3 ms·

Well, there's "true" and there's "an accurate summary of events". I could sift through arrest records in my city and publish a list of Group X (let's pick an e

Well, there's "true" and there's "an accurate summary of events". I could sift through arrest records in my city and publish a list of Group X (let's pick an established group, like Italians) and make them look like monsters. But that's just a framing exercise. For instance, the immigrant rape issue. Yes, of course many immigrants have committed sexual assaults. But are they more numerous per-capita, or more vicious? I see sources saying they're rape machines, and others saying it's all made up, but I don't see anything believable that says "Yes, and 2% more than ..."

yummyfajitas 10y ago
I could sift through arrest records in my city and publish a list of Group X (let's pick an established group, like Italians) and make them look like monsters. But that's just a framing exercise. This is exactly what the mainstream media does in the US. The relatively small number of police shootings of black men get lots of coverage. The much larger category of black criminals harming white people get very little coverage, as does the biggest category of crime (white on white violence). Stats quoted here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/shameful-liberal-exploitation-charleston-massacre-heather-mac-donald http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/shameful-libera... What makes it a less "accurate summary of events" when a non-mainstream source chooses a different small subset of crime to focus on? As for the "rapefugee crisis" in Europe it's hard to know. Crime statistics tracking these things are usually suppressed and the authorities seem to cover up major incidents. (Even in the US, the Bureau of Justice Statistics stopped publishing it's table of interracial crime stats when Obama took office.) So all we really have are anecdotes and incident reports. Given this level of suppressed information, how can you claim that the white supremacists are less "accurate" than anyone else? Sometimes unpleasant people are correct about facts. Sometimes their views are just as accurate as anyone else's.
- EdHominem 10y ago
  > black criminals harming white people get very little coverage That makes sense though. It's not a competition between the two groups so the amount of black-on-anything violence is irrelevant to the issue of police shooting people when it can be shown that the people being shot weren't acting violently. Talking about the black community when discussing police shooting is like blaming the prostitutes dressing badly down the block for your sister getting raped. Not only is it victim blaming, but it misses the point that these aren't meaningful groupings. (All black people, your sister and the prostitutes, etc...) > how can you claim that the white supremacists are less "accurate" than anyone else? Well, I don't claim that but I think I could, because I see them grasping at straws and forwarding the same tired stories around as if they prove anything. With no effort to dig into the facts behind the case and its selection as news. Exactly the same as the anti-racist knee-jerk I see which posts the same set of "Immigrants don't rape" refutation articles with the same lack of critical inspection. > Given this level of suppressed information, That is a problem. When our government lies to us it throws all semblance of civilian oversight right out the window and instantly becomes a dictatorship.
  - yummyfajitas 10y ago
    Talking about the black community when discussing police shooting is like blaming the prostitutes dressing badly down the block for your sister getting raped. Not only is it victim blaming, but it misses the point that these aren't meaningful groupings. I'm making a different point. Why discuss a few hundred innocent (and quite a few not so innocent) black people shot by cops when we can instead discuss the tens of thousands of innocent white people harmed by blacks? I.e., why is police shootings of black men the topic at all? The answer is the exact same framing exercise you (correctly) accuse white nationalist groups of engaging in. And it's also a framing exercise I find more palatable; I'm just pointing out that you can't distinguish between these based on truth. Also, the levels of black crime are directly relevant to the topic of police shootings of black people. Assume some fraction of crime prevention results in people getting shot, regardless of race. Assume further that blacks disproportionately commit crimes. Given these two assumptions, you will get disproportionate levels of blacks being shot by cops, even though no one is being racist. That directly contradicts the narrative the media is framing. Scott Alexander has a great blog post where he dives into the empirical literature on this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m...
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      > Why discuss a few hundred innocent (and quite a few not so innocent) black people shot by cops when we can instead discuss the tens of thousands of innocent white people harmed by blacks? Three reasons. 1) I pay officers, and they aren't doing what I pay them to do and they aren't improving the things I want improved. 2) We can discuss both. But it's pretty obvious when this presumed black violence is trotted out as an answer to police violence rather than a conversation that just happened to be going on. 3) "Black" isn't a voluntary or revokable status. You don't choose your skin-color, nor can it be revoked when you misbehave. You literally cannot control people of your color. You also can't control other gamers, other men, other women, etc. Whereas "Police" is both voluntary and revokable. They can choose not to be police officers if they're upset with the behavior of other officers, and can revoke the status of bad officers. Even if we agreed with your assertion, black people cannot fix other blacks, officers can fix other officers. > why is police shootings of black men the topic at all? The discussion about police violence was already ongoing, but the police mistreat blacks disproportionally so it's not a bad place to focus. Fix the big leaks before the smaller ones... Are you having trouble getting attention for your police violence complaints that you think this discussion is blocking, because you aren't black? > Also, the levels of black crime are directly relevant to the topic of police shootings of black people. Actually no, blacks suffer even in non-violent areas. The black professor arrested while breaking into his own house... Also, it's just tactically not how it works. When police apprehend anyone they're actually afraid of they stay well away, call backup, bark orders through a bullhorn, and approach only once the person is laying down on the ground with their hands visible. Anytime you see an ongoing situation with an officer less than three steps from the person that officer is not afraid. That's intimidation, not safety, they're going for. In many videos of police thuggery and shootings we see police going out of their way to put themselves in a tactical distance where they will be "forced" to respond by any slight movement. If they were really at all scared they'd be on the other side of their car, radioing for backup.

yummyfajitas 10y ago

I could sift through arrest records in my city and publish a list of Group X (let's pick an established group, like Italians) and make them look like monsters. But that's just a framing exercise. This is exactly what the mainstream media does in the US. The relatively small number of police shootings of black men get lots of coverage. The much larger category of black criminals harming white people get very little coverage, as does the biggest category of crime (white on white violence). Stats quoted here: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/shameful-liberal-exploitation-charleston-massacre-heather-mac-donald http://www.nationalreview.com/article/420565/shameful-libera... What makes it a less "accurate summary of events" when a non-mainstream source chooses a different small subset of crime to focus on? As for the "rapefugee crisis" in Europe it's hard to know. Crime statistics tracking these things are usually suppressed and the authorities seem to cover up major incidents. (Even in the US, the Bureau of Justice Statistics stopped publishing it's table of interracial crime stats when Obama took office.) So all we really have are anecdotes and incident reports. Given this level of suppressed information, how can you claim that the white supremacists are less "accurate" than anyone else? Sometimes unpleasant people are correct about facts. Sometimes their views are just as accurate as anyone else's.

EdHominem 10y ago
> black criminals harming white people get very little coverage That makes sense though. It's not a competition between the two groups so the amount of black-on-anything violence is irrelevant to the issue of police shooting people when it can be shown that the people being shot weren't acting violently. Talking about the black community when discussing police shooting is like blaming the prostitutes dressing badly down the block for your sister getting raped. Not only is it victim blaming, but it misses the point that these aren't meaningful groupings. (All black people, your sister and the prostitutes, etc...) > how can you claim that the white supremacists are less "accurate" than anyone else? Well, I don't claim that but I think I could, because I see them grasping at straws and forwarding the same tired stories around as if they prove anything. With no effort to dig into the facts behind the case and its selection as news. Exactly the same as the anti-racist knee-jerk I see which posts the same set of "Immigrants don't rape" refutation articles with the same lack of critical inspection. > Given this level of suppressed information, That is a problem. When our government lies to us it throws all semblance of civilian oversight right out the window and instantly becomes a dictatorship.
- yummyfajitas 10y ago
  Talking about the black community when discussing police shooting is like blaming the prostitutes dressing badly down the block for your sister getting raped. Not only is it victim blaming, but it misses the point that these aren't meaningful groupings. I'm making a different point. Why discuss a few hundred innocent (and quite a few not so innocent) black people shot by cops when we can instead discuss the tens of thousands of innocent white people harmed by blacks? I.e., why is police shootings of black men the topic at all? The answer is the exact same framing exercise you (correctly) accuse white nationalist groups of engaging in. And it's also a framing exercise I find more palatable; I'm just pointing out that you can't distinguish between these based on truth. Also, the levels of black crime are directly relevant to the topic of police shootings of black people. Assume some fraction of crime prevention results in people getting shot, regardless of race. Assume further that blacks disproportionately commit crimes. Given these two assumptions, you will get disproportionate levels of blacks being shot by cops, even though no one is being racist. That directly contradicts the narrative the media is framing. Scott Alexander has a great blog post where he dives into the empirical literature on this: http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-more-than-you-wanted-to-know/ http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/11/25/race-and-justice-much-m...
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    > Why discuss a few hundred innocent (and quite a few not so innocent) black people shot by cops when we can instead discuss the tens of thousands of innocent white people harmed by blacks? Three reasons. 1) I pay officers, and they aren't doing what I pay them to do and they aren't improving the things I want improved. 2) We can discuss both. But it's pretty obvious when this presumed black violence is trotted out as an answer to police violence rather than a conversation that just happened to be going on. 3) "Black" isn't a voluntary or revokable status. You don't choose your skin-color, nor can it be revoked when you misbehave. You literally cannot control people of your color. You also can't control other gamers, other men, other women, etc. Whereas "Police" is both voluntary and revokable. They can choose not to be police officers if they're upset with the behavior of other officers, and can revoke the status of bad officers. Even if we agreed with your assertion, black people cannot fix other blacks, officers can fix other officers. > why is police shootings of black men the topic at all? The discussion about police violence was already ongoing, but the police mistreat blacks disproportionally so it's not a bad place to focus. Fix the big leaks before the smaller ones... Are you having trouble getting attention for your police violence complaints that you think this discussion is blocking, because you aren't black? > Also, the levels of black crime are directly relevant to the topic of police shootings of black people. Actually no, blacks suffer even in non-violent areas. The black professor arrested while breaking into his own house... Also, it's just tactically not how it works. When police apprehend anyone they're actually afraid of they stay well away, call backup, bark orders through a bullhorn, and approach only once the person is laying down on the ground with their hands visible. Anytime you see an ongoing situation with an officer less than three steps from the person that officer is not afraid. That's intimidation, not safety, they're going for. In many videos of police thuggery and shootings we see police going out of their way to put themselves in a tactical distance where they will be "forced" to respond by any slight movement. If they were really at all scared they'd be on the other side of their car, radioing for backup.