Black Lives Matter get police float kicked out of Pride Parade

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is certainly a cognitive bias at play.

You've got that right.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

You've got that right.

It goes both ways. As the numerous studies posted in this thread indicate: police killing of unarmed blacks is a small percentage of overall police killings, but due to a concentrated effort (very necessary, obviously) on social media, people now assume these occasions are the norm.

This is called an anchor effect.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

There is certainly a cognitive bias at play.

But it didn't come from thin air. To go counter to "SJW" when the cause is factually relevant is to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. It really doesn't matter whether the problem is being overblown or not, There's an incredibly serious problem

I agree with CliffFletcher on many issues where he takes more complex and broader positions on this issue, but he's obfuscating this issue. Unarmed black people are brutalized and killed disproportionately by the very forces that should protect us. I get it's en vogue and popular and a cause du jour. That doesn't disqualify it

[ResAlien]

Originally Posted by peter12

It goes both ways. As the numerous studies posted in this thread indicate: police killing of unarmed blacks is a small percentage of overall police killings, but due to a concentrated effort (very necessary, obviously) on social media, people now assume these occasions are the norm.

This is called an anchor effect.

Look back a page or two. No, it is not a small percentage. 13% of the population accounts for 41% of unarmed people killed by police. Are you arguing this isn't an issue?

Maybe the 13% of the population that accounts for 26% of all people killed by the police isn't an issue? It's almost like you're insistent on focusing on an anchor yourself.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

But it didn't come from thin air. To go counter to "SJW" when the cause is factually relevant is to be contrarian for the sake of being contrarian. It really doesn't matter whether the problem is being overblown or not, There's an incredibly serious problem

I agree with CliffFletcher on many issues where he takes more complex and broader positions on this issue, but he's obfuscating this issue. Unarmed black people are brutalized and killed disproportionately by the very forces that should protect us. I get it's en vogue and popular and a cause du jour. That doesn't disqualify it

I'm certainly not disqualifying it. At all.

Black people have very good reasons to fear the police.

But it's also not unfair to say that more - way more - blacks are killed by other blacks from within their own community. To point out that a lot of the problems the community faces are due to systemic collapses of key institutions - political, economic and social - is just being astute.

People who refuse to address these larger issues, while still acknowledging that blacks suffer from institutional brutality are just blind.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by ResAlien

FFS, long post lost to a timeout. Sorry res if I was coming across that way about Toronto, I'd sort of moved on from the Toronto business altogether. Since two men were executed in two days and no threads were started I figured this had become the defacto BLM thread.

Nah, I just made sure to specify Toronto because it is that group's actions in the incident case that I have been criticizing. I did not want to speak to the behaviour of BLM as a whole without first getting a better understanding of their behaviour as a whole.

Though, sadly, we're going to get a good view of the behaviour of BLM as a whole in their response to Dallas. There's going to always be the crazies, but I am looking forward to seeing what the group's leaders have to say.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by peter12

People who refuse to address these larger issues, while still acknowledging that blacks suffer from institutional brutality are just blind.

Is anyone doing that? Anyone? Do we have to talk about every issue facing black Americans to make sure you know we're being astute before we talk about institutional brutality?

I think it's safe to say that you can have an intelligent, thoughtful, and honest conversation about institutional brutality against black Americans without making sure you shoehorn in an aside about black on black violence.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Is anyone doing that? Anyone? Do we have to talk about every issue facing black Americans to make sure you know we're being astute before we talk about institutional brutality?

I think it's safe to say that you can have an intelligent, thoughtful, and honest conversation about institutional brutality against black Americans without making sure you shoehorn in an aside about black on black violence.

Community collapse is obviously a necessary factor in all of this.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by peter12

I'm certainly not disqualifying it. At all.

Black people have very good reasons to fear the police.

But it's also not unfair to say that more - way more - blacks are killed by other blacks from within their own community. To point out that a lot of the problems the community faces are due to systemic collapses of key institutions - political, economic and social - is just being astute.

People who refuse to address these larger issues, while still acknowledging that blacks suffer from institutional brutality are just blind.

Again, you're obfuscating the issue. Black lives matter is about police treatment of black people. Please explain to me why you want to bring black on black violence into this, when that's not what the movement is about?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Are you suggesting the attention now being paid to police shootings is not because of the factual evidence of systemic racial bias, but merely sensationalism?

I'm saying that it's disheartening that it takes a racial angle to get the enormous problem of police shooting and killing people into the public consciousness. Even if police shootings in the U.S. didn't disproportionately effect blacks, I think it should still be a major issue and story. Apparently, a lot of people think otherwise.

If the Catholic Church pedophile scourge dis-proportionally victimized latino children, would that turn it from a pedophile issue into a racial issue? For some people, I suppose it would. But for me, it would still be an issue about rampant pedophilia and an institutionalised coverup, not racism.

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

I'm saying that it's disheartening that it takes a racial angle to get the enormous problem of police shooting and killing people into the public consciousness. Even if police shootings in the U.S. didn't disproportionately effect blacks, I think it should still be a major issue and story. Apparently, a lot of people think otherwise.

If the Catholic Church pedophile scourge dis-proportionally victimized latino children, would that turn it from a pedophile issue into a racial issue? For some people, I suppose it would. But for me, it would still be an issue about rampant pedophilia and an institutionalised coverup, not racism.

It seems you're hoping to downplay the racial issue. Is police brutality an issue? Yes. Why does that necessitate downplaying the racial bias also involved.

In fact, going by your logic, let's ignore the police angle and look at firearm homicides in general?

We are multifaceted people. Paying attention to a disproportionate number of blacks being killed by police does not mean we can't also be concerned about police killing others. Is that really your concern here?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by Street Pharmacist

Paying attention to a disproportionate number of blacks being killed by police does not mean we can't also be concerned about police killing others. Is that really your concern here?

Actually, yes it is. The problem of police being trigger happy is a different problem from police being racist, and will have to be addressed in a different manner. And since the public seem far more aware of the latter, I expect that's where the attention and resources will go. Which will no doubt be a good thing as far as it goes. But I doubt it will result in fewer people being killed than a generalized push to reduce incidents of police shooting civilians would.

To use my Catholic Church analogy, I'd be happier if efforts were focused on reducing pedophilia by priests full-stop, than on combating racism among priests.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Actually, yes it is. The problem of police being trigger happy is a different problem from police being racist, and will have to be addressed in a different manner. And since the public seem far more aware of the latter, I expect that's where the attention and resources will go. Which will no doubt be a good thing as far as it goes. But I doubt it will result in fewer people being killed than a generalized push to reduce incidents of police shooting civilians would.

To use my Catholic Church analogy, I'd be happier if efforts were focused on reducing pedophilia by priests full-stop, than on combating racism among priests.

I see your point, but do you seriously not believe that activism for police not to shoot black people is ancillary to overall police violence?

[Street Pharmacist]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I see your point, but do you seriously not believe that a concerted effort for police not to shoot black people is ancillary to overall police violence?

Is a strange stance to be sure

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

I think he's saying it's not as pragmatic, and that it would make more sense to address the issues separately as they probably have separate (though I would think overlapping) causes.

Realistically, though, if you've created public awareness of a real problem, that can produce political will to solve the real problem, wishing the mob had been more rational isn't necessarily the pragmatic answer. Instead, you just use them to make things better however you can before you lose their attention. I can, at least, see an argument for that.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

I think he's saying it's not as pragmatic, and that it would make more sense to address the issues separately as they probably have separate (though I would think overlapping) causes.

I don't know, I actually think it's less pragmatic. Like I said, shooting less black people is ancillary to both systemic racism in the police force and overall police violence. Reducing overall police violence still doesn't address the other forms of systemic racism.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

True, but the systemic problem that leads directly to more dead people is probably the most important problem to tackle, right?

EDIT: I don't know why I'm arguing against myself. As I said, we can't choose what problems we can take on most of the time because they require significant political will, so to some extent they're chosen for us. No sense complaining about it, let's just solve the problem we've got a chance to solve.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Realistically, though, if you've created public awareness of a real problem, that can produce political will to solve the real problem, wishing the mob had been more rational isn't necessarily the pragmatic answer. Instead, you just use them to make things better however you can before you lose their attention. I can, at least, see an argument for that.

This is actually a good point. There's actually some academic work on how transnational movements (which is what I think we can call BLM at this point) can be much more effective for generating interest in a cause vs. national and international movements, even if the cause is located at a regional or national level. The problem transnational movements often run into though is sustaining their momentum.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

True, but the systemic problem that leads directly to more dead people is probably the most important problem to tackle, right?

Yeah, I just don't see this as an either or case and I get the whole allocation of resources argument. There's no way that BLM achieving their goals doesn't produce positive benefits for everyone else. It's not like police are going to increase the amount of white people they shoot to make up for lost quotas. If I had to guess, even if BLM were to reduce the amount of unarmed black people shot by 80%, the amount of white people shot would probably reduce by equal or greater amounts, largely because much of the argument would surround use of force in general.

[rubecube]

Mother of God, Newt Gingrich actually acknowledged white privilege the other day. Is this real life?

http://politics.blog.ajc.com/2016/07...ck-in-america/

“It took me a long time, and a number of people talking to me through the years to get a sense of this. If you are a normal white American, the truth is you don’t understand being black in America and you instinctively under-estimate the level of discrimination and the level of additional risk.”

White parents, Gingrich continued, don’t have to teach their teenage boys to be extra careful when dealing with police “because it’s not part of your normal experience.”

“It was still legally segregated, which meant the local sheriff and National Guard would impose, by force, the taking away of rights of Americans. We’ve come a fair distance, now we have a black mayor of Atlanta, and have had a series of them in fact. We have John Lewis who went from marching on Selma to a Democratic whip in Congress. But we’ve stalled out on the cultural, economic, practical progress we needed.”