7 ms·

Aren't these events statistically likely in a way? 1. Some white people are afraid of black people. (the other way probably too) 2. Most people are very afrai

by _98fj 10y ago

Aren't these events statistically likely in a way? 1. Some white people are afraid of black people. (the other way probably too) 2. Most people are very afraid of other people carrying guns. 3. Most people are afraid of some form of resistance when they challenge/approach somebody. Add it up. It's likely that somewhere a white policeman approaches a black person who has, or could have a gun, and experiences fear. Before this is read as an excuse for the policeman, which it is not: Keep in mind that fear and anger, fight and flight are intertwined. Hatred can come from fear. Fear can come after hatred. One brain-areal is responsible for both emotions. The only efficient response to defuse these situations is to eliminate the "very afraid" above and disarm the population.

Kristine1975 10y ago
>and disarm the population And the police (see UK, where most police is unarmed).
- cel1ne 10y ago
  I'm not as sure about that, but probably yes. And make police a highly-recognised profession with top-pay, but also heavily scrutinised selection, entrance-tests and no allowed margin for error.
  - eru 10y ago
    > [...] no allowed margin for error. Or rather, make sure that any human error doesn't impact people. But that's easier implemented in a technology company, with automated tests etc, than in the police. Yet still, eg putting a GoPro on every officer would help make mistakes in eg investigating allegations of police brutality less likely.
JanezStupar 10y ago
Here are some basic facts: Half of people killed by police are white. Blacks are 25%. Blacks are also disproportionally represented amongst violent offenders. One more interesting trivia - black and hispanic cops are more likely to shoot a black suspect than white cops. Black people are 13% of US population, yet black men (6% of US population) commit 50% of homicides in the US. Thus your assumptions are incorrect and thus your conclusions may also be incorrect. It appears that white people are more afraid of being called racist than being assaulted by a person of color. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-kno... http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/ http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devasta...
- Kristine1975 10y ago
  Breitbart is as far away from facts as you can possibly get. "American Renaissance" with its "race realism" doesn't sound much more reliable.
  - JanezStupar 10y ago
    All the articles cite official data. I would love to link Huffpo, Salon or Atlantic, but they are just to dishonest to publish something like this.
    - chestervonwinch 10y ago
      The data is fine, but I'm asking sincerely - what is the point of the breitbart article? They present those statistics on black on black crime and lack of outrage thereof as evidence that the black lives matter movement and the left-leaning are taking advantage of white on black incidents to "advance their political power". Ok fine. This seems like an extremely cynical position to take, but going along with it, what is their implication? Advance their political power for what purpose? The subtext from the article (and more heavily from the comments) is that liberals want to take your guns, and black folks are violent people that kill each other anyway, so it's their own fault.
      - JanezStupar 10y ago
        Larry Elder frames it nicely in conservative terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U The implication is that liberals are engaging in soft bigotry of low expectations. That they are pandering to black voters for power. Another implication is that all the things that liberals are promising to the minorities that should be helping black people, such as welfare and affirmative action, end up causing more harm in the long run. Of course, I expect you to ask why? I would say one part lust for power, one part good intentions that pave road to hell and one part good old fashioned ignorance. And if you ask about motive? Just a power grab. In contemporary culture diversity is much relished. But not all of it, diversity of opinion is being shunned and anybody daring to show doubt is ostracized. If you take a long hard look - pretty much all the power structures on the west are very, very liberal/progressive (entertainment, media, school system, government and indeed politics). Since the consensus is that expanding government outreach and bringing more and more functions of society is a good thing and since the results are really not there - the liberals would either have to face their folly or instead keep doubling down. And since doubling down makes things worse - the liberals are becoming increasingly authoritarian, thus the vicious cycle is feeding itself. p.s.: In case you were asking what the motive of BLM is? I don't think they have one. Just as any other flavor of identity politics they are engaging in an us vs them discourse, which inevitably will cause them to turn on themselves. But liberals are going to squeeze as much out of them as possible.

by _98fj 10y ago

Kristine1975 10y ago

>and disarm the population And the police (see UK, where most police is unarmed).

cel1ne 10y ago
I'm not as sure about that, but probably yes. And make police a highly-recognised profession with top-pay, but also heavily scrutinised selection, entrance-tests and no allowed margin for error.
- eru 10y ago
  > [...] no allowed margin for error. Or rather, make sure that any human error doesn't impact people. But that's easier implemented in a technology company, with automated tests etc, than in the police. Yet still, eg putting a GoPro on every officer would help make mistakes in eg investigating allegations of police brutality less likely.

JanezStupar 10y ago

Here are some basic facts: Half of people killed by police are white. Blacks are 25%. Blacks are also disproportionally represented amongst violent offenders. One more interesting trivia - black and hispanic cops are more likely to shoot a black suspect than white cops. Black people are 13% of US population, yet black men (6% of US population) commit 50% of homicides in the US. Thus your assumptions are incorrect and thus your conclusions may also be incorrect. It appears that white people are more afraid of being called racist than being assaulted by a person of color. http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-know-about-cops-killing-aaron-bandler http://www.dailywire.com/news/7264/5-statistics-you-need-kno... http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race-and-violent-crime/ http://www.amren.com/news/2015/07/new-doj-statistics-on-race... http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devastating-facts-black-black-crime/ http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/11/28/5-devasta...

Kristine1975 10y ago
Breitbart is as far away from facts as you can possibly get. "American Renaissance" with its "race realism" doesn't sound much more reliable.
- JanezStupar 10y ago
  All the articles cite official data. I would love to link Huffpo, Salon or Atlantic, but they are just to dishonest to publish something like this.
  - chestervonwinch 10y ago
    The data is fine, but I'm asking sincerely - what is the point of the breitbart article? They present those statistics on black on black crime and lack of outrage thereof as evidence that the black lives matter movement and the left-leaning are taking advantage of white on black incidents to "advance their political power". Ok fine. This seems like an extremely cynical position to take, but going along with it, what is their implication? Advance their political power for what purpose? The subtext from the article (and more heavily from the comments) is that liberals want to take your guns, and black folks are violent people that kill each other anyway, so it's their own fault.
    - JanezStupar 10y ago
      Larry Elder frames it nicely in conservative terms: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piwaBO6U43U The implication is that liberals are engaging in soft bigotry of low expectations. That they are pandering to black voters for power. Another implication is that all the things that liberals are promising to the minorities that should be helping black people, such as welfare and affirmative action, end up causing more harm in the long run. Of course, I expect you to ask why? I would say one part lust for power, one part good intentions that pave road to hell and one part good old fashioned ignorance. And if you ask about motive? Just a power grab. In contemporary culture diversity is much relished. But not all of it, diversity of opinion is being shunned and anybody daring to show doubt is ostracized. If you take a long hard look - pretty much all the power structures on the west are very, very liberal/progressive (entertainment, media, school system, government and indeed politics). Since the consensus is that expanding government outreach and bringing more and more functions of society is a good thing and since the results are really not there - the liberals would either have to face their folly or instead keep doubling down. And since doubling down makes things worse - the liberals are becoming increasingly authoritarian, thus the vicious cycle is feeding itself. p.s.: In case you were asking what the motive of BLM is? I don't think they have one. Just as any other flavor of identity politics they are engaging in an us vs them discourse, which inevitably will cause them to turn on themselves. But liberals are going to squeeze as much out of them as possible.