3 ms·

This is such an ignorant take, it's astonishing. The "general narrative" is about rampant police brutality that first and foremost disproportionately affects p

This is such an ignorant take, it's astonishing. The "general narrative" is about rampant police brutality that first and foremost disproportionately affects people of color. It's a problem that's existed since the inception of a police force in the US and that's what this movement is about. No one is trying to play a silly number game of which race kills more of what other race.

axguscbklp 6y ago
But it's not a "silly number game", it's a very serious analysis of numbers that should be done to try to determine whether certain conclusions are accurate or inaccurate. Otherwise we have only anecdotes and narratives. Edit: I can make no claim of being a statistician. My statistical arguments probably have some holes in them. But I will at least say that the numbers that I've looked at seem to me to be sufficient to question the prevailing media narrative.
- jddj 6y ago
  You're stopping short of spelling out your conclusion. The aims of the protests are to shine a spotlight on police brutality and qualified immunity / defund the police / ensure that killer cops are prosecuted / damage property in pursuit of anarchy / score a new TV / whatever. It's all fairly clear and makes enough sense. Your idea, however, leaves us with nothing but a knowing look and an appeal to not trust the narrative. If you can read any broader frustration here, it's because all the "but what about white folks?" people in my social circle have been following the same playbook. So where does it go? Does your argument conclude that the police should be harsher still towards black people? Does it suggest that police who kill should suffer less scrutiny than they presently do? Is the status quo fine, and the resolution should be that everyone just shut up and go home? What's your call to action here, and what would be the immediate real-world consequences of your worldview?
  - axguscbklp 6y ago
    >it's because all the "but what about white folks?" people in my social circle have been following the same playbook. Consider that maybe it's not a playbook. Maybe people look at the data and reach conclusions different from yours. Call to action: Let's work together to reduce police brutality. However, let's not sweep black-on-white violence under the rug while focusing narrowly on white-on-black violence. The prevailing media narrative about racial violence in this country is, compared to available data, grossly inaccurate. The inaccuracy fuels political division and distrust of the media. If protest organizers said something like: "Police brutality is wrong and there is reason to think that it is a worse problem for black people than for white people. At the same time, we recognize the disproportionate extent to which white people suffer from black violence. We may perhaps disagree about the extent to which the discrepancy is due to systematic racism or socioeconomic issues, but we recognize your concerns. We want to reach across the division and work together to fix all these issues." In that case, I would be totally on board. Because that would be fair, and transparent, and unifying.
    - jddj 6y ago
      The playbook is the knowing look and the consistently not reaching conclusions, or perhaps not amongst polite company. They're quite free to think differently to me. If they had said that the protests were fine but next time we expect a shout-out, then the discussion could move on. Much like in this example.
    - fzeroracer 6y ago
      > Police brutality is wrong and there is reason to think that it is a worse problem for black people than for white people. At the same time, we recognize the disproportionate extent to which white people suffer from black violence. We may perhaps disagree about the extent to which the discrepancy is due to systematic racism or socioeconomic issues, but we recognize your concerns. We want to reach across the division and work together to fix all these issues So you want to dilute the protest which is specifically about police violence against black people into something entirely different? You're essentially arguing to destroy the entire protest for something it's not at all about. Protesting police brutality against black people is protesting police brutality in general.
  - jakkyboi 6y ago
    Thank you, I haven't been able to articulate this line of thought recently
- d2v 6y ago
  I think anecdote, personal experience, and most importantly, history, are valuable when the groups in question (law enforcement) are collecting the data in question. Would you believe a survey taken by Coca-cola about what soda is the tastiest? A lot of the initial reactions of law enforcement to incidents of police brutality start with denial, and they don't change their story until there is video evidence to contradict them. In so many incidents where there isn't publicly available evidence, they get to shape the narrative. No amount of data are meaningful if the source benefits from them supporting certain hypotheses.

axguscbklp 6y ago

But it's not a "silly number game", it's a very serious analysis of numbers that should be done to try to determine whether certain conclusions are accurate or inaccurate. Otherwise we have only anecdotes and narratives. Edit: I can make no claim of being a statistician. My statistical arguments probably have some holes in them. But I will at least say that the numbers that I've looked at seem to me to be sufficient to question the prevailing media narrative.

jddj 6y ago
You're stopping short of spelling out your conclusion. The aims of the protests are to shine a spotlight on police brutality and qualified immunity / defund the police / ensure that killer cops are prosecuted / damage property in pursuit of anarchy / score a new TV / whatever. It's all fairly clear and makes enough sense. Your idea, however, leaves us with nothing but a knowing look and an appeal to not trust the narrative. If you can read any broader frustration here, it's because all the "but what about white folks?" people in my social circle have been following the same playbook. So where does it go? Does your argument conclude that the police should be harsher still towards black people? Does it suggest that police who kill should suffer less scrutiny than they presently do? Is the status quo fine, and the resolution should be that everyone just shut up and go home? What's your call to action here, and what would be the immediate real-world consequences of your worldview?
- axguscbklp 6y ago
  >it's because all the "but what about white folks?" people in my social circle have been following the same playbook. Consider that maybe it's not a playbook. Maybe people look at the data and reach conclusions different from yours. Call to action: Let's work together to reduce police brutality. However, let's not sweep black-on-white violence under the rug while focusing narrowly on white-on-black violence. The prevailing media narrative about racial violence in this country is, compared to available data, grossly inaccurate. The inaccuracy fuels political division and distrust of the media. If protest organizers said something like: "Police brutality is wrong and there is reason to think that it is a worse problem for black people than for white people. At the same time, we recognize the disproportionate extent to which white people suffer from black violence. We may perhaps disagree about the extent to which the discrepancy is due to systematic racism or socioeconomic issues, but we recognize your concerns. We want to reach across the division and work together to fix all these issues." In that case, I would be totally on board. Because that would be fair, and transparent, and unifying.
  - jddj 6y ago
    The playbook is the knowing look and the consistently not reaching conclusions, or perhaps not amongst polite company. They're quite free to think differently to me. If they had said that the protests were fine but next time we expect a shout-out, then the discussion could move on. Much like in this example.
  - fzeroracer 6y ago
    > Police brutality is wrong and there is reason to think that it is a worse problem for black people than for white people. At the same time, we recognize the disproportionate extent to which white people suffer from black violence. We may perhaps disagree about the extent to which the discrepancy is due to systematic racism or socioeconomic issues, but we recognize your concerns. We want to reach across the division and work together to fix all these issues So you want to dilute the protest which is specifically about police violence against black people into something entirely different? You're essentially arguing to destroy the entire protest for something it's not at all about. Protesting police brutality against black people is protesting police brutality in general.
- jakkyboi 6y ago
  Thank you, I haven't been able to articulate this line of thought recently
d2v 6y ago
I think anecdote, personal experience, and most importantly, history, are valuable when the groups in question (law enforcement) are collecting the data in question. Would you believe a survey taken by Coca-cola about what soda is the tastiest? A lot of the initial reactions of law enforcement to incidents of police brutality start with denial, and they don't change their story until there is video evidence to contradict them. In so many incidents where there isn't publicly available evidence, they get to shape the narrative. No amount of data are meaningful if the source benefits from them supporting certain hypotheses.