The issue is, if the policeman pleads not guilty, that he cannot be proven beyond doubt to have been responsible for the death. — ernestm
His prior arrest history has also not been reported in national news — ernestm
and he did not die while he was in a neck hold. — ernestm
He might have died at exactly the same time, and been out of breath at exactly the same time, even if he had not been in a neck hold. — ernestm
As I said, the other stuff is ancillary, but when courts are on such public display as this one will be, they will not want the fact that murder can't be proven be the first bad fact about Floyd that the public has to confront. — ernestm
Of the people who said they'd shoot a child, all of them said they were entitled to do so, so it was the right thing to do — ernestm
Now it seems to me people have already decided they are entitled to judge policeman, usually based on 10 seconds of videotape, as racist murderers. — ernestm
Its the same as what people say when they say obviously police should be disbanded. When I say that would cause alot more deaths and crime, they say crime and murder would not go up because they say so. — ernestm
the law says, Floyd could have died anyway — ernestm
Floyd--of course he could be on the verge of death when he was arrested as a result of his own behavior, but according to current opinion, that no longer matters. — ernestm
In Minneapolis, law enforcement officers were permitted to employ two types of neck hold (carotid neck restraints) on a potential suspect, according to the department’s Policy and Procedure manual, but only officers who have received specific training in how to correctly carry them out are permitted to do so.
However, former police officer and co-founder of the Police Policy Studies Council Tom Aveni, who has been involved in training law enforcement officers since 1983, told USA Today: "I have not seen anyone teach the use of a knee to the neck.”
Then you haven't been reading my posts. Questioning the assumptions that you are unwilling to question doesn't qualify as "racist apologia", just as questioning theist beliefs isn't "atheist apologia".Evidence?
— Harry Hindu
A stupid question deserves a stupid answer. And evidence? Well, MAGAt, you certainly qualify (as per your racist apologia post history). :shade: — 180 Proof
What is the difference between asking what percentage of cops are racist and asking what the statistics are of cops being racist? Stop trying to avoid the question. If you, or someone else has provided the statistics/percentage, then post a link. It is very difficult to find valid information in this thread, as it is mostly trolling and racist rants against whites and cops.No, asking for actual statistics is one thing, asking for pseudo-statistics that is argued in a form of fallacy is another. Did you even check the statistics given? — Christoffer
"Hundreds and thousands" of people thought the Earth was flat and the center of the universe, but that didn't make them right. It made them the subject of a mass deluson.Here, I made it in meme format because apparently words are hard for you or something: — StreetlightX
What is the difference between asking what percentage of cops are racist and asking what the statistics are of cops being racist? Stop trying to avoid the question. If you, or someone else has provided the statistics/percentage, then post a link. It is very difficult to find valid information in this thread, as it is mostly trolling and racist rants against whites and cops. — Harry Hindu
. If percentages are psuedo-statistics, then why did you provide a link with percentages? — Harry Hindu
But you are still just red herring the entire thing. You do not involve yourself with the arguments and conduct proper philosophical praxis to it. That is my point here. You are just blasting a biased opinion and ignore everything that doesn't fit that narrative.
Arguments have already been written down, if you ignore them, you haven't proven anything or given any conclusion to the contrary. — Christoffer
What are you talking about? I was asking what percentages of cops are racist. Is that not asking for observable facts — Harry Hindu
like how police treat blacks vs some other group and that the causes are actually racist and not something else, like blacks committing crimes at a higher rate than other groups? — Harry Hindu
No, that is what you are doing. — Harry Hindu
How many cops and how many whites in the United States are racist. Give me an exact number or at least a percentage. What is it?
— Harry Hindu
That is a fallacious statistical request. You should look at the statistics of how cops act towards black people.
You keep making these accusations that blacks are legitimately scared of whites, but forget that far more blacks die at the hands of other blacks, and they are legitimately scared at their own race.
— Harry Hindu
They are scared of state police violence. They aren't scared of white or black people, they are scared about being killed based solely on the color of their skin by the violence monopoly of the state. In the worst neighborhoods, you could fend off violence with defensive violence, but you are not allowed to defend against the violence of the state. That's why no one can step in and save someone like George as he is slowly dying under the police officer's knee. If that had been done by someone else in the street, the people would have been able to save him.
"Black people were 24% of those killed despite being only 13% of the population."
https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/
If you want to point the statistics that blacks are killed by cops and a higher percentage relative to their population, then you should also acknowledge that blacks commit crimes at a higher rate relative to their population.
— Harry Hindu
The differences in crime rates in terms of race is not an excuse for police killings. It's also ignoring the reasons for high crime rates within those communities. You seem to think that police violence is a detached form of systemic racism from the rest of society, but the very nature of systemic racism is that it exists throughout society. It's the systemic racism over the course of decades or hundreds of years that keep the segregation going, even though direct racist laws were abandoned decades ago.
You are arguing out of a notion of free will, when the deterministic nature of society is a proven fact. You cannot act or be acted upon in society without a deterministic causality link throughout history.
If the wealth built up in slavery is distributed among a majority of white people; if places like Tulsa, the "black wall street" gets destroyed, people killed in a massacre and their wealth stolen into the possession of white people: if housing laws segregated black people into parts of cities where the lack of wealth never increase the quality of life and no industries want to have shops... and so on, you will have a society that is built upon systemic racism since the system itself is governing how people "should" act within it.
A police officer is able to not be racist, but still enforce a racist practice of handling the job, because of the underlying systems.
To just claim that because crime is higher in black communities and because of that it's more common that black people get killed and that this is somehow a proof of there not being any systemic racism... is an extremely fallacious argument that ignores so many complex aspects of what systemic racism is about.
Your writing reflects a lot of what other people write, the surface level analysis of this issue. But in here, on this forum, I think there should be a demand for much better scrutiny of these questions than how the surface level Facebook-debates usually goes.
So first, are you a determinist or believer of free will? Do you think society acts separately from history and that history has no effect on the present events? Do you think that laws and regulations are the only forms of guidelines on which society behaves? Do you think that socioeconomic factors over long spans of time affect the conditions in which society acts and exists?
I see no such dive into these issues, only attempts at proving a point with biases and fallacious ideas. I think the discussion should get back into philosophical praxis, instead of these surface-level outbursts. — Christoffer
Re-read my previous post. I edited it as you were replying. — Harry Hindu
I have yet to deny the existence of systemic racism. Asking for the definition of systemic racism is not denying its existence. It is up to you to provide a definition that fits observations and is logically consistent, as you are the one asserting its existence, not me. I'm willing to accept that things exist that I can't see, so show me where to look and what I should be looking for, so that I can see it too.Statistics can inform rational arguments, but you don't provide rational arguments in favor of the conclusion that there's no systemic racism. You only make statistical claims as if they were rational conclusions. That's a fallacy. — Christoffer
I don't know the racial composition of the admins, mods, and owners of this forum, but I would assume that you're calling many of them racists.Maybe not 99.9%. Maybe 100%, Or maybe 96.2%. And some more racist than others. The point is that you have not defined racist and I have. Being something-ist seems to be as water to a fish. Why do not you take a moment and try to figure out exactly what you think racism is - maybe you will understand then that it's all not-so-simple, although aspects of it certainly should be. — tim wood
so show me where to look and what I should be looking for, so that I can see it too. — Harry Hindu
The fact that police shoot unarmed whites indicates that there are other possible reasons that police shoot unarmed suspects, other than racism. — Harry Hindu
Why does it always have to be racism when it's a white vs black? — Harry Hindu
I don't know the racial composition of the admins, mods, and owners of this forum, but I would assume that you're calling many of them racists.
I don't understand what your definition of racism is if what your doing isn't it. — Harry Hindu
But since leftist activism is acting against fascist developments, it will always be Antifa, since Antifa isn't an organization, but a movement under the idea of anti-fascism. So all activism from this political realm of thinking will be Antifa activism. It is also effective. Media and right-wing politics often label Antifa based on the ones doing violence during riots, but everyone who opposes fascism is being part of Antifa whether they like it or not. Infiltrating white supremacy movements, sabotaging alt-right propaganda channels etc. is as much part of Antifa as anything else. I think there's a big misconception about what Antifa is and the right-wing is taking advantage of that lack in knowledge people have. — Christoffer
Agreed, but how do you define confrontation? If a society's status quo is mainly liberal right-wing, how can any voice of the left, not be confrontational? — Christoffer
But it's not though. By saying: "Black Lives Matter refers to how the police act as if "Black Lives don't matter", that would be enough for "all lives matter" people, but it isn't. Somehow, 30 minutes is needed to explain something that rationally should be quite logical and crystal clear. — Christoffer
The problem is empathy and normalization. People today don't seem to have empathy like before. Because communication is held online and in text form more than eye to eye, people lose the empathic connection you have when you speak to someone right in front of you. https://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/sites/liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/files/psychology/research/okdie_guadagno_bernieri_geers_mclarney-vesotski_2011.pdf
Since racism has become more normalized through people like Trump and it's less taboo to speak racist thoughts, while interactions is held mostly online and people don't have as much empathy against the opposing side of the argument, then the side that is less status quo in society will be looked upon as "unnecessarily confrontational". — Christoffer
I wrote it a while back. Racial discrimination is a form of discrimination. The ability to discriminate is essential to staying alive - and this is just trivial. Racial discrimination, then, means at first cut that I, we all, are equipped with some metrics for telling differences between individuals. Insofar as we do, we're racists.
I don’t know if that definition works. By assuming all members of a race to be the same the racist proves himself to be indiscriminate. He can discriminate against groups, but that’s where his discrimination powers end. He is unable to discriminate between individuals. — NOS4A2
Maybe not 99.9%. Maybe 100%, Or maybe 96.2%. And some more racist than others. The point is that you have not defined racist and I have. Being something-ist seems to be as water to a fish. Why do not you take a moment and try to figure out exactly what you think racism is - maybe you will understand then that it's all not-so-simple, although aspects of it certainly should be.
Are we on the same page as accepting the science that there is no such thing as race?
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.