• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

Black Lives Matter

Davka

Senior Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Messages
981
Location
North of South. just barely.
Basic Beliefs
Atheist
...because all lives matter.

Whenever there is a new story in the news about a black man dying at the hands of (usually white) police, there is a rush to dissect this specific incident and explain why it's not a case of racism. There are a couple of huge problems with this reaction: first, it is an attempt to generalize from a single incident to the culture as a whole. Critics seem to think that if they can prove that racism was not a factor in this one specific killing, this proves that there is no endemic problem involving white cops and black victims in America. However, since the plural of anecdote is not evidence, we know that this approach is fatally flawed.

Secondly, the hyper-focus on (whatever the latest high-profile incident happens to be) comes across as an attempt to minimize the thousands of incidents which occur across the country every single day. If the "problem" is simply Ferguson, or Trayvon Martin, or Ismaaiyl Brinsley, then there is no institutionalized racism in America, it's just a series of isolated incidents. Unfortunately, any objective study of economic, policing, and social trends nationwide tell a very different story.

Example: Wealth distribution in America is heavily divided along racial lines, and this divide has gotten even worse since the Great Recession. In today's America, Whites have $13 in wealth for every $1 that blacks have, according to the Pew research center.

Another classic misdirection is sounded regularly on FOX news: "What about black-on-black crime?" Well, what about it? Black-on-black crime is a real thing. But the underlying reason that black people are more likely to be killed by other black people is simple: In today's segregated America, people are most likely to be victimized by those they live and work near. 84% of all white homicide victims are killed by white people, but we don't hear cries of "what about white-on-white crime?" This is a non-issue, a red herring.

The core message that is diluted and drowned out by all this reactionary chatter is a simple one: Black lives matter, because all lives matter. The current Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind non-approach to segregation, racial ghettos, racially-centered poverty, and so on allows white Americans to avoid the uncomfortable fact that black lives are regularly treated as less valuable than white lives. It is long past time to stop nit-picking over details, or arguing about whether or not Trayvon Martin “had it coming,” and take a good, hard look at racial inequality in America.

Black lives matter, because all lives matter. If any group is relegated to the status of second-class citizen, we all suffer for it. Our very humanity is at stake. Instead of throwing political bias at every new killing, we need to discuss the underlying issues of poverty, segregation, and unconscious racial bias. It’s time to stop arguing over who did what when, and start talking about how we can fix this mess.
 
Are there a lot of people saying black lives don't matter?

Let's hope some show up here so we can engage them in vigorous debate.
 
It's not about what people are saying with words, Derec. It's about what they are saying with their actions.

Derec? He hasn't posted in this thread yet.

As for the wealth disparity, it is pretty huge. So why don't we focus on lifting people out of poverty? We can help all the poor, and it will elevate more black people, since more of them are poor, but not do so in a racist way, or enforce the image of black as poor and white as rich. Are middle class and wealthy black folks not sick of being assumed to be poor just because of their race? I see no reason to push that image, even it is is true on a statistical average.
 
It's not about what people are saying with words, Derec. It's about what they are saying with their actions.

Derec? He hasn't posted in this thread yet.
dismal and derec are hard to tell apart sometimes.

As for the wealth disparity, it is pretty huge. So why don't we focus on lifting people out of poverty? We can help all the poor, and it will elevate more black people, since more of them are poor, but not do so in a racist way, or enforce the image of black as poor and white as rich. Are middle class and wealthy black folks not sick of being assumed to be poor just because of their race? I see no reason to push that image, even it is is true on a statistical average.
Yep.

Racism plays a HUGE part in the continual attempts by the Right to dismantle the social safety-net. Rebuilding that net is crucial. Another desperately-needed measure is the de-segregation of America on class/income lines.
 
I think you have your anaysis partly wrong. Whenever there is an incident of a police officer using force against a black under questionable circumstances, your side automatically assumes the cop was acting under the imfluence of racism. I don't argue that the incident is definitely not due to racism in some illogical attempt to disprove that racism exists in society, that seems to be your strawman. What I do argue is that the questionable actions may have nothing to do with racism (that there are other circumstances involved other than the colors of the skins) and that broad conclusions can not be drawn from cherry picked incidents.

The most legitimate form of argumentation is to post published statistical studies from qualified academics that have controlled for other confounding variables to tease out the effect that race and skin color have on how someone is treated by the police and others in society. That is very rarely done by your side. The focus is almost exclusively with anecdotes. I wonder why that is?
 
I think you have your anaysis partly wrong. Whenever there is an incident of a police officer using force against a black under questionable circumstances, your side automatically assumes the cop was acting under the imfluence of racism.
Why is it whenever this comes up, "your side" immediately comes up with this bullshit? Is it due to lack of imagination or what?
 
I think you have your anaysis partly wrong. Whenever there is an incident of a police officer using force against a black under questionable circumstances, your side automatically assumes the cop was acting under the imfluence of racism.

Utter and complete bullshit. First of all, this is not about "sides," unless you want to say that my side is opposed to bigotry and racism, which would sort of put 'your side' in a pretty small and ugly box.

Secondly, I don't automatically assume anything. I try to gather the facts, and reach a conclusion based on those facts. The recent shootings in both Nashville and St. Louis were similar in that the cops were dealing with an armed suspect who pointed a gun at cops. Skin color doesn't matter much when you do that - you're likely to be shot to death no matter what you look like if you attack the police with lethal force.

And finally, when a WHITE cop shoots a BLACK civilian under QUESTIONABLE circumstances, it's extremely likely that race played a part. Not necessarily "racism," in the sense of the cop being someone who hates black people, but rather race - in the sense that most white people automatically see black men as a potential threat.

I don't argue that the incident is definitely not due to racism in some illogical attempt to disprove that racism exists in society, that seems to be your strawman. What I do argue is that the questionable actions may have nothing to do with racism (that there are other circumstances involved other than the colors of the skins) and that broad conclusions can not be drawn from cherry picked incidents.

Which is the flip-side of what I wrote. That racism plays a large part in the high rate of black men being killed by cops is unquestionably true. That every single instance is necessarily an example of racism in action is absurd. At the same time, demonstrating that a specific single incident is not an example of racism says absolutely nothing about the problem of racism in America.

The most legitimate form of argumentation is to post published statistical studies from qualified academics that have controlled for other confounding variables to tease out the effect that race and skin color have on how someone is treated by the police and others in society. That is very rarely done by your side. The focus is almost exclusively with anecdotes. I wonder why that is?

Bullshit. Apologists for racist cops rely entirely on anecdotal evidence.
 
...because all lives matter.
Yes.

Whenever there is a new story in the news about a black man dying at the hands of (usually white) police, there is a rush to dissect this specific incident and explain why it's not a case of racism.
Whether a particular shooting is a crime or justified is solely a function of the circumstances in that incident. It has nothing to do with how many black men get killed by the police or how the wealth is distributed.

Critics seem to think that if they can prove that racism was not a factor in this one specific killing, this proves that there is no endemic problem involving white cops and black victims in America.
I have not seen anybody make that straw man argument. What I have seen is the reverse. Racism of the white police is assumed, and so a white cop shooting a black man must have been due to racism.

Secondly, the hyper-focus on (whatever the latest high-profile incident happens to be) comes across as an attempt to minimize the thousands of incidents which occur across the country every single day.
You forget who hyper-focused on this particular incident.

Example: Wealth distribution in America is heavily divided along racial lines, and this divide has gotten even worse since the Great Recession.

In today's America, Whites have $13 in wealth for every $1 that blacks have, according to the Pew research center.
And we have to ask ourselves why that is. Here there is a lot of resistance in acknowledging that parts of "black culture" are highly toxic.

Another classic misdirection is sounded regularly on FOX news: "What about black-on-black crime?" Well, what about it? Black-on-black crime is a real thing. But the underlying reason that black people are more likely to be killed by other black people is simple: In today's segregated America, people are most likely to be victimized by those they live and work near. 84% of all white homicide victims are killed by white people, but we don't hear cries of "what about white-on-white crime?" This is a non-issue, a red herring.
That's because the rate of black-on-black crime is five times as big as white-on-white crime. That is a huge difference and ultimately black community must tackle it.

The core message that is diluted and drowned out by all this reactionary chatter is a simple one: Black lives matter, because all lives matter. The current Out Of Sight, Out Of Mind non-approach to segregation, racial ghettos, racially-centered poverty, and so on allows white Americans to avoid the uncomfortable fact that black lives are regularly treated as less valuable than white lives. It is long past time to stop nit-picking over details, or arguing about whether or not Trayvon Martin “had it coming,” and take a good, hard look at racial inequality in America.
There is no legal segregation in the US and there hasn't been for half a century. Yes, people gravitate toward certain neighborhoods for a variety of reasons. And as long as blacks commit homicides five times as often as whites, people will shun neighborhoods where the subset of blacks who commit those crimes reside.

Black lives matter, because all lives matter. If any group is relegated to the status of second-class citizen, we all suffer for it. Our very humanity is at stake. Instead of throwing political bias at every new killing, we need to discuss the underlying issues of poverty, segregation, and unconscious racial bias. It’s time to stop arguing over who did what when, and start talking about how we can fix this mess.
I agree that we need to fix this mess. The real controversy is how.
 
dismal and derec are hard to tell apart sometimes.
Are you saying we all look alike to you?

Racism plays a HUGE part in the continual attempts by the Right to dismantle the social safety-net. Rebuilding that net is crucial.
What would be your proposal? We already have all sorts of government assistance like EBT or Section 8.
Another desperately-needed measure is the de-segregation of America on class/income lines.
How do you propose to do that without telling people where they have to live?
 
Are there a lot of people saying black lives don't matter?
Nobody here would admit to believing that, though. There isn't really even anyone left with the courage to play devil's advocate for that position without a large heap of sarcasm.


Let's hope some show up here so we can engage them in vigorous debate.
You wouldn't really do that. You wouldn't even take them seriously. You'd mock and condemn them, dismiss them as a lost cause, and go back to your echo chamber.
 
...because all lives matter.
A feel good message to which we can all pay lip service, but how do you know if it's truly a unanimous sentiment? When people stand to lose credibility for admitting to certain views, they don't admit them, but they still hold them. We'll read your post and nod, but in our heart of hearts, do you really think we all feel like we're members of a universal siblinghood of humanity? I'll say it-- I for one worry that this may really be a zero sum world.

If any group is relegated to the status of second-class citizen, we all suffer for it.

I can't honestly say I totally buy this. Granted, on a technical, literal level, there's suffering that can be traced to inequality, and it affects both "winners" and "losers". But in equal proportion? Of course not. And what suffering might result if we all came to share the first class?

Not being white, I can't speak from the first-class position regarding race, but I know this is something I struggle with when it comes to gender issues. How much do those of us on the "winning" side of a given inequality really stand to gain from equality? How much net gain? How do we know the devil we don't know will be an improvement for us, and not just for them?
 
A feel good message to which we can all pay lip service, but how do you know if it's truly a unanimous sentiment?
I honestly don't give a flying fuck whether it's unanimous, or even majority. Truth is not subject to voting. Either all lives matter, or no lives matter. Take your pick.

If any group is relegated to the status of second-class citizen, we all suffer for it.

Not being white, I can't speak from the first-class position regarding race, but I know this is something I struggle with when it comes to gender issues. How much do those of us on the "winning" side of a given inequality really stand to gain from equality? How much net gain? How do we know the devil we don't know will be an improvement for us, and not just for them?

Science tells us that harboring ill feelings towards others is physically unhealthy, as well as causing our brains to be wired in a less-than-optimal manner, which affects intelligence. And logic tells us that holding fast to irrational and incorrect positions makes us less capable of accurate extrapolation. As for gender issues, happy women are more likely to want a romp in the hay, which is really all we men care about anyways.
 
I think you have your anaysis partly wrong. Whenever there is an incident of a police officer using force against a black under questionable circumstances, your side automatically assumes the cop was acting under the imfluence of racism. I don't argue that the incident is definitely not due to racism in some illogical attempt to disprove that racism exists in society, that seems to be your strawman. What I do argue is that the questionable actions may have nothing to do with racism (that there are other circumstances involved other than the colors of the skins) and that broad conclusions can not be drawn from cherry picked incidents.

The most legitimate form of argumentation is to post published statistical studies from qualified academics that have controlled for other confounding variables to tease out the effect that race and skin color have on how someone is treated by the police and others in society. That is very rarely done by your side. The focus is almost exclusively with anecdotes. I wonder why that is?

And you have proof that this is the case, that "whenever there is an incident of a police officer using force against a black under questionable circumstances, your side automatically assumes the cop was acting under the imfluence of racism?"

So black armed robbers have been defended here? Rapists? Murderers shooting it out with the police?

What cases involved in the #blacklivesmatter have been cases where the victims have not be either unarmed or carrying toys?
 
I honestly don't give a flying fuck whether it's unanimous, or even majority. Truth is not subject to voting. Either all lives matter, or no lives matter. Take your pick.

It surprises me that you're treating the issue of whether lives matter as a truth-apt issue. I infer from this that we are operating under different definitions of "matter". The way I see it, for something to matter, somebody must care about it. Only then does it matter... to them. If a group of people unanimously care about something, than it can be said to matter to that group.

But suppose it's "true" in the objective sense that you seem to be implying, that all lives matter? Firstly, how is this truth established? Secondly, even if it's true, why should we care? No, that's the wrong phrasing. What I'm trying to get across here is, can you make a persuasive case for caring which would actually be compelling to real human beings, who are not purely rational?

Science tells us that harboring ill feelings towards others is physically unhealthy, as well as causing our brains to be wired in a less-than-optimal manner, which affects intelligence. And logic tells us that holding fast to irrational and incorrect positions makes us less capable of accurate extrapolation.
How does being on the winning side of social inequality entail harboring ill feelings towards others, or holding fast to irrational and incorrect positions? And how do we know that the improvements in accurate extrapolation, physical health, etc. that you imply would result from decreasing inequality would constitute a net gain?

As for gender issues, happy women are more likely to want a romp in the hay, which is really all we men care about anyways.
If you're going to appeal to sexuality-based interests, the truth is that how likely women are to have sex off-camera is of no concern to me. Are happy women more likely to perform in pornography? That's something I actually care about.
 
Back
Top Bottom