Prejudice and Bigotry in Law Enforcement

I'm made my arguments, you haven't. All you have done is name call. A link to a video discuss is just as informative and a link to an article.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No one is disputing the actions of the police that you refer to. That's not the issue. Your claim is that it's happening everywhere and all the time. Your claim is that it isn't happening to white people.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

actually you have 1 argument, which is you're wrong because i don't want to admit inconvenient facts. what vulgarity? you don't really have any arguments because you don't refute any info that proves you wrong you just dismiss it out of hand. you very much believe because in your bubble of white middle class privilege you don't expierence things such as the brutality the poor and POC have to deal with they just aren't issues.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

so you claim you are the only whose made an argument(you haven't) while you are deliberately misrepresenting the argument being made in a strawman? the claim isn't that white people have never been victims of police brutality, its the it is disproportionately experienced by POC.

 

https://businesstech.co.za/news/lifestyle/116644/the-most-racist-countries-in-the-world/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2020/06/the-institutional-racism-canard/

 

I have made no such claims.

Your claim to being educated is dissolving in gallons of contrary evidence. Educated people can read simple English sentences.

btw: What is this "it" you speak of?
My guess is that if you describe this "it" carefully and accurately, you will learn something. Try.

 

Revisiting the statement made; it says that the number of black people killed by the police is about half the number of white people killed. This statistic applies to unarmed citizens.

Ok, well, the thing with this statistic is that it says black people represent about 50% of the shootings of unarmed [white] civilians by police since the beginning of the year, where blacks are about 15% of the population. So it definitely seems to say the police shoot more unarmed black people, statistically.
Which suggests the police have an explanation; "black people commit more crimes, and more violent crimes", is the one they seem to prefer, as do you. Of course.

 

It is unarmed person shot by cop.

 

No, it isn't.
And this is what you learned:

You don't know what I have been referring to. You don't know what the issue is.

 

Care to restate your arguments? Because I honestly can't even figure out what they are. You've simply denied that systemic racism is a continuing problem, you haven't made any "arguments" supporting such. And you've stated that black people ought to act like white people, i.e., by changing their names, etc., if they hope to be treated equally and to succeed. Again, that's not much of an argument.

You know, in the past I've "argued" with at least half the people within this thread over one thing or another--for instance, I think iceaura is full of crap with regards to vegetarianism (not entirely, the issue is more one of scope and short-term vs. long-term goals and objectives)--and I have some sense of what their arguments are, where they stand, and how we differ; with you, I can't even figure out whatever the hell it is that you are trying to "argue" for or against. Saying that systemic racism is not firmly entrenched and widely prevalent within American culture is demonstrably wrong--quite easily so, in fact, if you'd even bother to read anything that's been written. And saying that black people should act like white people is racist. Period. It is not "name call(ing)" to point that out.

 

I'm bet you are a real prize sunshine.

 

This is a discussion thread.

The subforum for videos and other such cultural entertainment is here: Art & Culture.

Side matter: I don't know why you attached that video to a quote from one of my posts (it's apparently irrelevant to said quote, outside of exemplifying its point - which I doubt was your intention, the point being derogatory. ) If you know, you could greatly increase its relevance by explaining.

Meanwhile: Have you figured out yet what issue my posts here are addressing? Normally that would be step one, in replying to me in this thread.

 

He tends to rail against individuals. That he thinks this is any worthwhile or useful way to strike at people he disdains would say whatever it says.

I'm certain you've seen it in the world: Someone isn't -ist, they're just so determined to strike after something or someone they will say anything. You know, like some people voting for Trump, echoing his rhetoric, and spending years making excuses aren't really racists, they're just trying to "own the libs", or some such. In another incident, for instance, not so long ago, someone tried suggesting they were doing a good thing, that retorting against one's own straw men in order to condemn and complain was helping another person understand what that person was saying. You know, like, he's helping someone he disdains and denigrates by telling them what they think in order to tell them what is wrong with them. It's not exactly unusual, around here.

It's much akin to why there are so many notas in society, like notaracist, or notamisogynist. Some years ago, a colleague on staff defended the myriad racist tropes deployed against Obama as a policy argument, and when faced with the point that there wasn't really any attached policy argument, postured that the radical Obama, even before he was elected, forced these people to deploy racist tropes. And at some point, I wonder how much mileage we might get out of referring to a scene in the movie Airplane!, yet here we are; his retorts↑ are hardly new for their belligerence↑, but on this occasion it is intended to cover his flight from the question of imposed behavioral-economic expectations. If we follow the point you're looking at far enough back, we run into a fallacy↑ akin to the McElroy Lie, an antifeminist sosobra. Four and some odd years ago, I suggested↗, "Every time we see the phrase, 'a rape culture', it behooves us to check the context."

The present question was what bad choices "white people" were making in the U.S.; the response was that racism was a choice, which drew nonspecific retort↑ complaining, "This concept that America is a 'racist nation' is ridiculous", and went on to accuse Bells of something he appears to have made up in the moment. That phrase, "a 'racist nation'", raises the same question as McElroy's strawstuffed surrogate. If the application, on this occasion, is different, well, the comparison itself is not necessarily insignificant: Where McElroy appeals to the fact of individual human diversity as the enlightened flame to burn away the strawstuffed surrogate, she seeks to evade consideration of societal manifestations per their functional results; Seattle, in his appeal against the pretense of a racist nation, vaguely counterasserts a mysterious alternate history.

Your response↑, cracks me up for the available knock-on. It is well observed, of course, that Seattle went with emotionalism, especially considering his entendre, because there is also a question of how the fallacy he offered was anything but an emotionally-driven retort.

In either case, the straw fallacy hopes to have a certain argument, which in turn invests in appeals to emotion: How dare one call the U.S. a [___] culture/society! The historical record itself is clear; there are reasons why McElroy would prefer to focus on the mundane fact that human beings are not psychologically, monolithic, or Seattle would hope to mitigate and misrepresent history. As Seattle observes↑, "Some people are racist. That's the way humans are, worldwide." That wannabe platitude was actually deployed in service of another fallacious misdirection.

Still, for those attending even the basics of the American discourse on supremacism, it's kind of silly how many points of inherent denial this sort of trolling aspires to cover: "Acting white"? Ask Bill Cosby about that. "Unsafe to be black at Yale"? We did, actually hear those concerns in the discussioon around the sleeping-while-black episode. Hiring? Maybe ask Kalpen Suresh Modi about that. These aren't obscure examples.

To the other, he's reflective of a couple trends circulating among supremacists, lately. One is just the bit about counteraccusing racism; the other is actually the personal attacks—every line of #80↑, for instance, is fallacious, intended to flee the obvious point of behavioral economics in history. It stands out that he doesn't seem to actually know how to argue his own point. To the one, emotionalism, sure; to the other, reality rather quite blatantly speaks against the clumsy whitewash he tries to present.

And as this continues, the ongoing performance↑ is just stupid. That's the point. It's a troll job intended to break up and bury salient discourse.

He doesn't actually have much of anything to say.

 

He never claimed that. No one I have ever heard has claimed that. Of course it happens to white people. And of course that's a problem too. The only one who thinks that it isn't happening, or that no one cares if it's happening, is you.

 

I haven't read through this thread, but I'll leave this here. In watching George Floyd's brother speak out about his brother's death, he made a comment that stuck with me. He brought up the idea that many people compare black people killing other blacks in urban communities, with white cops killing unarmed black people. It's an unfair analogy, because most black people who murder anyone at all, end up being swiftly arrested, often times convicted, and incarcerated, whereas white cops rarely serve any jail time, let alone lose their jobs, over killing unarmed black people. I thought it was a great point, and one often overlooked in these discussions.

It's not that blacks don't see the violence in their own communities, it's that they see the disparity between the arrests within their communities and that of white people. Many things need to change, but this is one of them, too.

 

It is a fair point of course but it's complicated as well which is often not discussed.

Many black on black crimes aren't "solved" and many people do get away with it. That's partially why it happens so often.

It is different of course when you have an armed person of authority killing unarmed people. It's "usually" more of an accident (negligent or not) and a white cop is much more likely to be shot by a black person than they are to shoot a black person.

People just don't want to hear this so they employ selective statistics. Cops also shoot more unarmed white people than unarmed black people.

Again, it's a problem. The police have their problems but given the nature of the job and the millions of interactions it's a great overstatement to say that "the police" are racist and just don't care about black lives.

That's why the comparison is sometimes to the weekly violence going on in the inner cities. It's not to excuse one by focusing on the other. It's just to point out the magnitude of the two situations and to show that it's more important to do something about the hundreds that are dying every year versus the 10-20 that are dying in the other situation ( out of 350,000,000 people). Both are problems but the magnitudes pale in comparison.

 

Of course not every cop is a racist BUT...they are protected by a system that gives them the benefit of the doubt far too often. The police have a challenging job for sure, but when cops behave badly, they often don’t face penalties because of the covering up that goes on in the justice system. Kind of like how the pedophile priests were being covered up by those in higher places. It’s not just the cops on the ground who may be problematic, it’s the covering up by their bosses and their bosses’ bosses.

Regarding the white vs black comparisons - whites make up more of the population so I’m not sure if it’s an apples to apples comparison.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

It's not apples vs apples. There are more whites, blacks are over represented in violent crime as well. It does show that cops shoot unarmed white people and it does show that more cops are shot by black people than the other way around.

In other words it shows that it's a complicated question and not "black and white".

No doubt though, cops don't exist in a world of transparency. You shouldn't have cops investigated by cops when things go wrong. There is also may too much of a "code of blue" where too many cops just keep silent when they see other cops doing questionable things.