Department of justice finds Yale systemically racist against whites!

[R.P.L]

Please explain how the latter of these makes no sense to support?

If you carry on reading then he explains it.

Please don't take offence, but are you on the spectrum?

This winds me up when people ask this. Such a pointless ad hominem.

 

[Theophany]

If you carry on reading then he explains it.

No he doesn't. He goes off on some thoroughly boring and unrelated diatribe about death rates based on race. I don't see any explanation as to why supporting the sentiment of black lives matter makes no sense, capped off with the presentation of a potentially politically motivated allegation as fact.

Unless the point is that it makes no sense to support the sentiment of black lives matter because white people die more? I honestly don't get it.

This winds me up when people ask this. Such a pointless ad hominem.

What?

 

[R.P.L]

No he doesn't. He goes off on some thoroughly boring and unrelated diatribe about death rates based on race. I don't see any explanation as to why supporting the sentiment of black lives matter makes no sense, capped off with the presentation of a potentially politically motivated allegation as fact.

Unless the point is that it makes no sense to support the sentiment of black lives matter because white people die more? I honestly don't get it.

I don't want to speak for him, but my take is that black people aren't being unfairly targeted and therefore the movement is unwarranted at best.

What?

What?

 

[dowie]

No he doesn't. He goes off on some thoroughly boring and unrelated diatribe about death rates based on race. I don't see any explanation as to why supporting the sentiment of black lives matter makes no sense, capped off with the presentation of a potentially politically motivated allegation as fact.

Supporting the sentiment, as in the moderate take on the statement itself: Black lives matter (too) is fine, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that... if you believe that lives in general matter then you must believe that black lives matter, it's simply a subset of that belief.

As some new black power movement though it's fundamentally divisive and has sparked widespread rioting looting leading to property damage, serious assaults and multiple murders. It's both a general movement and a network of organisations many of which are run by dubious characters, people with extremist beliefs etc..

The whole reason for its existence is both misguided and grounded in a distorted perception of reality - firstly that they care about black lives is a bit misleading, it's mostly focused on black lives lost in a specific way - generally through interactions with law enforcement (and the vigilante incident which sparked it) - many more black lives are lost through crime in general (often black people killing other black people) but the movement doesn't pay much attention to that, it's the police they're particularly angry with.

Secondly the notion that the police are disproportionately killing black people is a myth, there isn't good evidence to suggest that police interactions in the context of use of lethal force are racially biased. Police have more interactions with black people in the US as black people in the US commit a higher portion of crime. In particular US police forces mostly kill violent criminals and a disproportionate portion of violent criminals are black.

So there isn't much reason for the movement to exist in its current form (at least given its main focus) and the protests/civil disorder (with respect to the race angle) are largely pointless. A general movement protesting against excessive use of force by police in the US, calling for police reform, accountability, more deescalation would be a bit more constructive/efficient and could easily have broad support given current polls, without all the race baiting, violence and increasing tensions etc..

 

[Theophany]

Supporting the sentiment, as in the moderate take on the statement itself: Black lives matter (too) is fine, I don't see why anyone would have a problem with that... if you believe that lives in general matter then you must believe that black lives matter, it's simply a subset of that belief.

As some new black power movement though it's fundamentally divisive and has sparked widespread rioting looting leading to property damage, serious assaults and multiple murders. It's both a general movement and a network of organisations many of which are run by dubious characters, people with extremist beliefs etc..

The whole reason for its existence is both misguided and grounded in a distorted perception of reality - firstly that they care about black lives is a bit misleading, it's mostly focused on black lives lost in a specific way - generally through interactions with law enforcement (and the vigilante incident which sparked it) - many more black lives are lost through crime in general (often black people killing other black people) but the movement doesn't pay much attention to that, it's the police they're particularly angry with.

Secondly the notion that the police are disproportionately killing black people is a myth, there isn't good evidence to suggest that police interactions in the context of use of lethal force are racially biased. Police have more interactions with black people in the US as black people in the US commit a higher portion of crime. In particular US police forces mostly kill violent criminals and a disproportionate portion of violent criminals are black.

So there isn't much reason for the movement to exist in its current form (at least given its main focus) and the protests/civil disorder (with respect to the race angle) are largely pointless. A general movement protesting against excessive use of force by police in the US, calling for police reform, accountability, more deescalation would be a bit more constructive/efficient and could easily have broad support given current polls, without all the race baiting, violence and increasing tensions etc..

I get where you're coming from, but these are fairly broad brush strokes. There's no debate to be had that a subsection of anarchists are taking advantage of civil unrest - people just out to go rioting and looting because they have nothing better to do. I don't believe that invalidates the sentiment. The problem, as I see it at least, is that the Antifa types serve only to polarise opinion and get people riled up about BLM and have a knee-jerk opposition to it because they see it as some kind of anarchistic power grab. It doesn't help that politics in generally is horrifically polarised and vocalised these days and too many people with radical agendas are no longer confined to the lunatic fringe as they historically would have been.

Where I think we have a significant difference of opinion is the idea that the incidence of 'death by cop' relative to race is somehow a meaningful metric. I see people tying themselves in knots over which is the most dangerous colour of skin to have around American police and all I can think is it's bananas that there are so many people killed by police, regardless of the colour of their skin. Somewhere along the road America became some kind of Mad Max inspired hellscape and if it takes a movement like Black Lives Matter to begin to reign it in then I don't think that's a bad thing.

To slightly alter my earlier analogy that was totally missed; liking crunchy peanut butter doesn't mean you automatically are against smooth peanut butter. It's genuinely jarring to say you support the sentiment of BLM and immediately have people shove statistics of death by ethnicity shoved at you to tell you why you're wrong because it totally misses the point and is weird as hell.

 

[CREATIVE!11]

And this is a surprise to anyone at this point?

 

[dowie]

There's no debate to be had that a subsection of anarchists are taking advantage of civil unrest - people just out to go rioting and looting because they have nothing better to do. I don't believe that invalidates the sentiment.

I didn't claim that it does. The sentiment (as it is applied in some contexts) is misplaced because it is grounded in myth, not because people have reacted violently as a result of it. That people have reacted violently is just an illustration of how the movement has exacerbated other problems - uptick in crime in various areas, additional deaths and violence, widespread property damage, businesses forced to close or taking substantial losses, livelihoods ruined etc...

It's risking any meaningful reform of gun laws being set back a decade or perhaps an entire generation at least. In fact there has been a surge in gun ownership as a result of the civil disorder caused by the BLM movement. It risks (if not for the bodged approach to Covid) playing right into Trump's hands re: Law and Order...

Consider why police encounters/stops are a bit more risky in general in the US - it's because of the widespread ownership and easy availability of firearms.

The problem, as I see it at least, is that the Antifa types serve only to polarise opinion and get people riled up about BLM and have a knee-jerk opposition to it because they see it as some kind of anarchistic power grab. It doesn't help that politics in generally is horrifically polarised and vocalised these days and too many people with radical agendas are no longer confined to the lunatic fringe as they historically would have been.

Those antifa types are often BLM types too - there is overlap - yes BLM & antifa have polarised opinion and caused many problems as a result of pushing a misguided cause.

Where I think we have a significant difference of opinion is the idea that the incidence of 'death by cop' relative to race is somehow a meaningful metric. I see people tying themselves in knots over which is the most dangerous colour of skin to have around American police and all I can think is it's bananas that there are so many people killed by police, regardless of the colour of their skin. Somewhere along the road America became some kind of Mad Max inspired hellscape and if it takes a movement like Black Lives Matter to begin to reign it in then I don't think that's a bad thing.

To slightly alter my earlier analogy that was totally missed; liking crunchy peanut butter doesn't mean you automatically are against smooth peanut butter. It's genuinely jarring to say you support the sentiment of BLM and immediately have people shove statistics of death by ethnicity shoved at you to tell you why you're wrong because it totally misses the point and is weird as hell.

Your analogy isn't very clear here - could you perhaps just speak plainly and explain what your objection is?

I mean death by cop is what sparked the recent protests and is the main focus of the movement in general ergo I'm not sure how it is misguided to comment on the main effort of the entire movement, especially given that it is unsupported by evidence?

I'll highlight this part again as it ties in with that objection re: it both being based on misguided perceptions of the police/the idea that some problem exists re: the police killing black people specifically and also that it's clearly divisive, acts as a catalyst for race baiting etc..

So there isn't much reason for the movement to exist in its current form (at least given its main focus) and the protests/civil disorder (with respect to the race angle) are largely pointless. A general movement protesting against excessive use of force by police in the US, calling for police reform, accountability, more deescalation would be a bit more constructive/efficient and could easily have broad support given current polls, without all the race baiting, violence and increasing tensions etc..

 

[R.P.L]

Somewhere along the road America became some kind of Mad Max inspired hellscape

Steady on

The problem is that the movement paints the police as a racist organisation that is out to shoot black people. That's a very serious accusation which could (and has, to an extent) have very serious consequences so the question of of whether or not the accusations are actually true is important. If it's not true then that would not only invalidate the movement, but also suggest the possibility that it is indeed some kind of power grab (although people being hopelessly emotional could also have something to do with it).

You seem to be dismissive of the possibility that the movement is not grounded in truth in a kind of "what's the worst that could happen" way, which is dangerous.

EDIT: To make sense.

 

[Energize]

My citation was your own post, I even quoted it for posterity. You said it, so I am assuming it is a well-researched opinion backed by plenty of solid evidence. Side note; why is it anybody who disagrees with you is bound to a higher standard of evidential reasoning than whatever fairytale you fart out over your morning ablutions?

The cycle is the same and boring as hell every time:

-Spout a load of unsubstantiated nonsense assertions based on selectively quoting a news source
-Get called out on it
-Bleat about other posters disagreeing but providing no evidence whilst providing none of your own
-Collective yawns of GD

At this point I have no idea what you are talking about, the information is there black and white, there is no selective bias. https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/just...nates-against-asians-and-whites-undergraduate

I have provided citations yet you just claim corruption with nothing to substantiate it, suggesting some conspiracy theory.