Problems vs. Solutions and criticizing (e.g.), BLM

[mikkel_the_dane]

"our" society. All of us. No sub-tribes. No identity politics.

Says you! I am not you and I will never be a part of you as long as you can't understand how you treat your own individual subjectivity as objective. You believe as a sub-tribe and with your identity, which really isn't an identity, because of reasons, that you are beyond everybody else. You are not and nor am I. I am just honest about it.

 

[icehorse]

Says you! I am not you and I will never be a part of you as long as you can't understand how you treat your own individual subjectivity as objective. You believe as a sub-tribe and with your identity, which really isn't an identity, because of reasons, that you are beyond everybody else. You are not and nor am I. I am just honest about it.

We are all subject to bias, so your argument is just a distraction.

I would request that you argue the ideas.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We are all subject to bias, so your argument is just a distraction.

I would request that you argue the ideas.

What is your bias?

 

[icehorse]

What is your bias?

Read Daniel Kahneman and get back to me.

 

[PureX]

This is a false dilemma. While I'm sure this happens, it's not our only option.



I'm all for listening. I'm all for establishing strong lines of communication. But the BLM-style approach is simply substituting a new form of bad communication. As the Who said: meet the new boss, same as the old boss.

You don't know that. You're just assuming it. The same bosses have always been in charge of both the discussion and the policy.

 

[icehorse]

You don't know that. You're just assuming it. The same bosses have always been in charge of both the discussion and the policy.

I disagree. I've read BLM's website and listened to them talking.

 

[PureX]

We citizens, of all colors, have a common enemy. This enemy is all to happy to see us bickering amongst ourselves. The enemy is the rise of the corporation and the oligarchs and plutocrats that run them. These Os and Ps have systemically corrupted the government at all levels and the lion's share of our leaders are in the pockets of the Os and Ps. The Os and Ps have installed a false "war on drugs", have privatized prisons, have gutted the middle class, have gutted our health care system, have gutted our healthy food supply and are close to destroying our environment. They have crippled our education system. They are parasites on our economy, not paying their fair share to maintain our infrastructure.

Now this is NOT some conspiracy theory. No secret cabals are necessary to explain how this happened. They each have their own army of the best lawyers who have found the same or similar ways to game the system.

Do you think they're worried about BLM? Quite the contrary, initiatives like BLM are playing right into their hands.

I thought we were talking about police brutality against people of color, and how to change the way police think about and do their jobs. The difference between protecting and serving the public, and maintaining law and order as set forth by the status quo.

I don't disagree with anything you just posted, but you seem to be responding to a different thread, suddenly. If we want to change the way police think about and do their jobs, we need to change the way we determine these. And that may well mean changing the people who are doing it.

As I understand it, cops kill about 1000 people a year in this country - that's in the context of millions of hostile encounters. Of those 1000, far less than half are black. And of those, many are killed by officers of color. So while it's almost certainly true that a few score of POC are killed by racists cops, reducing those numbers won't make a dent on the lives of 99% of the POC in this country. Sure cops killing people is splashy. It's horrific, it's compelling, it's a tragedy.

And it's making us take our eyes off the ball.

Our eyes have not yet landed on the ball you're referring to, sadly. Most Americans are still oblivious to the fact that they no longer live in a democracy, and are now only as 'free' (from abuse and injustice) as they are wealthy. Or as they serve the wealthy.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

"our" society. All of us. No sub-tribes. No identity politics.

This is the same sort of unhelpful argument as 'I'm colorblind' (in reference to racial context.) All it leads to us refusing to see the inequality taking place. We are not, all of us, treated the same by society and we should not pretend we are. All it does is lead to ignoring the inequalities that exist.

 

[ADigitalArtist]

As I understand it, cops kill about 1000 people a year in this country - that's in the context of millions of hostile encounters. Of those 1000, far less than half are black. And of those, many are killed by officers of color. So while it's almost certainly true that a few score of POC are killed by racists cops, reducing those numbers won't make a dent on the lives of 99% of the POC in this country. Sure cops killing people is splashy. It's horrific, it's compelling, it's a tragedy.

You're still making a totals v ratios conclusion here.
When less than 13 percent of the population makes up more than a third of the fatal shootings, that means POC are dispropprtianately affected by fatal shootings. POC are also more likely to be shot and far more likely to be shot while unarmed. There's also higher incidences of police harassment, detainment, pull overs, and charges.
There are other societal things that need to change but minimizing or erasing this problem because it not seeming important to you is why a lot of POC people are rightfully angry. And again, telling people 'let me tell you what would really help you' while doing so is only going to make them angrier.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I understand it, cops kill about 1000 people a year in this country - that's in the context of millions of hostile encounters. Of those 1000, far less than half are black. And of those, many are killed by officers of color. So while it's almost certainly true that a few score of POC are killed by racists cops, reducing those numbers won't make a dent on the lives of 99% of the POC in this country. Sure cops killing people is splashy. It's horrific, it's compelling, it's a tragedy.

And it's making us take our eyes off the ball.

Seriously, the fact that you would make the above argument based on numbers, and then - only a few posts later - state this:

Read Daniel Kahneman and get back to me.

Is baffling to me.

Do you not understand how the argument above is a perfect display of the exact same kinds of statistical biases that ignore any and all inconvenient context and information that Kahneman writes about extensively?

 

[icehorse]

I thought we were talking about police brutality against people of color

These long threads tend to meander around I'm not sure how we got here, but to me, police brutality is just an example of the broader topic I was intending to discuss in the OP. That broader topic being that no group should be allowed to get away with claiming "stay in your lane".

Our eyes have not yet landed on the ball you're referring to, sadly. Most Americans are still oblivious to the fact that they no longer live in a democracy, and are now only as 'free' (from abuse and injustice) as they are wealthy. Or as they serve the wealthy.

well put!

 

[icehorse]

You're still making a totals v ratios conclusion here.
When less than 13 percent of the population makes up more than a third of the fatal shootings, that means POC are dispropprtianately affected by fatal shootings. POC are also more likely to be shot and far more likely to be shot while unarmed. There's also higher incidences of police harassment, detainment, pull overs, and charges.
There are other societal things that need to change but minimizing or erasing this problem because it not seeming important to you is why a lot of POC people are rightfully angry. And again, telling people 'let me tell you what would really help you' while doing so is only going to make them angrier.

We could pursue an interesting discussion on what stats are relevant. For example is it more relevant to talk about ratios based on population or based on encounters?

But to reiterate what I just said to @PureX , what I'm really "on about" is the claim that "the rest of us need to stay in our lane". That's the crux of the OP and while I'm happy to keep discussing it, it might be that we just have to agree to disagree.

 

[Revoltingest]

Most Americans are still oblivious to the fact that they no longer live in a democracy, and are now only as 'free' (from abuse and injustice) as they are wealthy. Or as they serve the wealthy.

Some Ameristanians see the problems of our time,
& think they're the worst ever. Looking at our dismal
history, I say that things have improved.
When were things better? 1900? The 30s? The 50s?

 

[icehorse]

Seriously, the fact that you would make the above argument based on numbers, and then - only a few posts later - state this:

Is baffling to me.

Do you not understand how the argument above is a perfect display of the exact same kinds of statistical biases that ignore any and all inconvenient context and information that Kahneman writes about extensively?

As I just said to @ADigitalArtist, we could have an interesting, deep, lengthy discussion on what stats we might best bring to bear on this question. But I wasn't really trying to defend a particular statistical approach, again the bigger point is to question the entire "stay in your lane" meme.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

As I just said to @ADigitalArtist, we could have an interesting, deep, lengthy discussion on what stats we might best bring to bear on this question. But I wasn't really trying to defend a particular statistical approach, again the bigger point is to question the entire "stay in your lane" meme.

So do you or do you not understand that stating "the majority of people the police kill are white" is a misuse of statistics that creates an inaccurate impression of the actual problems of police violence against (and targeting of) black people?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Some Ameristanians see the problems of our time,
& think they're the worst ever.

Such as?

 

[Revoltingest]

We could pursue an interesting discussion on what stats are relevant. For example is it more relevant to talk about ratios based on population or based on encounters?

But to reiterate what I just said to @PureX , what I'm really "on about" is the claim that "the rest of us need to stay in our lane". That's the crux of the OP and while I'm happy to keep discussing it, it might be that we just have to agree to disagree.

It seems that there are irreconcilable perspectives.
This leads to talking past each other.
To some....
"We must focus only upon BLM."
To Justin Bieber....
"No lives matter until black lives matter."
To others....
"There are larger problems which encompass BLM."

The 1st is understandable, ie, people care about themselves
before others. And there are like minded white folk.
It's not at all wrong.

The 2nd is forgivable cuz he's from Ameristan's hat.

The last one is best if one wants to actually solve problems.
Because to eliminate disparate effects by reducing wrongful
shooting of blacks to the same frequency as wrongful shootings
of whites is no solution at all. Policing has problems far greater
than racism these days.

 

[Revoltingest]

Such as?

I'm not the one claiming that we live in the worst of times.
I suggest asking @PureX.
But one cited claim is that we're no longer a democracy.
This presumes that we were once more so.
When?
Back when women couldn't vote?
When blacks had to pay a poll tax?

 

[ADigitalArtist]

We could pursue an interesting discussion on what stats are relevant. For example is it more relevant to talk about ratios based on population or based on encounters?

We don't have 'encounters' data. Unless you count stuff like pullover or stops statistics which, yes, disproportionately affect POC. But police are going to 'encounter' a larger population demographic more than a smaller one. It's what they do after that which matters.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Read Daniel Kahneman and get back to me.

Well, I can't because I don't have access to all his work.
But it goes deeper than that.
What are you taking for granted?
That I can understand it, if I read it? That requires, that you assume that I have certain level of education?!! Let us assume that. Now then you assume that I have the same understanding as you and accept the findings of Daniel Kahneman. That is not certain. So we end here - it seems that you think you win an argument by referring to a certain field within psychology and then take for granted that all other fields of knowledge about the human condition and experience can be reduced down to the works of Daniel Kahneman.

Well, I doubt that. Because he deals with first person rationality and personality in the strict sense and doesn't includes inter-subjectivity, culture, sociology, ethics and the list goes on.
Indeed here is, where your argument ends:
We are all in the same society, our society, but you can't trust ordinary humans, because they are irrational, so we as irrational humans have to trust you to be all of us and be the expert on our society, because you have read a book about behavioral psychology, rationality and happiness.

You know what. I think I will pass on your POV and continue to do what I have done for many years now. Not take for granted that one book is enough, or one author, or one sub-field with one field of science or indeed that one type of science trumps all other fields or indeed that the current understanding of science is all there is to knowledge.
So I thank you for "forcing" me to read 3 different summaries of his findings, because that was what I could find on the Internet and could be bothered to read.

So here is my summary: Your angle into understanding this is biased by the fact, that you rely on a single professor and his work. The world is a bit more complicated than that and indeed you have to read a lot of more books to learn to understand that. But I won't tell you what you have to read, because I accept that you do it differently than me and that you properly won't accept that I do it differently than you