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

[Revoltingest]

It still looks like a blatant misrepresentation to me.
The sort of strawman argument one might produce if you dislike the message, but haven't much to say about it.
Tom

Let's give him the chance to show its origin & commitment to accuracy.

 

[Tambourine]

As I told the other poster, I read the linked article too.
I even searched it for portions of the quoted text, but
couldn't find any hits. Whence cometh the quote?
Btw....
The quote struck me as out of place in the post & in
the article, but rather than assume it was fabricated, I
questioned my thoroughness in reading.

Here is the article all the way up to the the paragraph I quoted, with my quote in bold:

Stories and Data
Reflections on race, riots, and police
Coleman Hughes
June 14, 2020
The Social Order
Public safety
The brutal death of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis police officers has sparked protests and riots around the United States. We have witnessed humanity at its finest and at its ugliest. Citizens of faraway nations have expressed solidarity with black Americans; police officers have marched alongside protesters; protesters have defended businesses against looting and destruction. At the same time, rioters have burned down buildings and looted businesses; protesters have been pepper-sprayed and beaten; cops have been shot and run over with cars.

At the root of the unrest is the Black Lives Matter movement, which began with the acquittal of George Zimmerman in 2013 and rose to national prominence in the wake of Michael Brown’s death in 2014. My view of BLM is mixed. On the one hand, I agree that police departments too often have tolerated and even enabled corruption. Rather than relying on impartial third parties, departments often decide whether to discipline their own officers; the legal doctrine of qualified immunity sets what many say is an unreasonably high bar for civilians bringing civil-rights lawsuits against police officers. Bodycams (which increase transparency, to the benefit of both wrongly treated police suspects and wrongly accused police) are not yet universal. In the face of police unions that oppose even reasonable reforms, Black Lives Matter seems a force for positive change.

On the other hand, the basic premise of Black Lives Matter—that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false. There was a time when I believed it. I was one year younger than Trayvon Martin when he was killed in 2012, and like many black men, I felt like he could have been me. I was the same age as Michael Brown when he was killed in 2014, and like so many others, I shared the BLM hashtag on social media to express solidarity. By 2015, when the now-familiar list had grown to include Tamir Rice, Laquan McDonald, Sandra Bland, Freddie Gray, and Walter Scott, I began wearing a shirt with all their names on it. It became my favorite shirt. It seemed plain to me that these were not just tragedies, but racist tragedies. Any suggestion to the contrary struck me as at best, ignorant, and at worst, bigoted.

My opinion has slowly changed. I still believe that racism exists and must be condemned in the strongest possible terms; I still believe that, on average, police officers are quicker to rough up a black or Hispanic suspect; and I still believe that police misconduct happens far too often and routinely goes unpunished. But I no longer believe that the cops disproportionately kill unarmed black Americans.

Two things changed my mind: stories and data.

First, the stories. Each story in this paragraph involves a police officer killing an unarmed white person. (To demonstrate how commonly this happens, I have taken all of them from a single year, 2015, chosen at random). Timothy Smith was killed by a police officer who mistakenly thought he was reaching into his waistband to grab a gun; the shooting was ruled justified. William Lemmon was killed after he allegedly failed to show his hands upon request; the shooting was ruled justified. Ryan Bolinger was shot dead by a cop who said he was moving strangely and walking toward her; the shooting was ruled justified. Derek Cruice was shot in the face after he opened the door for police officers serving a warrant for a drug arrest; the cops recovered marijuana from the property, and the shooting was ruled justified. Daniel Elrod robbed a dollar store, and, when confronted by police, allegedly failed to raise his hands upon request (though his widow, who witnessed the event, insists otherwise); he was shot dead. No criminal charges were filed. Ralph Willis was shot dead when officers mistakenly thought that he was reaching for a gun. David Cassick was shot twice in the back by a police officer while lying face down on the ground. Six-year-old Jeremy Mardis was killed by a police officer while sitting in the passenger seat of a car; the officer’s intended target was Jeremy’s father, who was sitting in the driver’s seat with his hands raised out the window. Autumn Steele was shot dead when a police officer, startled by her German shepherd, immediately fired his weapon at the animal, catching her in the crossfire. Shortly after he killed her, bodycam footage revealed the officer’s despair: “I’m f------ going to prison,” he says. The officer was not disciplined.

For brevity’s sake, I will stop here. But the list goes on.

For every black person killed by the police, there is at least one white person (usually many) killed in a similar way. The day before cops in Louisville barged into Breonna Taylor’s home and killed her, cops barged into the home of a white man named Duncan Lemp, killed him, and wounded his girlfriend (who was sleeping beside him). Even George Floyd, whose death was particularly brutal, has a white counterpart: Tony Timpa. Timpa was killed in 2016 by a Dallas police officer who used his knee to pin Timpa to the ground (face down) for 13 minutes. In the video, you can hear Timpa whimpering and begging to be let go. After he lets out his final breaths, the officers begin cracking jokes about him. Criminal charges initially brought against them were later dropped.

At a gut level, it is hard for most people to feel the same level of outrage when the cops kill a white person. Perhaps that is as it should be. After all, for most of American history, it was white suffering that provoked more outrage. But I would submit that if this new “anti-racist” bias is justified—if we now have a moral obligation to care more about certain lives than others based on skin color, or based on racial-historical bloodguilt—then everything that I thought I knew about basic morality, and everything that the world’s philosophical and religious traditions have been saying about common humanity, revenge, and forgiveness since antiquity, should be thrown out the window.

You might agree that the police kill plenty of unarmed white people, but object that they are more likely to kill unarmed black people, relative to their share of the population. That’s where the data comes in. The objection is true as far as it goes; but it’s also misleading. To demonstrate the existence of a racial bias, it’s not enough to cite the fact that black people comprise 14 percent of the population but about 35 percent of unarmed Americans shot dead by police. (By that logic, you could prove that police shootings were extremely sexist by pointing out that men comprise 50 percent of the population but 93 percent of unarmed Americans shot by cops.)

Instead, you must do what all good social scientists do: control for confounding variables to isolate the effect that one variable has upon another (in this case, the effect of a suspect’s race on a cop’s decision to pull the trigger). At least four careful studies have done this—one by Harvard economist Roland Fryer, one by a group of public-health researchers, one by economist Sendhil Mullainathan, and one by David Johnson, et al. None of these studies has found a racial bias in deadly shootings. Of course, that hardly settles the issue for all time; as always, more research is needed. But given the studies already done, it seems unlikely that future work will uncover anything close to the amount of racial bias that BLM protesters in America and around the world believe exists.

All of which makes my view of Black Lives Matter complicated. If not for BLM, we probably would not be talking about ending qualified immunity, making bodycams universal, increasing police accountability, and so forth—at least not to the same extent. In fact, we might not even have a careful national database on police shootings. At the same time, the core premise of the movement is false. And if not for the dissemination of this falsehood, social relations between blacks and whites would be less tense, trust in police would be higher, and businesses all across America might have been spared the looting and destruction that we have seen in recent weeks.

I can't quote the entire article because it hits the word limit for a forum post.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here is the article all the way up to the the paragraph I quoted, with my quote in bold:

Searching the text of the article again for it, I don't see....
"The riots are all BLM's fault for lying about police statistics"
.
Could you excerpt the relevant portion & highlight it for us?

 

[columbus]

I didn't see it in the article either, including the entire one in the link.
To put a claim in quotation marks with the appearance of attribution
to the quoted post tells me it's a direct quote. Am I just missing it?

It's in the 12th paragraph if I counted correctly.
Tom

 

[Augustus]

"The riots are all BLM's fault for lying about police statistics" has got to be one of the spiciest hot takes of this year so far.

Not really. Assuming you accept the data in the article, it is saying framing a police brutality/murderous incompetence issue as a racist issue is counterproductive (which is fair enough). You may think otherwise, but it wouldn't be a ridiculous position to take

I don't know if the data is correct, but if it is wrong there should be some better data you can provide.

 

[Tambourine]

Not really. Assuming you accept the data in the article, it is saying framing a police brutality/murderous incompetence issue as a racist issue is counterproductive (which is fair enough). You may think otherwise, but it wouldn't be a ridiculous position to take

I don't know if the data is correct, but if it is wrong there should be some better data you can provide.

The author actually goes much further and says that framing police brutality as a race issue directly caused riots and looting:

"And if not for the dissemination of this falsehood, social relations between blacks and whites would be less tense, trust in police would be higher, and businesses all across America might have been spared the looting and destruction that we have seen in recent weeks."

Your mileage may vary, but I think his argument skips a rather large number of crucial intermediary steps when it comes to assigning agency and blame here.

 

[Revoltingest]

It's in the 12th paragraph if I counted correctly.
Tom

I searched the both the posted article & the linked article
for portions of the quoted text (<ctrl> F).....no hits.
A cut & paste would verify that the quote actually exists.

Could it be a misunderstanding, ie, the poster believes that
his own inference from the material may be put in quotation
marks, & attributed to the author? If so, it should be clearly
indicated to not be a quote of someone else's work.

The quote appears to be greatly at odds with what I infer
from the article. The author would be displeased.

 

[columbus]

Could it be a misunderstanding, ie, the poster believes that
his own inference from the material many be put in quotation
marks, & attributed to the author? If so, it should be clearly
indicated to not be a quote of someone else's work.

I'm sure that's the problem, although I didn't have trouble sorting the misrepresentative paraphrase from the original quote.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm sure that's the problem, although I didn't have trouble sorting the misrepresentative paraphrase from the original quote.
Tom

When attributing an invented quote to an author,
misrepresenting their intent, this hurts one's cause.
To cut & paste quoted passages is always best
(ideally in correct context).

 

[icehorse]

You can't spot the problem, it appears. You take for granted that a single professor or 2 within a sub-flied of psychology can be applied one to one to society as such.

I read 3 summaries of the book and I was already aware of what it was about, because I had already come across the subject matter before.

What do you want me to do after I have read the book? I don't have to read it, I just have to read some summaries and 3 will do fine to understand what it is about. So what is it that you expect that will happen? Honestly, do you expect that I will magically agree with you based on one book about an aspect of being human?
icehorse, I am as honest as it gets. Do you honestly think that a book about some aspects and not all about human rationality and happiness will change what I know. I have been doing this for over 20 years now and here is what I have learned.
In dealing with humans you can't rely on just one book. You have to read a lot of them, learn to compare them and figure out how they work when they meet the everyday world.

stop with the strawmans and we can continue the conversation.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

stop with the strawmans and we can continue the conversation.

Okay. I won't read the book and you make whatever point you think is in the book or whatever you want. Your move.

 

[PureX]

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?

In the 30s we learned the need and value of sharing and supporting each other. We also learned how dangerous it was to allow a few very greedy men do as they please just because they have piles of money. In the 50s most citizens were doing very well, financially, because those very greedy few had been subjugated and made to share. And we were even beginning to face some of our social demons. We did well all the way until the Reagan 80s, when greed once again became the prime virtue, and we've been sinking deeper and deeper in the mire ever since.

 

[Augustus]

The author actually goes much further and says that framing police brutality as a race issue directly caused riots and looting:

He is saying if the issue hadn't been framed as a race issue, then there probably wouldn't have been riots. This is not the same as saying it caused the riots.

White people being killed by police barely warrants a mention, so it seems police brutality is not the emotive issue. It is the "racially motivated murder of black people" and the idea that unarmed black people (but not whites) are at constant risk of being killed by police that drives the anger as it ties in to a broader worldview and historical memory.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

He is saying if the issue hadn't been framed as a race issue, then there probably wouldn't have been riots. This is not the same as saying it caused the riots.

White people being killed by police barely warrants a mention, so it seems police brutality is not the emotive issue. It is the "racially motivated murder of black people" and the idea that unarmed black people (but not whites) are at constant risk of being killed by police that drives the anger as it ties in to a broader worldview and historical memory.

Well, I have seen statics that young black men has the highest probability of being killed by police. That might be a part of it.

 

[Tambourine]

@Augustus
I don't see why predominantly Black communities should be blamed for the lack of outrage against police violence in predominantly White communities. If White Americans cannot be roused to action against the police state when other White Americans are suffering from police brutality, then how exactly is that the fault of BLM?

I think you are misassigning blame to people who have had no agency in that particular situation. Where were all the people who are currently decrying the White victims of police brutality when that brutality happened to them?
Why was there no outcry over the lack of coverage, no organization of White police victims?

If WhiteAmericans had wanted to march against police brutality and demand an end to their victimization, they've had plenty of opportunities to do so over the last decade. So why didn't they?

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand that most every such statistical can be used in a misleading fashion without context, yes.

That's not what I asked you. What I asked was very specific:

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?

Yes or no?

Do you think YOU have a handle on stats that would leave a more accurate impression?

I think I have a handle on the overall picture that clearly shows that what you said was both misleading and useless.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

One perspective written by an African-American:

the basic premise of Black Lives Matter—that racist cops are killing unarmed black people—is false.

That's not the basic premise of BLM, and the rest of the article is basically a demonstration of a basic misunderstanding between racism and systemic racism, and is basically useless. It focuses exclusively on "deadly shootings" while missing the larger issue of police violence in general, effectively skewering the issue and misrepresenting statistics to give an inaccurate view of the overall state of racist policing in America. It does nothing to acknowledge the actual problem, which is the STILL significant disparity in the arrest, incarceration rate, profiling and murder of black Americans at the hands of the police and criminal justice system.

 

[Revoltingest]

In the 30s we learned the need and value of sharing and supporting each other. We also learned how dangerous it was to allow a few very greedy men do as they please just because they have piles of money.

So things were better with the KKK running rampant, Hitler rising to
power & starting WW2, segregation, financial collapse, prohibition
causing the organized crime problem, no gay rights, etc?

In the 50s most citizens were doing very well, financially, because those very greedy few had been subjugated and made to share. And we were even beginning to face some of our social demons.

So things were better with Jim Crow laws, McCarthyism, rapidly
increasing risk of nuclear war with USSR, the Korean War, people
being sickened by lead exposure, building poorly designed nuclear
reactors, no seatbelts in cars, forced Christian prayer in public
schools, no gay rights, etc?

We did well all the way until the Reagan 80s, when greed once again became the prime virtue, and we've been sinking deeper and deeper in the mire ever since.

It's fairly clear that you & have very different values.
To me, the "good old days" weren't that good.
I say that greatly improved civil liberties, scientific &
technological advancements, are progress.
If this is "sinking deeper and deeper in the mire", then
gimmee more of that mire.

I'll grant one looming problem....over-population.

 

[Stevicus]

Instead, you must do what all good social scientists do: control for confounding variables to isolate the effect that one variable has upon another (in this case, the effect of a suspect’s race on a cop’s decision to pull the trigger). At least four careful studies have done this—one by Harvard economist Roland Fryer, one by a group of public-health researchers, one by economist Sendhil Mullainathan, and one by David Johnson, et al. None of these studies has found a racial bias in deadly shootings. Of course, that hardly settles the issue for all time; as always, more research is needed. But given the studies already done, it seems unlikely that future work will uncover anything close to the amount of racial bias that BLM protesters in America and around the world believe exists.

I think the dialogue on this issue has been tailored in such a way as to make sure that the capitalist ruling class is safe, while public attention and anger is distracted by other things. I think it would be preposterous to deny that racial bias is an overriding factor in how this country has been governed and controlled, but sometimes it seems to focus too much on random events at street level and doesn't really look at the big picture. I think this is by design, to keep people confused and misdirected.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

...
Instead, you must do what all good social scientists do: control for confounding variables to isolate the effect that one variable has upon another (in this case, the effect of a suspect’s race on a cop’s decision to pull the trigger). At least four careful studies have done this—one by Harvard economist Roland Fryer, one by a group of public-health researchers, one by economist Sendhil Mullainathan, and one by David Johnson, et al. None of these studies has found a racial bias in deadly shootings. Of course, that hardly settles the issue for all time; as always, more research is needed. But given the studies already done, it seems unlikely that future work will uncover anything close to the amount of racial bias that BLM protesters in America and around the world believe exists.

Stories and Data

I concentrated on this one:
"I’m not saying that the police in these specific cases are free of racial bias. I can’t answer that question. But what the data does suggest is that eliminating the biases of all police officers would do little to materially reduce the total number of African-American killings. Police bias may well be a significant problem, but in accounting for why some of these encounters turn into killings, it is swamped by other, bigger problems that plague our society, our economy and our criminal justice system."
...
"The data is unequivocal. Police killings are a race problem: African-Americans are being killed disproportionately and by a wide margin. And police bias may be responsible. But this data does not prove that biased police officers are more likely to shoot blacks in any given encounter."
...
"In fact, the deeper you look, the more it appears that the race problem revealed by the statistics reflects a larger problem: the structure of our society, our laws and policies.

The war on drugs illustrates this kind of racial bias. African-Americans are only slightly more likely to use drugs than whites. Yet, they are more than twice as likely to be arrested on drug-related charges. One reason is that drug sellers are being targeted more heavily than users. With fewer job options, low-income African-Americans have been disproportionately represented in the ranks of drug sellers. In addition, the drug laws penalize crack cocaine — a drug more likely to be used by African-Americans — far more harshly than powder cocaine."

Now what? Race is a problem and race is not a problem, it would seem. So which is it?
Well, it could be that racism is structural as the article hints at, but that is not what BLM is about, right?