FBI Opens Investigation into Shooting of Michael Brown

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by cuervo72

I'm going to boil down one side's argument to let the rest of you figure out if it's worth continuing the discussion.

I don’t agree with a lot that Brian says, but that is a bang out of order edit of his post: the words that immediately follow these are the emphasis, not the words you have quoted

Edit: now argue that the whole phrase is missing the point, I have sympathy with that, but your quote is Fox-esque distortion of what he said

[Butter]

The solve for higher incidence of black crime are things like social justice, improved black hiring rates at white collar jobs, real integration into the suburbs, real addressing of things like housing cost, and the imbalance of inner city school funding vs. suburban school funding. And when you start talking about things like that, that's when most white people say "I'm out", or we've already done enough to level the playing field

[rjolley]

Saying that Black Lives Matter needs to address "Black on Black" crime if they want to be serious is missing the point.

First, that's simply not what Black lives Matter is focused on. They are focused on police brutality and police reform.

Second, there are other groups focused on crime in Black communities. They don't have the same mainstream publicity, and they don't need to. In the Black community, those groups and efforts are known.

Third, "Black on Black" crime is as big of a problem as "White on White" crime. Where are the All Lives Matter people at in addressing those crimes?

Lastly, do you believe that police officers are rightly scared for their lives? That >1% of the Black people they encounter are killers? That they have a greater than 1 in 100 chance of meeting a Black person who would rather kill them than comply? The data supports the police are as likely to encounter someone White who is a killer, so why aren't they as on alert then?

[Brian Swartz]

Go ahead and tell me that if someone wrote something titled 'The Whiter the Content, the Sweeter the Truth' or 'master race-baiter' everybody would be totally fine with that and it wouldn't be at all racist/supremacist. I restricted my criticism of that thread to the actual argument made, but that phrase is just ugly and insidious. I know it's not politically correct to point these things out, but I'm not going to pretend the obvious isn't staring me in the face. And no, I don't care if it's a joke. If you want to be taken seriously on racial issues, act like it.

Originally Posted by Arles

That's how I look at Black on Black murder (#1) and Police killings of black men (#2). There's one that we should be able to take steps to prevent as a society ...

The only place we differ is that I think there's a lot more we can do about #1 than #2. Part of the reason for that is a 1% decline in #1 has far more impact than a 50% decline in #2.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

The only place we differ is that I think there's a lot more we can do about #1 than #2. Part of the reason for that is a 1% decline in #1 has far more impact than a 50% decline in #2.

I actually disagree with you both. I think we can and should do more on both #1 "black on black killing" and #2 "police killings of black men".

I think we can arguably extend the definition of #2 to "police relationship with black community". Fair or not, regardless of who has more "blame" & stripping out the racism aspect ... there is definitely an opinion/trust/relationship problem between police and the black community. So whereas 50% decline in #2 is definitely less of an impact than #1, if you were to discuss it as (re)building up relationship/trust (through various means already discussed) is arguably more important than #1.

Polling that shows differences in opinion re: police/criminal justice system

How black, white Americans differ in views of criminal justice system | Pew Research Center



White police thinking there is less of a problem than black police

How The Police See Issues Of Race And Policing | FiveThirtyEight

[Brian Swartz]

I'm not sure where the impression is coming from that I don't think we should address #2. I can start quoting the various posts I've made stating otherwhise if it would help.


<---- honestly is confused on this point.

[cuervo72]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I don’t agree with a lot that Brian says, but that is a bang out of order edit of his post: the words that immediately follow these are the emphasis, not the words you have quoted

Edit: now argue that the whole phrase is missing the point, I have sympathy with that, but your quote is Fox-esque distortion of what he said

But that's what that side of the argument ultimately boils down to. Maybe Brian doesn't believe that, but the "black on black crime" canard absolutely boils down to that. That we shouldn't address a problem of disproportionate violence against blacks because they are just going to kill each other anyway. So why should we care?

Black on black crime shouldn't even be part of this discussion. It's a disingenuous argument.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm not sure where the impression is coming from that I don't think we should address #2. I can start quoting the various posts I've made stating otherwhise if it would help.

<---- honestly is confused on this point.

It was your statement below which I inferred to mean more priority on #1 than #2.

I think there's a lot more we can do about #1 than #2

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Why do you think they aren't? As soon as 'black-on-black crime' elects public leadership, has a union, collects a publicly funded paycheck from a government organization and takes a collective oath to protect & serve the folks they are killing, then I imagine they will become a primary focus of organized efforts like BLM.

Expecting people to protest against black-on-black crime is fundamentally warped. Who do you expect would be effected by & implement the changes demanded by such a protest? The black-on-black crime board?

You mean there isn't just one giant "black person" meeting where they can bring this up and knock it out, lickety split?

SI

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You mean there isn't just one giant "black person" meeting where they can bring this up and knock it out, lickety split?

SI

The same can be said about "white allies" at this point.

Honestly I think the biggest fault of anyone is trying to divide people based on their race.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

You mean there isn't just one giant "black person" meeting where they can bring this up and knock it out, lickety split?

SI

I know this is a joke, but there are times that I wonder if people believe there's either a Black meeting where we discuss issues and come to an agreement on everything from music to religion to political party affiliation or if we're genetically identical coming from a common person.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

The same can be said about "white allies" at this point.

Honestly I think the biggest fault of anyone is trying to divide people based on their race.

Can you expand a bit on the "white allies" part?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Can you expand a bit on the "white allies" part?

Nope, I can't

But I hear the term used. That was kind of the point of the statement.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Nope, I can't

But I hear the term used. That was kind of the point of the statement.

So you're not sure what is meant by White allies?

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

I'm not sure where the impression is coming from that I don't think we should address #2. I can start quoting the various posts I've made stating otherwhise if it would help.


<---- honestly is confused on this point.

I don't want to speak for anyone else, so here's my thoughts and mine alone when I hear "what about black on black crime" when talking about policing problems and reform.

To me, it sounds an awful lot like "let's just fix the black community and then the police stuff fixes itself", diminishing how big of a problem the policing issues are. It reminds of when I'd ask my parents something and they would say "later", which we all know translated to "we're not going to do it but we're going to push it off so you won't remember the stuff you really wanted". It seems like a way to just get away from the original point, a classic whataboutism.

Also, it then seems like the burden would then be to show that black-on-black crime is so much greater compared to, I dunno, are we calling it blue-on-black(?) crime that solving one fixes the other /and/ that the first problem is eminently solvable. Never mind that they could obviously be solved in parallel.

The more cynical side of me also hears "it's black people's fault and they're getting what they deserve/reaping what they sow" which feels to me as ranging from paternalism to just straight up overt racism.

Again, just what I hear and I'm open to it being the wrong interpretation.

EDIT: It also whistles right past the police brutality problems we saw against people of all color during the protests.

SI

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by rjolley

So you're not sure what is meant by White allies?

So now you have to explain what he meant by his statement? What a fun world we live in.

SI

[Carman Bulldog]

My problem with the whole Black Lives Matter movement is the complete lack of evidence of any racial animus in these deaths, as opposed to poor training and perhaps temperaments unfit for policing. If someone wants to provide evidence otherwise, I'm open to being convinced.

The blanket statement however that blacks are killed by police at a disproportionate rate per capita is not a convincing argument. Are there any supporting facts that deaths of black males at the hands of police are racially-driven? Males make up only 49% of the population but account for 96% of victims in fatal police shootings. Does this suggest that police are also sexist? Or alternatively, are there maybe other contextual factors at play?

In fact, a Michigan State-Maryland study (perhaps one of the ones cited earlier by Brian Swartz) found that among civilians fatally shot, officer race did not predict civilian race and there was no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities. So feel free to keep believing the false narrative advanced by BLM and adopted by the media, or alternatively, do the research yourself.

I also find it odd that in a discussion about police violence, people are saying to go create a new thread if one wants to discuss solving institutional racism and black-on-black crime.

The very reason that one needs to look at violent crime rates (rather than say all crimes) is because violent crime rates are the driving force behind fatal shootings. Additionally "...the rate of crime by each racial group correlates with the likelihood of citizens from that racial group being shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot. It is the best predictor we have of fatal police shootings” (from this article by one of the authors of the MSU-MU study).

If one is truly interested in the best way to reduce the number of deaths of black males at the hands of police, then a discussion on criminogenic factors associated to violent offending is required. Discussing reducing black-on-black crime isn't simply some distraction tactic to avoid discussing the death rates of black males at the hands of police, it also holds the key to reducing said rates.

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by rjolley

So you're not sure what is meant by White allies?

Explain it to me

[sterlingice]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Explain it to me

As above - he has to explain what you're saying back to you? Aren't you the one who said it?

SI

[Radii]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Go ahead and tell me that if someone wrote something titled 'The Whiter the Content, the Sweeter the Truth' or 'master race-baiter' everybody would be totally fine with that and it wouldn't be at all racist/supremacist.

And that is the difference between the oppressor and the oppressed.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Honestly I think the biggest fault of anyone is trying to divide people based on their race.

https://www.reddit.com/r/SelfAwarewolves/

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Lastly, do you believe that police officers are rightly scared for their lives? That >1% of the Black people they encounter are killers? That they have a greater than 1 in 100 chance of meeting a Black person who would rather kill them than comply? The data supports the police are as likely to encounter someone White who is a killer, so why aren't they as on alert then?

By the same logic, shouldn't young black males (particularly if unarmed) be more afraid of interacting with other young black males rather than the police?

[NobodyHere]

Originally Posted by sterlingice

As above - he has to explain what you're saying back to you? Aren't you the one who said it?

SI

I didn't coin the term, no

So what is it?

[booradley]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

My problem with the whole Black Lives Matter movement is the complete lack of evidence of any racial animus in these deaths, as opposed to poor training and perhaps temperaments unfit for policing. If someone wants to provide evidence otherwise, I'm open to being convinced.

The blanket statement however that blacks are killed by police at a disproportionate rate per capita is not a convincing argument. Are there any supporting facts that deaths of black males at the hands of police are racially-driven? Males make up only 49% of the population but account for 96% of victims in fatal police shootings. Does this suggest that police are also sexist? Or alternatively, are there maybe other contextual factors at play?

In fact, a Michigan State-Maryland study (perhaps one of the ones cited earlier by Brian Swartz) found that among civilians fatally shot, officer race did not predict civilian race and there was no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities. So feel free to keep believing the false narrative advanced by BLM and adopted by the media, or alternatively, do the research yourself.

I also find it odd that in a discussion about police violence, people are saying to go create a new thread if one wants to discuss solving institutional racism and black-on-black crime.

The very reason that one needs to look at violent crime rates (rather than say all crimes) is because violent crime rates are the driving force behind fatal shootings. Additionally "...the rate of crime by each racial group correlates with the likelihood of citizens from that racial group being shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of white people committing crimes, white people are more likely to be shot. If you live in a county that has a lot of black people committing crimes, black people are more likely to be shot. It is the best predictor we have of fatal police shootings” (from this article by one of the authors of the MSU-MU study).

If one is truly interested in the best way to reduce the number of deaths of black males at the hands of police, then a discussion on criminogenic factors associated to violent offending is required. Discussing reducing black-on-black crime isn't simply some distraction tactic to avoid discussing the death rates of black males at the hands of police, it also holds the key to reducing said rates.

Well said. Paragraph 5 underscores the same point factually touched upon by Brian Swartz (I believe) and myself earlier in this thread.

[JPhillips]

Structural racism in policing isn't simply about shootings. Again, there is a ton of data showing racial disparities in stops, arrests, convictions, and sentencing.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

By the same logic, shouldn't young black males (particularly if unarmed) be more afraid of interacting with other young black males rather than the police?

Edit: To answer your question more directly, no, they shouldn't necessarily be more afraid of interacting with other young Black males for the same reason young White males aren't more afraid of interacting with other young White males rather than the police...they're dealing with people who are like them.

Black men tend to be more anxious around the police due to being harassed for various reasons like stop and frisk, profiling, etc, etc. Those practices are have been going on for a long time and have helped sow mistrust between Black men and law enforcement that is still there today.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

Discussing reducing black-on-black crime isn't simply some distraction tactic to avoid discussing the death rates of black males at the hands of police, it also holds the key to reducing said rates.

Until one of you (and that extends collectively to the throngs of folks all over the internet that I've suddenly seen cite this data) suggests anything other than "what about this study I read last week?" that's exactly what it is.

I'm still waiting for someone relying on the same data to connect it to any kind of point. Yes black-on-black crime is arguably an even bigger malignant force on black Americans than police brutality, so any individual members of Black Lives Matter, an organization explicitly devoted to ending police brutality, should immediately stop the protests that they are in the midst of, which are directly responsible for historic reforms in a remarkably short period of time, so that their efforts can better focus on "their own"? Every time they open their mouths in public they should make sure to first qualify that "black-on-black crime is the real killer in our communities"?

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by NobodyHere

Explain it to me

I'll take this as a genuine question and will answer in kind:

Very simply, White allies are White people who are working to help end racial inequality. Others have more in depth answers if you care to research about it.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by booradley

Well, I was interested until the final paragraph. Then came the hackneyed trope "If you don't accept my POV then you're totally wrong." So you're right. Nothing to debate here since you aren't willing to be an honest participant.

I literally was parroting your words at you. And I have no interest in having a back and forth for 50 posts only to realize we don't agree enough to even come close to an understanding.

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

Interestingly I showed some studies on that matter and did get back to you. That post was ignored. Would someone else posting similar information be better? (for reference, here's what I posted nearly two weeks ago)

Your post was basically that you thought the percentages of blacks getting killed as a percentage of whites getting killed was too low - 3times rather than 30times.

I will point out that the Fryer study was actually referenced in a WaPo article I shared and after peer review was found to minimize racial biases (the 2020 Update listed below): Roland Fryer is wrong: There is racial bias in shootings by police | Justin Feldman

As for the blacks drive different study, another study shows that the disparity between blacks and whites getting pulled over lessened dramatically at night - when it's harder to tell the race of the driver of a car. Not to mention that blacks are more likely be searched after a stop even though whites were more likely to be found with illicit drugs: A large-scale analysis of racial disparities in police stops across the United States | Nature Human Behaviour

Then we have the assertion that the fact of more violent crime being committed by blacks is a manifestation of systemic racism. Um, no.

Some of this is impacted by systemic and historic racism. For generations drug offenses (as noted) have been overpoliced in black communities while violent crime has been underpoliced. This does contribute to distrust of the police and revenge killings instead of relying on justice, exacerbating the problem. All of that is real and important.

So you get the law enforcement issues of systemic racism, but how do you not get the economic issues of systemic racism? We had a discussion a few pages back talking about crime and poverty (and discussing how white collar crimes are not taken as seriously as they should). Economic systemic racism deals with your final paragraph issue, btw, I think.

Every year from 2015 to 2018 at least 150 police were killed. Per 10k officers, that's 2.15 to 2.2 deaths.

So curiously, historically the FBI generally has much lower numbers than, say Officer Down or the National Law Enforcement Officers Memorial Fund:

FBI Releases 2015 Preliminary Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty — FBI

FBI Releases 2016 Preliminary Statistics for Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty — FBI.

FBI Announces Changes to Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, 2017 and Releases 2017 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty — FBI.

FBI Releases 2018 Statistics on Law Enforcement Officers Killed in the Line of Duty — FBI.

So 41 in 2015, 66 in 2016, 46 in 2017, and 55 in 2018, which is around 1/3rd of the numbers you have cited. The confusion may be that the FBI separates out officers killed in felonious activity and those killed by accidents that were not the result of an intentional act.

[ISiddiqui]

I keep hearing what about protests against black-on-black crime. It does indeed happen, it just doesn't get covered that much:

https://www.theatlantic.com/national...olence/255329/

Not to mention what thesloppy says:

Originally Posted by thesloppy

Again, you keep entirely ignoring the crucial fact that there is no leadership or organization to protest against. Who would implement these changes?

Right and this exactly what Al Sharpton found. What, you didn't realize that Sharpton was trying to tackle crime in Chicago?

Sharpton to Do Anti-Violence Work in Chicago – NBC Chicago

Think Chicago's violence is an easy fix? Ask the Rev. Al Sharpton - Chicago Tribune

Once again, the national media doesn't care so they don't cover this stuff.

[Brian Swartz]

I'll return to this discussion when I've recovered emotional stability.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

What a disgustingly racist thing to say.

@@

(I guess I could just say what a disgustingly privileged thing to say, but then it goes back to 50 posts where at the end we realize we simply don't agree on enough to agree on anything)

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by thesloppy

I'm still waiting for someone relying on the same data to connect it to any kind of point.

The whole point (and I thought I made this pretty clear but apologize if I did not) is that if you want to reduce the amount of deaths of black people at the hands of police, then what you should really be doing is looking at the factors that lead to their involvement in violent crime (based on studies already provided) .

Now I'm speculating here, but many of the same factors that cause black people to be disproportionately involved in violent crime likely play a factor in the disproportionately high number of black-on-black deaths.

Ergo, if you address the criminogenic factors related to violent crime, you address the rates of death at the hands of police.

I can almost promise you that if the number of black-on-black deaths decreases, so too will the number of deaths of black people at the hands of police.

So if you really want to reduce the number of deaths of black people at the hands of police, you have to talk about black-on-black crime and the factors that contribute to it.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

The whole point (and I thought I made this pretty clear but apologize if I did not) is that if you want to reduce the amount of deaths of black people at the hands of police, then what you should really be doing is looking at the factors that lead to their involvement in violent crime (based on studies already provided) .

Now I'm speculating here, but many of the same factors that cause black people to be disproportionately involved in violent crime likely play a factor in the disproportionately high number of black-on-black deaths.

Ergo, if you address the criminogenic factors related to violent crime, you address the rates of death at the hands of police.

I can almost promise you that if the number of black-on-black deaths decreases, so too will the number of deaths of black people at the hands of police.

So if you really want to reduce the number of deaths of black people at the hands of police, you have to talk about black-on-black crime and the factors that contribute to it.

I'll agree with your point overall. There is more to solving this problem than just the agenda that Black Lives Matter has put forth. However, that doesn't mean that BLM needs to address all of the factors and it doesn't invalidate their position. There are multiple efforts working towards the same overarching goal, as there should be. This is a problem way too big for one organization to work through.

Does there need to be police reform? Yes.

Does there need to be a change to remove the racial barriers that prevent a chance to improve their lot in life? Yes.

If we were in a place where racial inequality wasn't an issue, concentrating on your own community would make sense. We aren't there yet, so there are, and should be, different groups working on different parts of the problem.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Structural racism in policing isn't simply about shootings. Again, there is a ton of data showing racial disparities in stops, arrests, convictions, and sentencing.

I think you are confounding the justice system as a whole with policing. I really don't think the police have much influence about some of the latter things you referenced, particularly convictions and sentencing. Other things, such as arrests, are at least partially contingent on lawmakers and politicians. Then you also have to factor in the amount of offences being committed, particularly violent offences and offences against persons, unless of course you are suggesting that white people and black people commit murder at equal rates per capita and only black people get arrested for it.

This is not to say that profiling does not exist, but the solution is much more difficult than saying "don't racially profile." A lot of profiling is heuristics, shortcuts that our brains use for decision making. This actually requires conscious and on-going effort at re-wiring our brains and not a simple "racial profiling is bad, don't do it" statement.

[Carman Bulldog]

Originally Posted by rjolley

There is more to solving this problem than just the agenda that Black Lives Matter has put forth. However, that doesn't mean that BLM needs to address all of the factors and it doesn't invalidate their position.

This is where I disagree with you, and particularly the agenda put forth by Black Lives Matter.

The research and statistics simply do not support the position that black people are victims of police shootings at a disproportionately higher rate than any other race, once one accounts for arrests for violent offences. Based on the research I previously cited, you have to account for violent offences because violent crime rates are the driving force behind police shootings.

Furthermore (and again because of the research I previously provided), I don't believe that racism is the cause of black people being shot, nor have I found anything to suggest that there is racial animus at play in any of these deaths.

So I think by ignoring black-on-black crime, and more importantly the factors that lead to it, the BLM position is invalidated. Because reducing the factors leading to violent crime (and in turn, arrests for violent offences) would have the most direct impact on reducing deaths of black people at the hands of police.

[JPhillips]

There is voluminous data that blacks are stopped more, arrested more, convicted more, and sentenced longer than whites. There is a much bigger problem than just police shootings.

edit: There are a lot of specific procedural and training changes that have been proposed. It isn't about, don't profile.

[cuervo72]

I'm missing why "factors leading to violent crime" is the key element here. Was George Floyd committing a violent crime? Atatiana Jefferson? Stephon Clark? Philando Castile? Are they guilty by association here? Well, blacks commit violent crimes, so, you know! Are we saying blacks are dying at the hands of police because of an image problem of their own making?

Because that's what it sounds like. You all stop being violent, and we'll stop shooting you.

[Butter]

So, if I can understand the contrarian position in this thread, it is that black people are not the victims of systemic racism at the hands of police, despite the poll numbers that even whites believe they are at a 2:1 ratio. And despite overwhelming anecdotal and video evidence to the contrary.

And also that unless BLM attempts to address ALL sources of systemic racism at once, then their entire movement is invalidated.

That's one hell of a burden to impose on a movement. Some might even call it... racist.

[Butter]

Or as I have seen it better put lately:

Judging BLM by their most violent and disorderly participants, but not judging cops by their most violent and lawless members is the language of the oppressor.

[rjolley]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

This is where I disagree with you, and particularly the agenda put forth by Black Lives Matter.

The research and statistics simply do not support the position that black people are victims of police shootings at a disproportionately higher rate than any other race, once one accounts for arrests for violent offences. Based on the research I previously cited, you have to account for violent offences because violent crime rates are the driving force behind police shootings.

Furthermore (and again because of the research I previously provided), I don't believe that racism is the cause of black people being shot, nor have I found anything to suggest that there is racial animus at play in any of these deaths.

So I think by ignoring black-on-black crime, and more importantly the factors that lead to it, the BLM position is invalidated. Because reducing the factors leading to violent crime (and in turn, arrests for violent offences) would have the most direct impact on reducing deaths of black people at the hands of police.

There are also studies that support Black people being shot more than White, like here and here. There's more to it than just more White people were killed by police so there's no need for BLM to focus solely on policing. (That's my overly simplified interpretation of what your position is.)

You also don't address whether the person that was shot by the police was considered to be guilty of a nonviolent crime or not. Was there a reason to think these were violent offenders? If the reasoning is solely that every Black person is violent so I must be ready to kill every Black person no matter the situation, then that's a problem.

[Radii]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

@@

Of all of the things I said today to call out what I perceive as actions that harm the BLM movement and uphold the status quo, I expected some pushback - but that post I thought was the single most obvious and least "controversial" one lol.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by rjolley

Saying that Black Lives Matter needs to address "Black on Black" crime if they want to be serious is missing the point.

It's just a logical fallacy used by racists who don't want to discuss the issue at hand. It's as dumb as complaining "what about prostate cancer" at a breast cancer walk.

The idea that you can't discuss police brutality until every other problem in the world is sorted out is ludicrous.

[thesloppy]

Originally Posted by Carman Bulldog

So I think by ignoring black-on-black crime, and more importantly the factors that lead to it, the BLM position is invalidated. Because reducing the factors leading to violent crime (and in turn, arrests for violent offences) would have the most direct impact on reducing deaths of black people at the hands of police.

You're literally telling me the historic reforms that are being made and discussed recently as a direct result of BLM protests are invalid because they should have been trying to shorten the wage gap?

The irony is, of course if BLM were out in the streets protesting for gun control, race-based hiring & wage policies, government abortion funding, economic reparations and/or exclusive benefits for blacks the exact same crowd would be saying "now, hold on a second..."

[larrymcg421]

Black on black crime is a huge topic in the black community. One of the ways they'd like to deal with that is getting guns out of the inner cities. The response is that more guns should be in the community. Another way is expanded education and health programs to helpend the cycle of poverty. The response is they should pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

[GrantDawg]

I am contacting The American Cancer Society today. They can no longer have a campaign against cancer since heart disease kills more people. All cancer research needs to stop immediately, because we now know that we can only concentrate on the top killer, and just be fine with all the other ways we die.

[Brian Swartz]

Originally Posted by Radii

f all of the things I said today to call out what I perceive as actions that harm the BLM movement and uphold the status quo, I expected some pushback - but that post I thought was the single most obvious and least "controversial" one lol.

To the contrary, I consider it one of the worst things posted in the entirety of this thread. If we can't agree that racist language is racist no matter who uses it, and are going to intentionally hold black and white people (or for that matter, any two groups of people regardless of how we define them) to different standards, then nothing else we are talking about in this thread even matters.

In that case, we're not even aiming at racial equality, colorblindness, etc. We're not even trying to judge people by the content of their character standard. This is not, as ISsidiqui averred, anything to do with priviledge. It's about logic and equality at the most basic, definitional level. It's 2+2=4 territory.

All of which makes me very sad. I was literally physically ill last thinking about this discussion, because I do very much want solutions. I don't want the cycle the continue. I would desire to be an 'ally' or whatever the latest term-du-jour is. But even here in a group of people that, it has been observed many times is probably quite a bit more well-meaning overall than the general population, we can't even come to a consensus to call a spade a spade? That just makes it so obvious and unavoidable how little hope there is. It certainly means there's no point in continuing to spar verbally with people of disparate views who are misrepresenting my statements far too often for it to merely unintentional in some cases, when we aren't even remotely aiming at the same just outcome.

[GrantDawg]

403 Forbidden
Colorblindness: the New Racism? | Teaching Tolerance
https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/The-M...tro-Sample.pdf

[Brian Swartz]

Your second link makes a horrible argument, the first appears to be broken, and in the third I'm not going to read an entire book for this discussion. The whole impetus in the useful link for the discussion is the omission of Africa, which is decidedly not a colorblind approach. As someone who has a considerable interest in history, I can also tell you that it's totally unserious to create a 'timeline of civilization' and completely omit Africa. A lot of really important events happened there. That's not colorblindness; that's terrible history from someone who needs to learn it before they can teach it.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Brian Swartz

All of which makes me very sad. I was literally physically ill last thinking about this discussion, because I do very much want solutions. I don't want the cycle the continue. I would desire to be an 'ally' or whatever the latest term-du-jour is. But even here in a group of people that, it has been observed many times is probably quite a bit more well-meaning overall than the general population, we can't even come to a consensus to call a spade a spade? That just makes it so obvious and unavoidable how little hope there is. It certainly means there's no point in continuing to spar verbally with people of disparate views who are misrepresenting my statements far too often for it to merely unintentional in some cases, when we aren't even remotely aiming at the same just outcome.

It's not unusual for a discussion to expand beyond the OP intent and tangential (and somewhat irrelevant) side-discussions created. This is exacerbated by other people jumping into the middle of a discussion and stating their position and/or misrepresenting your positions without necessarily understanding well the original context/assumptions. This is true for all of us, we are all at fault here. And it's understandable to a certain degree but I'll grant you that some of the snipes here are unhelpful.

With that said, what I've found that helps me keep the discussion topic in clear view vs tangents, and to keep my position/opinion centered so it cannot be misrepresented is to occasionally restate clearly what they are in my posts (e.g. this is what we are talking about, this is my position etc.). Take it for what its worth, it may help you and lessen the frustration of having to chase and correct endlessly.