>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'

>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.