CDZ A Comprehensive Look At The Uneven Playing Field

[Fair&Balanced]

It's just a shame that some people allow others to portray them as inferior to explain away their faults.

It's plainly obvious that slavery was terrible. It is equally plainly obvious that no black person today was affected by slavery in any way, shape, or form.

Those who choose to do so have equal opportunity, and more importantly ABILITY , to succeed in life as anyone else.

Stop letting liberals convince you that blacks are inferior.

I don't think I've ever seen anyone more off-base.

Democrats support affirmative action and other policies to give minorities a leg up because they recognize that these people have potential to offer our country, and it's been untapped because of systemic historical discrimination and ongoing racism.

It's Republicans who think that there was no policy in the past that puts blacks/Hispanics/etc. at a disadvantage today. They think the impact of slavery and Jim Crow today is cured. If you think that, the only conclusion you CAN come to is that you believe the races are genetically inferior.

Of course there are conservatives who believe blacks are inferior. But that has nothing to do with the fact that those of us who are saying "look at the way Democratic policies have absolutely failed blacks for 50 years now " You can't argue that point though, it's plainly obvious that Democratic policies have FAILED blacks, so you must instead resort to ad hom attack to cover up your own weak argument.

Gary, name a Democratic policy over the last 50 years that you claim has improved black lives and then show us stats that prove your claim.

Why do you hone in on "Democratic policies" as if they exist in a vacuum to affect blacks alone? The truth is that we have had Republicans in Congress and the executive and the judicial branch who have undermined democratic policies and pushed us further right, particularly in the past 30 years. A "progressive" policy was not put forth by Clinton in 1996 to create mandatory minimum sentences in federal prison, it was a handout to the Republican Revolution that demanded law and order, and thereby destroyed the futures of millions of black men and their children in ghettos throughout the nation.

Most of the blacks in the U.S. lived in the South, where they had ZERO control over their political fate. It's not even debatable that the white power structure in the south -- up until 1965 -- prohibited blacks from voting. Period. Please explain how the "Democratic Policy" of Civil Rights and Voting Rights in 1964 and 1965 would've put the (already desperately poor and disenfranchised blacks) in a position of being poor and disenfranchised?

Nah, never mind, you can't. Because you're wrong. Since the Great Society and Civil Rights in the 60s, black poverty has been on the decline.

Moreover, in 1973, Nixon declared a "war on drugs" and it was well known that blacks would be disproportionately affected by this "war". Any reasonable expert today will tell you that the war was a political and social failure, and has created the world's largest underclass of imprisoned people while providing zero assistance to the families left behind.

"Progressive" policies aren't responsible for any blight in black neighborhoods that you see. You're simply off base, and wrong. Again.

I hone in on Democratic policies because those are the ones I'm asking you to defend. You bring up the war on drugs, Hell fire man, I was involved in the war on drugs in terms of it was my job , and I agree, it was a stupid waste of money and effort and didn't help anyone.

I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY about Democratic ideas. The war on poverty. Tell me one thing about it that actually helped black people.

You can't so of course you will move the goal posts , again.

Wait, what?

I just described a whole series of legislation that demonstrably and dramatically decreased black poverty (with a f&*^ing graph for crissakes). Can you not fucking read???

LOL you posted a graph with no link. That proves NOTHING.

 

[GaryDog]

I don't think I've ever seen anyone more off-base.

Democrats support affirmative action and other policies to give minorities a leg up because they recognize that these people have potential to offer our country, and it's been untapped because of systemic historical discrimination and ongoing racism.

It's Republicans who think that there was no policy in the past that puts blacks/Hispanics/etc. at a disadvantage today. They think the impact of slavery and Jim Crow today is cured. If you think that, the only conclusion you CAN come to is that you believe the races are genetically inferior.

Of course there are conservatives who believe blacks are inferior. But that has nothing to do with the fact that those of us who are saying "look at the way Democratic policies have absolutely failed blacks for 50 years now " You can't argue that point though, it's plainly obvious that Democratic policies have FAILED blacks, so you must instead resort to ad hom attack to cover up your own weak argument.

Gary, name a Democratic policy over the last 50 years that you claim has improved black lives and then show us stats that prove your claim.

Why do you hone in on "Democratic policies" as if they exist in a vacuum to affect blacks alone? The truth is that we have had Republicans in Congress and the executive and the judicial branch who have undermined democratic policies and pushed us further right, particularly in the past 30 years. A "progressive" policy was not put forth by Clinton in 1996 to create mandatory minimum sentences in federal prison, it was a handout to the Republican Revolution that demanded law and order, and thereby destroyed the futures of millions of black men and their children in ghettos throughout the nation.

Most of the blacks in the U.S. lived in the South, where they had ZERO control over their political fate. It's not even debatable that the white power structure in the south -- up until 1965 -- prohibited blacks from voting. Period. Please explain how the "Democratic Policy" of Civil Rights and Voting Rights in 1964 and 1965 would've put the (already desperately poor and disenfranchised blacks) in a position of being poor and disenfranchised?

Nah, never mind, you can't. Because you're wrong. Since the Great Society and Civil Rights in the 60s, black poverty has been on the decline.

Moreover, in 1973, Nixon declared a "war on drugs" and it was well known that blacks would be disproportionately affected by this "war". Any reasonable expert today will tell you that the war was a political and social failure, and has created the world's largest underclass of imprisoned people while providing zero assistance to the families left behind.

"Progressive" policies aren't responsible for any blight in black neighborhoods that you see. You're simply off base, and wrong. Again.

I hone in on Democratic policies because those are the ones I'm asking you to defend. You bring up the war on drugs, Hell fire man, I was involved in the war on drugs in terms of it was my job , and I agree, it was a stupid waste of money and effort and didn't help anyone.

I'm asking you SPECIFICALLY about Democratic ideas. The war on poverty. Tell me one thing about it that actually helped black people.

You can't so of course you will move the goal posts , again.

Wait, what?

I just described a whole series of legislation that demonstrably and dramatically decreased black poverty (with a f&*^ing graph for crissakes). Can you not fucking read???

LOL you posted a graph with no link. That proves NOTHING.

Disprove them with your own research xxxxxx. They're Census figures. Holy shit. Is there a single inconvenient fact you won't deny?

 

[Papageorgio]

We have the cities of Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland Liberal leaders in each city and look what is happening. Democratic policies have failed the black communities.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

We have the cities of Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland Liberal leaders in each city and look what is happening. Democratic policies have failed the black communities.

Surely Gary has been removed from the discussion by now, but the fact is people like him don't want the truth. They just want to feel better about themselves. "look at me I'm helping"

 

[Papageorgio]

We have the cities of Detroit, Baltimore, Oakland Liberal leaders in each city and look what is happening. Democratic policies have failed the black communities.

Surely Gary has been removed from the discussion by now, but the fact is people like him don't want the truth. They just want to feel better about themselves. "look at me I'm helping"

All he has done on this thread is insult others. He has no interest in anything other than race baiting.

The real issue is that they don't want to face their issues. Ask what they want in reparations and they won't or can't quantify it. When you ask they think needs to be done with the current property, they can't quantify it. The racial tensions are real, they aren't exaggerated but people don't want to solve the issues.

 

[Holos]

Here is a very well researched, data driven look at how things just aren't the same for people of color when it comes to upward mobility and wealth creation.

The Average Black Family Would Need 228 Years to Build the Wealth of a White Family Today

It would be great if at least one person is able to learn something from this info. In so many ways....the path toward prosperity is much more difficult for black Americans.

Maybe I am completely ignorant about the topic, and excuse me if my further inquiry happens to be inappropriately offensive, but are we referring here to varieties of physical conditions?

I ask the question because first of all I am not blind and therefore color to me is a constantly changing spectrum. Secondly, my education in South America only taught me about socioeconomic segregation and not about ethnic nor biological segregation.

The article seems to be meta-literary or meta-linguistic, welcoming the reader to complete its lack of reference and somehow spontaneously engage in choosing a momentary black or white side, as if a chess-game, but in which the players have started the game before the reader arrives, therefore restraining the reader to engage at the same time the reader is being welcomed.

Absent significant policy interventions, or a seismic change in the American economy, people of color will never close the gap.

The very first paragraph, in which the article's firm position is apparently given so that the reader can continue their critical reading to form a collaborating opinion has an obvious grammar failure impeding clear literary cohesion.


So I do want to learn with the info, but my educational background is very specific, and therefore would require some of your comprehensive assistance to help me. What can we learn with the article or from the info you put together? What exactly is the difference between people of color and other people if wealth is equal for both?

 

[westwall]

Not all. Just most. Dude I'm a liberal Democrat. I love helping people and the government has a place in that. The problem is progressives want government to be the end all and be all of human life. This is a sort of thinking that is unfortunate because they invariably grab up all of the available resources and leave none to do beneficial work as they have to take care of the bureaucrats who are supposed to run the programs.

That's a complete straw-man argument. And the inefficiency argument goes double for private businesses, who more often than not are the ones contracting with the government, and wasting public money. I have zero confidence in the private sector, for example, to wholly handle necessary public services like health care and policing. There will be horrific inequality and inefficiency, and this has been proven in many countries in South America where we sent in specially trained capitalists to de-nationalize every aspect of govt industry, to horrifying results.

You got part of it correct. The government contracts with private companies who just happen to be friends of theirs. Remember Solyndra? Half a billion dollars of taxpayer money went right into the pockets of friends of obama and Nancy Pelosi. Her son in law I believe it was was a major investor. Funny how the People of the US get screwed, but the politicians and their friends never seem to lose.

I wonder why that is?

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

Not all. Just most. Dude I'm a liberal Democrat. I love helping people and the government has a place in that. The problem is progressives want government to be the end all and be all of human life. This is a sort of thinking that is unfortunate because they invariably grab up all of the available resources and leave none to do beneficial work as they have to take care of the bureaucrats who are supposed to run the programs.

That's a complete straw-man argument. And the inefficiency argument goes double for private businesses, who more often than not are the ones contracting with the government, and wasting public money. I have zero confidence in the private sector, for example, to wholly handle necessary public services like health care and policing. There will be horrific inequality and inefficiency, and this has been proven in many countries in South America where we sent in specially trained capitalists to de-nationalize every aspect of govt industry, to horrifying results.

You got part of it correct. The government contracts with private companies who just happen to be friends of theirs. Remember Solyndra? Half a billion dollars of taxpayer money went right into the pockets of friends of obama and Nancy Pelosi. Her son in law I believe it was was a major investor. Funny how the People of the US get screwed, but the politicians and their friends never seem to lose.

I wonder why that is?

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

I thought we were. Name one.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

That's a complete straw-man argument. And the inefficiency argument goes double for private businesses, who more often than not are the ones contracting with the government, and wasting public money. I have zero confidence in the private sector, for example, to wholly handle necessary public services like health care and policing. There will be horrific inequality and inefficiency, and this has been proven in many countries in South America where we sent in specially trained capitalists to de-nationalize every aspect of govt industry, to horrifying results.

You got part of it correct. The government contracts with private companies who just happen to be friends of theirs. Remember Solyndra? Half a billion dollars of taxpayer money went right into the pockets of friends of obama and Nancy Pelosi. Her son in law I believe it was was a major investor. Funny how the People of the US get screwed, but the politicians and their friends never seem to lose.

I wonder why that is?

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

That's a complete straw-man argument. And the inefficiency argument goes double for private businesses, who more often than not are the ones contracting with the government, and wasting public money. I have zero confidence in the private sector, for example, to wholly handle necessary public services like health care and policing. There will be horrific inequality and inefficiency, and this has been proven in many countries in South America where we sent in specially trained capitalists to de-nationalize every aspect of govt industry, to horrifying results.

You got part of it correct. The government contracts with private companies who just happen to be friends of theirs. Remember Solyndra? Half a billion dollars of taxpayer money went right into the pockets of friends of obama and Nancy Pelosi. Her son in law I believe it was was a major investor. Funny how the People of the US get screwed, but the politicians and their friends never seem to lose.

I wonder why that is?

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

I thought we were. Name one.

I actually DID name one, unless I'm wrong and Tesla received federal funds?

 

[westwall]

You got part of it correct. The government contracts with private companies who just happen to be friends of theirs. Remember Solyndra? Half a billion dollars of taxpayer money went right into the pockets of friends of obama and Nancy Pelosi. Her son in law I believe it was was a major investor. Funny how the People of the US get screwed, but the politicians and their friends never seem to lose.

I wonder why that is?

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

You got part of it correct. The government contracts with private companies who just happen to be friends of theirs. Remember Solyndra? Half a billion dollars of taxpayer money went right into the pockets of friends of obama and Nancy Pelosi. Her son in law I believe it was was a major investor. Funny how the People of the US get screwed, but the politicians and their friends never seem to lose.

I wonder why that is?

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

I thought we were. Name one.

I actually DID name one, unless I'm wrong and Tesla received federal funds?

Yes, TESLA has received billions in taxpayer money.

 

[Meathead]

That is all completely untrue. In the UK the black populations have done very well. They too were originally slaves (though the Brits got rid of that horrible institution sooner than we did) but once they were free they blossomed. They didn't have the race whores profiting from their misery as exists here.

Here is the black blossoming of Britain for you West. Just saw it today and I thought I should share:

The commission, which carried out an analysis of existing evidence, said:

• Black people in England are more than three times more likely to be a victim of homicide than those who are white
• Unemployment rates were "significantly higher" for ethnic minorities
• Black workers with degrees earn 23.1% less on average than white employees with the qualifications
• Ethnic minority people were more likely to live in poverty than white people
• Ethnic minorities are still "hugely under-represented" in positions of power - such as judges and police chiefs

Ethnic minorities face 'entrenched' racial inequality - watchdog - BBC News

Of course the article states that blacks are 3x more likely to be victims of homicide but fails to state the rate of offenders who are black. It is BBC reporting on some commission's study after all.

Let me know if any of this sounds familiar, or does it still sound like blossoming?

 

[Fair&Balanced]

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

Solyndra is not an example of what I'm talking about. I'm discussing the federal government contracting out GOVERNMENT WORKS to private agencies. Like fighting wars, policing communities, and other traditional government roles.

Solyndra was given a grant to continue its private sector work. That's not the same thing. And plenty of green companies succeeded while you and other rightwingers beat the Solyndra drum to death for 7 years.

Name a single green company that has managed to survive without massive amounts of taxpayer support.

So you don't want to talk about the real issue? You just want to beat to death a 2009 talking point from Fox News?

I thought we were. Name one.

I actually DID name one, unless I'm wrong and Tesla received federal funds?

Yes, TESLA has received billions in taxpayer money.

Damn, $4.9B to be exact, but hey at least they have succeeded.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

 

[PredFan]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

I like how he tried to pretend that it wasn't obvious that one was a bailiff, one was a lawyer and the other was a defendant.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober​

What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?

Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.

As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.

FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope​

 

[PredFan]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober​

What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?

Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.

As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.

FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope​

Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.

In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.

 

[Fair&Balanced]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober​

What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?

Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.

As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.

FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope​

Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.

In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.

Prepare for 320 to now place on you ignore pretending that you are not worth his time .

What you say is of course exactly true. If slavery and racism were the sole reasons for black failure, we wouldn't see ANY successful blacks. But of course, we do.

 

[320 Years of History]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober​

What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?

Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.

As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.

FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope​

Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.

In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.

And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....

 

[PredFan]

If you are black in America today, you have no excuse for not being successful. The difference between these three black men: personal choices.

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober​

What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?

Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.

As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.

FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope​

Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.

In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.

And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....

Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.

Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.

 

[320 Years of History]

??? How can you be sure of that? All you've presented is a photo. The only things I see as being materially different among those three individuals is their style of dress, height, apparent weight and their facial hair. I think there ages are notably different in that the person on the right may not be an adult, whereas the other two are; thus I cannot say for sure there are even three men in the photo. It may be two men and a boy/minor.

From the photo alone, I can't even say for sure whether all three have a job. Moreover, I can't even say whether the photo is one from a staged situation like a play, movie, or television show, or whether it comes from a real-world situation. What is the relationship among the three individuals? I don't know just from the photo. I know what it looks like. I know from the context of this thread discussion what it presumably purports to be. But do I actually know what it is? No. You didn't even provide a caption to the photo, so how could I know?

For some folks, the assumptions they'd make about the three individuals are the same ones they'd make were the individuals not black. You, for example have assumed they each made materially different life choices. In contrast, I have no way to tell how different their life choices may be, so I have no assumptions about them in that regard. About the only pretty good assumption one can make as go life choices is that the man on the left made one that resulted in his working in law enforcement. I don't see handcuffs on the guy on the right, so I don't know whether he's merely standing with his hands clasped behind his back or whether he is indeed cuffed.

Now can I make a bunch of assumptions about the situation shown in the photo and about the three people in it? Of course I can, but our society's willingness to do make those assumptions about individuals and rely upon them is squarely at the center of the race problem we have in the U.S. What we're discussing here is a photo and what can be inferred from it, and that's somewhat innocuous in and of itself because the context is merely a photo. But in "real life," folks continue to make about actual people the same kinds of assumptions they must make to interpret a photo. When folks do that, what in a different situation would be harmless assumptions become detrimental and unjust bias. I hope you and others can see how doing that is dehumanizing for it unavoidably and tacitly asserts that a person deserves no greater level of consideration than does a photo.

Wow! You really danced around the obvious on that one. Occam's Razor. This simplest explanation is likely the truth. Personal choices is the difference between those three men.

The legitimacy of parsimony stands or falls, in a particular research context, on subject matter specific (and a posteriori) considerations. […] What makes parsimony reasonable in one context may have nothing in common with why it matters in another.
-- Elliot Sober​

What could be simpler, and fairer, than refraining from making assumptions about other individuals and refraining from drawing conclusions about them once one has the full set of information that exists about them?

Parsimony is a wonderful thing, but as with all things, context determines what philosophical principle rightly applies. Simplicity for its own sake is of no real value at all. Simplicity in passing judgment on a photo is one thing for, but applying it to the assessment of other humans is a wholly different matter. Individuals of high ethical constitution know when and what it is they don't know about another person, and knowing that, they accord the other person the objectivity they are due from extant doubt.

As I wrote, and it clearly went right past you, we are talking about people, not merely pictures, and the assumptions made about them (currently or in the past, but that yet endure today). Of all the things in the world that are simple, and simply understood and concluded upon, people are not among them.

FWIW, I suggest you read this. It'll give you a much better understanding of simplicity as a mode of thought and analysis. After reading it, assuming you do read it, you should be able to understand comprehensively why your having invoked Occam is amiss in this context. Prior to the 20th century it was believed that the metaphysical justification for Ockham's Razor was simplicity. It was thought that nature was in some sense simple and that our theories about nature should reflect that simplicity. With such a metaphysical justification came the implication that Ockham's Razor is a metaphysical principle. From the beginning of the 20th century, these views fell out of favor as scientists presented an increasingly complex world view. In response, philosophers turned away from metaphysical justifications for Ockham's Razor to epistemological ones including inductive, pragmatic, likelihood and probabilistic justifications, which is where things stand today. Thus, Ockham's Razor is accurately conceived of as a methodological principle not as a conclusive one, which is the substantive implication of the idea expressed in your response to my post.

A little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing.
-- Alexander Pope​

Yes, apparently quite dangerous. In your case, a little bit of knowledge leads you to pretend the obvious does not exist. Your view leads to nothing but a continuation of the same problems. Everyone throwing up their hands wondering why the problems have been going on so long and why they still exist. Your overthinking paralyzes not just you but all efforts to solve the problem. It really is that simple. The man on the right made personal choices that led him to handcuffs in front of a judge. The man on the left made personal choices that led him to a responsible position in court of law. The man in the center made personal choices that led him to a high level of success. Could be that the man in the center made the personal choice to be a lawyer and help people like the man on the right. Could be that the man on the left made the personal choice to protect his neighborhood from people like the man in the right. I can only guess at their motivations, but it's all personal choices. Unless you think the ones not in handcuffs were given their positions and the man on the right got left out for some reason.

In this case the simplest answer is the correct one: personal choices.

And what makes you know, based solely on the photo, that "personal choices" is the correct answer; moreover that, by the implication of your comment posted when you shared the photo, as "the correct answer," it can be extrapolated to the entirely of the black community? Your remarks indicate your answer to that question must essentially follow the line of "Occam's razor tells me so." Sure, you go with that....

Logic, reason, and knowledge is why I know. The only explanation other than personal choice is that those three men were arbitrarily handed their positions. One was given the job of lawyer, one was given the job of bailiff, and the third drew the short straw and was given a life of crime.

Of course the reality is that those three men earned what they got by personal choices they made.

Red:
To logically and reasonably know that the conclusion at which you have arrived about the people in the photo is correct, one would actually have to know a variety of things, things not provided in the photo alone, about the three pictured individuals. One cannot know, based solely on the photo, what distinguishes the key life choices the pictured individuals have made.

Here's the photo again for reference.