3 ms·

Your post claims to describe a good example of political zealotry and then goes on to be one. To frame Floyd's killing by police as some routine accident is ign

Your post claims to describe a good example of political zealotry and then goes on to be one. To frame Floyd's killing by police as some routine accident is ignorant of the evidence made available to you, probably because you discounted such evidence as untrustworthy and biased. Guesses about how many die to police per year are irrelevant to whether the force used was excessive.

ggreer 6y ago
I think his argument is that it’s a freak accident, not a routine one. If it were routine, the stats for unarmed people dying during arrest would be much higher.
- smolder 6y ago
  My phrasing was off. His argument was that the accident was nothing but a freak occurrence, and that the manner in which Floyd was restrained was routine and appropriate, which, as performed, it was not.
  - ilaksh 6y ago
    This discussion of Floyd is a perfect example of what the article talks about. Two radically different interpretations of the same event.
elefanten 6y ago
GP actually laid out a full argument while you dismissed it out of hand as zealotry. It really feels like you're proving GPs point.
- smolder 6y ago
  I skipped what are in my experience fruitless lines of argument. I cannot decisively argue about to what extent the drugs in his system may have contributed to his death, or to what extent the defunding of Minneapolis police was "dangerous", or to what extent criminality shifts blame to the criminal in these interactions when they go wrong. Nor can he, despite his beliefs. I also skipped arguing with what I think is correct, like that media attention distorts peoples view of things.
- veridies 6y ago
  The post in question is full of strongly stated points, presented with minimal evidence, and in many cases irrelevant to the real argument being had. I would suspect that most people didn't respond because they recognized it as a waste of time. Not every argument is worthy of engagement. For example: > Floyd had high levels of drugs in his system, COVID-19, and was complaining about breathing in the car before there was a knee on him. That makes it much more important not to use a chokehold. > Chokeholds are also a very standard and typically non lethal form of getting a suspect under control. This is relevant to whether Floyd's killing was an aberration; the protests were predicated on the assumption that it was not, and that police in general use unnecessary force. > There’s no evidence of race playing a part in this incident (no evidence of motive) As per https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic..., a higher proportion of unarmed black men are shot by police than unarmed white men. So whether or not THIS CASE was race-related, there is a racial aspect to the problem. > or it even being an instance of police brutality (standard and typically safe procedures were used) "Typically safe" is arguable; Floyd was not the first man killed by a chokehold in completely unnecessary circumstances, where there was no imminent need to subdue the person being arrested (see Eric Garner). But again, this is the problem. Pointing out that it's common looks like an argument against it, but it's really not. > because of these complicating factors. The news media focus, social media virality, sustained legal protests, and sustained violent rioting have corrupted people’s ability to judge this situation rationally, to the point that people overestimate the number of unarmed black people killed by police by over 50x (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say- https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say-...) This number is based on a database that documented cases where we know that police have killed someone, we know that person was black, and the police have said the person was unarmed. The police's judgement on what constitutes "unarmed" may not be the same as that of the people polled.

ggreer 6y ago

I think his argument is that it’s a freak accident, not a routine one. If it were routine, the stats for unarmed people dying during arrest would be much higher.

smolder 6y ago
My phrasing was off. His argument was that the accident was nothing but a freak occurrence, and that the manner in which Floyd was restrained was routine and appropriate, which, as performed, it was not.
- ilaksh 6y ago
  This discussion of Floyd is a perfect example of what the article talks about. Two radically different interpretations of the same event.

elefanten 6y ago

GP actually laid out a full argument while you dismissed it out of hand as zealotry. It really feels like you're proving GPs point.

smolder 6y ago
I skipped what are in my experience fruitless lines of argument. I cannot decisively argue about to what extent the drugs in his system may have contributed to his death, or to what extent the defunding of Minneapolis police was "dangerous", or to what extent criminality shifts blame to the criminal in these interactions when they go wrong. Nor can he, despite his beliefs. I also skipped arguing with what I think is correct, like that media attention distorts peoples view of things.
veridies 6y ago
The post in question is full of strongly stated points, presented with minimal evidence, and in many cases irrelevant to the real argument being had. I would suspect that most people didn't respond because they recognized it as a waste of time. Not every argument is worthy of engagement. For example: > Floyd had high levels of drugs in his system, COVID-19, and was complaining about breathing in the car before there was a knee on him. That makes it much more important not to use a chokehold. > Chokeholds are also a very standard and typically non lethal form of getting a suspect under control. This is relevant to whether Floyd's killing was an aberration; the protests were predicated on the assumption that it was not, and that police in general use unnecessary force. > There’s no evidence of race playing a part in this incident (no evidence of motive) As per https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/police-shootings-database/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/investigations/polic..., a higher proportion of unarmed black men are shot by police than unarmed white men. So whether or not THIS CASE was race-related, there is a racial aspect to the problem. > or it even being an instance of police brutality (standard and typically safe procedures were used) "Typically safe" is arguable; Floyd was not the first man killed by a chokehold in completely unnecessary circumstances, where there was no imminent need to subdue the person being arrested (see Eric Garner). But again, this is the problem. Pointing out that it's common looks like an argument against it, but it's really not. > because of these complicating factors. The news media focus, social media virality, sustained legal protests, and sustained violent rioting have corrupted people’s ability to judge this situation rationally, to the point that people overestimate the number of unarmed black people killed by police by over 50x (https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say- https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com/poll-44-of-liberals-say-...) This number is based on a database that documented cases where we know that police have killed someone, we know that person was black, and the police have said the person was unarmed. The police's judgement on what constitutes "unarmed" may not be the same as that of the people polled.