3 ms·

I don't think I see the logical consistency you're talking about. In one case, there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely th

I don't think I see the logical consistency you're talking about. In one case, there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely that race was a motivating factor. In the other case, there is a white man killing a black man. Without further knowledge if the situation, we can't say whether race was involved here either - but in so many recent cases we have seen that race is near the root of such killings. Arbery is such an example, where the killers made racial slurs at him indicating their views towards black people. I don't think your quote is logically consistent; the man is talking about actions taking place in a vacuum where race isn't a factor, which doesn't apply to the current environment.

giardini 6y ago
Woberto says>"there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely that race was a motivating factor. < I dunno! Maybe that black man is statistics-savvy and reads the FBI's UCR [Uniform Crime Report} statistics each year: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-... (see the upper-left corner of the spreadsheet) So he knows that a black man is ~10 times more likely than a white man to kill him. When he encounters a white man in an alleyway at night he might give that white man a "pass" but if, under the same circumstances, he meets a black man...well, what are the odds? So possibly, even in the case of black on black murder, race can matter very much. Especially if blacks are more highly educated (and read crime statistics or grok them). BTW white men read the same stats.
aww_dang 6y ago
>In one case, there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely that race was a motivating factor. At the end of the day, you can't say that conclusively. However this kind of event is outside of the fetishsized view of racial oppression. In my view, this is a trope trotted out to wear compassion on a shirtsleeve. I see it as a reflection of their vanity. If you want to throw in the institutional angle, perhaps you could conclude that perpetrators of these crimes are less likely to be prosecuted. https://www.wbez.org/stories/chicagos-dismal-murder-solve-rate-even-worse-when-victims-are-african-american/100a4f2f-e683-47f2-b3c5-db9e7a07d63e https://www.wbez.org/stories/chicagos-dismal-murder-solve-ra... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202470 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202470 >If they were genuinely concerned, they wouldn't silence this man. I stand by this statement. It doesn't matter if race is a motivating factor in this context. There's no reason to silence this man's views. Canceling the journalist who reported it with cries of 'racist', because it doesn't fit the preconceived narrative is prejudicial. First they fetishsize to better self-aggrandize. Next they dispose of observations which do not fit their hypothesis. This man's concerns, the murder statistics and how that will impact real people, none of that matters. They're eager to skip all of that and jump to the conclusion where they prove their hypothesis. Throw in a few extra leaps to conflate the whole thing with an imagined moral high ground and partisan politics. Hope this helps to clarify the lack of logical consistency I see here. Thanks.

giardini 6y ago

Woberto says>"there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely that race was a motivating factor. < I dunno! Maybe that black man is statistics-savvy and reads the FBI's UCR [Uniform Crime Report} statistics each year: https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-3.xls https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-... (see the upper-left corner of the spreadsheet) So he knows that a black man is ~10 times more likely than a white man to kill him. When he encounters a white man in an alleyway at night he might give that white man a "pass" but if, under the same circumstances, he meets a black man...well, what are the odds? So possibly, even in the case of black on black murder, race can matter very much. Especially if blacks are more highly educated (and read crime statistics or grok them). BTW white men read the same stats.

aww_dang 6y ago

>In one case, there is a black man killing another black man. To me it seems highly unlikely that race was a motivating factor. At the end of the day, you can't say that conclusively. However this kind of event is outside of the fetishsized view of racial oppression. In my view, this is a trope trotted out to wear compassion on a shirtsleeve. I see it as a reflection of their vanity. If you want to throw in the institutional angle, perhaps you could conclude that perpetrators of these crimes are less likely to be prosecuted. https://www.wbez.org/stories/chicagos-dismal-murder-solve-rate-even-worse-when-victims-are-african-american/100a4f2f-e683-47f2-b3c5-db9e7a07d63e https://www.wbez.org/stories/chicagos-dismal-murder-solve-ra... https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202470 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3202470 >If they were genuinely concerned, they wouldn't silence this man. I stand by this statement. It doesn't matter if race is a motivating factor in this context. There's no reason to silence this man's views. Canceling the journalist who reported it with cries of 'racist', because it doesn't fit the preconceived narrative is prejudicial. First they fetishsize to better self-aggrandize. Next they dispose of observations which do not fit their hypothesis. This man's concerns, the murder statistics and how that will impact real people, none of that matters. They're eager to skip all of that and jump to the conclusion where they prove their hypothesis. Throw in a few extra leaps to conflate the whole thing with an imagined moral high ground and partisan politics. Hope this helps to clarify the lack of logical consistency I see here. Thanks.