11 Dallas police officers shot by sniper at peaceful protest. 5 officers dead.

[jayswin]

A lot of the responses to CliffFletcher's narrative in this thread have been fascinating to read. Thanks.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by driveway

These are two completely different ideas and your grouping of them together under the banner of 'evil tribalism' is evidence of your lack of study or deep-thinking on the topic.

The fundamental thing you seem to be missing about what you deride as 'identity politics' is that those who participate in these movements are working to overcome the tribalism you so despise. The LGBT movement, Black Lives Matter, Feminism, are all coming from the premise that either gays, or blacks, or women have been excluded and deserve to be included.

When people say "Black Lives Matter" there is an unspoken too at the end of the statement. When the Pride parade marches, the implication is that LGBT people can be proud too. When Feminists point out rape culture and inequities they're saying women matter too.

If you truly believed that tribalism was the dangerous force you claim it to be, and you understood these movements at anything more than a pop-culture level, you would be a feminist, and a supporter of BLM, and march in the Pride parade.

You're fond of suggesting reading material, go read Between the World and Me, A Room of One's Own, and The Velvet Rage and see if anything changes.

You've never spent much time in a church, have you? It's used precisely in the way you say it's not there. It may be that the intellectuals that invented the term use it differently, but in common usage, it's very much a tool that's contributes to tribalism rather than detracting from it.

Also, saying that people would be a feminist, a supporter of BLM, and a march in the Pride parade if they were just more informed is both dismissive and indicative of your own ignorance of different perspectives on the topic beyond the very narrow perspective you allow yourself to hold.

Are you not even aware enough of human psychology to know that your response is a hallmark of dogmatism and intellectual arrogance, the very thing that tribalism thrives on?

When dogma is challenged, have you not noticed that people that are either dogmatic or intellectually dishonest / intellectually arrogant tend to do the following: 1. The person who disagrees with me is just stupid. 2. When it's clear that the person is not stupid, then they are just uninformed. 3. When it becomes clear they are informed, then they are written off as evil or bad people.

Of course, often people don't like to write people off as bad, so instead they refer people to an endless list of books that contain arguments that are supposedly better than the ones presented in the discussion.

Forgive me for being so blunt. It's just not often I see such obvious tribalism used to claim that something is not tribalistic.

[driveway]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

You've never spent much time in a church, have you? It's used precisely in the way you say it's not there. It may be that the intellectuals that invented the term use it differently, but in common usage, it's very much a tool that's contributes to tribalism rather than detracting from it.

No, I have not spent much time in churches. I don't understand what your point is in this paragraph though. What term are you referring to? How is it used?

Also, saying that people would be a feminist, a supporter of BLM, and a march in the Pride parade if they were just more informed is both dismissive and indicative of your own ignorance of the topic beyond the very narrow perspective you allow yourself to hold.

Generally I would agree with this statement, but in the specific case I was referring to someone who claims a specific belief (anti-tribalism), and then attacks movements which subscribe to exactly the same belief. I do not agree that this is an ignorant or dismissive position. I will agree I wasn't nice in how I phrased it.

Are you not even aware enough of human phycology to know that your response is a hallmark of dogmatism and intellectual arrogance, the very thing that tribalism thrives on?

I disagree that tribalism requires dogmatism or intellectual arrogance, I would argue they are symptomatic, not causal.

When dogma is challenged, have you not noticed that people that are either dogmatic or not intellectually honest and humble tend to do the following: 1. The person who disagrees with me is just stupid. 2. When it's clear that the person is not stupid, then they are just uninformed. 3. When it becomes clear they are informed, then they are written off as evil or bad people.

I don't believe I referred to or relied on any dogma in my post. I don't believe that the inclusionary nature of minority activism is dogmatic, but rather axiomatic. Nor did I at any point assume any posters were stupid or bad, merely uninformed. Likewise I didn't see anything in their, or your, post which provided any evidence of being informed, so I suppose I'm still on stage two.

Of course, often people don't like to write people off as bad, so instead they refer people to an endless list of books that contain arguments that are supposedly better than the ones presented in the discussion.

Forgive me for being so blunt. It's just not often I see such obvious tribalism used to claim that something is not tribalistic.

Well, I'd disagree with your characterization of three books as "an endless list," but I do agree that no posters on CP are "bad" ... well, Bingo is a CDC paste-eating troll, so let's say "almost no posters." Finally, no apology is necessary, I knowingly wrote in an inflammatory fashion.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by driveway

No, I have not spent much time in churches. I don't understand what your point is in this paragraph though. What term are you referring to? How is it used?

I'm referring to the persecution complex present in too many churches where there is a sentiment, often, but not always expressed from the pulpit, that Christians are being oppressed or persecuted. It's very much used in an us vs them way.

Generally I would agree with this statement, but in the specific case I was referring to someone who claims a specific belief (anti-tribalism), and then attacks movements which subscribe to exactly the same belief. I do not agree that this is an ignorant or dismissive position. I will agree I wasn't nice in how I phrased it.

I have no issue with people being a bit snarky. There is a tribe of people who are anti-tribal, which is both necessary if anti-tribalism is going to really make headway as a movement and philosophically self-defeating. I'm not sure I would consider most social justice movements including the ones you listed as anti-tribalistic though. It seems to me that in general they are trying to change the tribalism of the dominant tribe to include more people. I should note I tend to use the word broadly; I consider a tribe to be a group of people organized around a cause or belief who will exclude people from that group if they don't hold that belief or support that cause. To be tribalistic then is to assert that one or more such tribes are the right ones.

EDIT: As promised, I have re-read it. I definitely misinterpreted what you said. That being said, the conclusion still doesn't follow from the premise as even if these groups are anti-tribal, they are often so in a tribalisitic way; you can say that you are anti-tribal and then refuse to identify with other tribes that share your goals in this area. There is far more to the movements listed than anti-tribalism, supposing they are indeed anti-tribalism, something I doubt (though I could be convinced)

I disagree that tribalism requires dogmatism or intellectual arrogance, I would argue they are symptomatic, not causal.

Agreed; but then I didn't say that tribalism requires it, but rather, that dogmatism and intellectual arrogance (often) lead to tribalism.

I don't believe I referred to or relied on any dogma in my post. I don't believe that the inclusionary nature of minority activism is dogmatic, but rather axiomatic. Nor did I at any point assume any posters were stupid or bad, merely uninformed. Likewise I didn't see anything in their, or your, post which provided any evidence of being informed, so I suppose I'm still on stage two.

I would consider what you said about oppression to be a dogma; perhaps I use the word dogma too loosely, but asserting that the oppression / oppressor dichotomy is meant to promote inclusiveness seems dogmatic to me given how often I see it used to promote exclusiveness in the name of achieving equality or some other greater good. Of course, this might be a case where the theory and practice diverge.

That's where most people tend to stay. The issue I have is that to many people assume it's the other people that are ignorant rather than wondering, "What don't I know". Perhaps it's my familiarity with Christian and Islamic Worldview Apologetics (AKA presuppositionalism) which simultaneously makes good points about the nature of an individual perspective on the world (a worldview) and then make a completely unimpressive case for a particular one based on this.

I made no attempt appear informed on the topic of this thread. However, my issue is that it appears that what you consider informed about a topic in general is really being informed about a very particular perspective. I'm at best very lightly informed on the relevant information to most social issues; hence my hesitation to condemn or join any particular movement. I've read many of the plato.stanford articles (many of which are excellent if you can stand their dry structure), a few books on the topic, and that's about it. All these sources changed my perspective and opinion slightly, but I've never read any individual book that caused me to have a radically different opinion on a complex topic, no matter how highly recommended. Rather, the big swings have come about slowly.

Well, I'd disagree with your characterization of three books as "an endless list," but I do agree that no posters on CP are "bad" ... well, Bingo is a CDC paste-eating troll, so let's say "almost no posters." Finally, no apology is necessary, I knowingly wrote in an inflammatory fashion.

Sure, I'm projecting in my frustration around other posters on other sites onto your post. The books may indeed be very good; very often books people recommend are. However, if they make a particularly powerful case, at least summarize the argument instead on here, rather than saying, read these books, I "guarantee" they will change your mind.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It's already been covered in this thread but these viral "black people aren't getting killed at a higher rate than other races" stats are ignoring that African Americans make up 13% of the US population.

"MORE WHITE PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY COPS THAN BLACK PEOPLE YOU IDIOTS" is stupid and disingenuous.

Did you read the whole article?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by sworkhard

I'm referring to the persecution complex and how churches go on and on about how oppressed they are, etc. It's very much used in an us vs them way.

Don't want to get in the middle of the discussion you two are having but:

I had been to church nearly every single Sunday for 20 years and I promise you that what you've described never once happened to my recollection, let alone any minister or member of the church 'family' EVER going 'on and on' about how oppressed they were or situating those in the church as different or in opposition to those outside of it.

Careful with the loose and ignorant generalisations. They don't help you.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Don't want to get in the middle of the discussion you two are having but:

I had been to church nearly every single Sunday for 20 years and I promise you that what you've described never once happened to my recollection, let alone any minister of member of the church 'family' EVER going 'on and on' about how oppressed they were or situating those in the church as different or in opposition to those outside of it.

Careful with the loose and ignorant generalisations. They don't help you.

True. I should be more specific as I know well that many Churches don't do this. Updated to try to be more clear.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by jayswin

It's already been covered in this thread but these viral "black people aren't getting killed at a higher rate than other races" stats are ignoring that African Americans make up 13% of the US population.

"MORE WHITE PEOPLE ARE KILLED BY COPS THAN BLACK PEOPLE YOU IDIOTS" is stupid and disingenuous.

Is it, though? You look at other stats, where, while African Americans do only make up 13% of the US population, they are leading most of the other categories in violent crimes.

Why do they have more encounters with police? Because police tend to go/be called to where crime is happening.

Seems to me that if you want to stop Black/Police encounters, then there is a lot of social work that needs to be done first or at least perhaps concurrently. 13% of the population shouldn't be committing 50%+ of its crime.

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Is it, though? You look at other stats, where, while African Americans do only make up 13% of the US population, they are leading most of the other categories in violent crimes.

Why do they have more encounters with police? Because police tend to go/be called to where crime is happening.

Seems to me that if you want to stop Black/Police encounters, then there is a lot of social work that needs to be done first or at least perhaps concurrently. 13% of the population shouldn't be committing 50%+ of its crime.

This completely ignores the idea of systemic racism and the fact that it permeates through the justice system as well.

The fact that the White/black prison population are almost equal, despite black Americans accounting for only 13% of the population, is due in no small part to racist tendencies in the American justice system. The answer isn't "it's only because of racism," but that is a significant part of it.

Give this article a read, it goes into more detail: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8078586.html

And please, show a source regarding the 50%+ of crimes that black Americans are responsible for. Not for a point of my own, but you should at least be providing sources for stat claims meant to be factual.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by WhiteTiger

Is it, though? You look at other stats, where, while African Americans do only make up 13% of the US population, they are leading most of the other categories in violent crimes.

Why do they have more encounters with police? Because police tend to go/be called to where crime is happening.

Seems to me that if you want to stop Black/Police encounters, then there is a lot of social work that needs to be done first or at least perhaps concurrently. 13% of the population shouldn't be committing 50%+ of its crime.

Of course if your police tend to arrest black guys for crimes that they give white guys a pass on, as research has consistently shown, its quite likely they will be over represented in the stats.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Of course if your police tend to arrest black guys for crimes that they give white guys a pass on, as research has consistently shown, its quite likely they will be over represented in the stats.

It seems to be a bit of a viscous circle. Police go to the areas most crimes seem to be committed. If they are in areas where they think more crimes are being committed, they might be much less lenient when they catch someone and are more likely to look for particular crimes. As a result, the stats show these are the areas where more crimes are committed, which in turn causes more police to be there, and so on.

The war on drugs is a particularly egregious example of this affecting black neighborhoods. IIRC, Blacks are much more likely to be arrested on a drug offense despite it being far less likely that they use or have these drugs on them vs the white majority.

[WhiteTiger]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Give this article a read, it goes into more detail: http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/8078586.html

Interesting article, thanks.

And please, show a source regarding the 50%+ of crimes that black Americans are responsible for. Not for a point of my own, but you should at least be providing sources for stat claims meant to be factual.

The stat I saw was one I (unsurprisingly) misinterpreted. It was from the DOJ stats for a survey from 1980 to 2008: DOJ statistics show that between 1980 and 2008, black criminals committed 52% of homicides. In 2013, black criminals committed 38% of the murders. I had seen it elsewhere without the dates appended to it.

I need to do more reading through the DOJ, UCR and NCVS reports, it seems.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Of course if your police tend to arrest black guys for crimes that they give white guys a pass on, as research has consistently shown, its quite likely they will be over represented in the stats.

Which certainly happens.

But, I'm pretty sure we'd all agree that the war on drugs simply affects black people a lot more because they represent a bigger portion of the lower class.

The war on drugs and many other similar policies have a long history of racial abuse. That is why we need to get rid of it.

[CliffFletcher]

Black crime could be over-prosecuted, and blacks can be disproportionately affected by the war on drugs, and the real crime rate by blacks could still be higher than by the rest of Americans. The homicide rate for American blacks is 8 times higher than for whites, and it's not as though police go easy on whites who commit homicide. Let's keep in mind that most people victimized by black crime are other blacks (93 per cent of black homicide is intraracial), so reducing it will benefit blacks most.

One of the likely and unfortunate consequences of the high-profile police shootings of black men is that police will reduce their patrols of poor black neighbourhoods. And the people who will suffer most from that is other blacks.

[taco.vidal]

Two Memphis police officers have been suspended with pay due to an offensive Snapshot picture.

The post brought out anger from Interim MPD Director Mike Rallings. It was posted the same night as the fatal shootings of five Dallas officers, and it came days after two people died at the hands of law enforcement.

The Snapchat photo shows a man aiming his gun at a carton figure of African American man who is running. The person who posted it on social media is a Memphis police officer.

The incident caused to Interim Director Rallings to vent and suspend him.

"The image is disgusting and will not be tolerated" said Rallings.

The director also suspended the officer who noticed the Snapchat and posted it on Wwitter. Both officers relieved of duty with pay until they have a hearing.

"We are certainly responsible for the decisions we make, and we are held to a higher standard,” Rallings told FOX13.

In reviewing the MPD Policy, we found a section that deals with ‘Social Media Sites and Internet Content.’ It states "employees must avoid any conduct which could compromise the integrity of the Department. This includes conduct related to materials posted on personal websites, social media, twitter, Facebook ... etc."

"The fact that it could have been a Memphis police officer just blew me away, and again we deal with these things," Rallings said.

[Robbob]

My wife knows a firefighter in the states and apparantly all police and fire stations nation wide have been put on alert that they may be the target of an attack. All fire calls now need to be escorted by police. Just crazy that fire fighters have had a credible threat against them.

[wittynickname]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Black crime could be over-prosecuted, and blacks can be disproportionately affected by the war on drugs, and the real crime rate by blacks could still be higher than by the rest of Americans. The homicide rate for American blacks is 8 times higher than for whites, and it's not as though police go easy on whites who commit homicide. Let's keep in mind that most people victimized by black crime are other blacks (93 per cent of black homicide is intraracial), so reducing it will benefit blacks most.

One of the likely and unfortunate consequences of the high-profile police shootings of black men is that police will reduce their patrols of poor black neighbourhoods. And the people who will suffer most from that is other blacks.

Really?

Affluenza doesn't ring a bell?

There are black men in jail for marijuana possession who got more time than that kid got for actually killing people. You think if that kid was a poor black guy, he wouldn't spend most of his life in jail after ending the lives of 4 other people?

[CliffFletcher]

Originally Posted by wittynickname

Really?

Affluenza doesn't ring a bell?

There are black men in jail for marijuana possession who got more time than that kid got for actually killing people. You think if that kid was a poor black guy, he wouldn't spend most of his life in jail after ending the lives of 4 other people?

Just so we're clear - you're suggesting the 8 times higher rate of homicide convictions of blacks is due to police and court bias? So thousands of innocent blacks going to jail for homicides, while thousands of whites who commit murder go free?

[Zulu29]

Originally Posted by taco.vidal

What a pair of idiots. They should be fired.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Just so we're clear - you're suggesting the 8 times higher rate of homicide convictions of blacks is due to police and court bias? So thousands of innocent blacks going to jail for homicides, while thousands of whites who commit murder go free?

You won't get a response to this.