admitting deficiency” in black communities and other points you guys made. I especially like Only_Humean’s:
“the old quote about using statistics as a drunk uses a lamppost, for support rather than illumination, applies” and
“I think the vast majority of racism in the world is not arrived at through a process of deep philosophical introspection or rational assessment of brute fact. And most people who try to philosophise about it start from their existing political viewpoint and work their argument back from there.”
Thanks again for the good discussion so far 
