black on black crime was used to deflect from conversations on institutional racism — thewonder

Talking about X doesn't automatically mean you are deflecting Y, rendering Y invisible, denying Y, and so on. X and Y are separate topics. Black on black crime is local, it bleeds and leads, and is very concrete. Institutional racism, sexism, or some other 'ism' is general, usually blood-free, and is abstract. it usually is a political construct (whether it is real or not).

Topic deflection certainly occurs. If I am talking to you about how "banking has historically discriminated against blacks", and you respond by saying, "Yeah, but blacks kill each other at much higher rates than whites kill each other"--that is deflection. if you hold a conference on the history of banking discrimination in black communities, that is not deflecting the question of black on black violence. You are simply talking about something else.

Back in the 70s, if a heterosexual feminist gave a speech about the problems of women in the workplace, one could count on a lesbian activist standing up and accusing the speaker of "rendering lesbians invisible". Lesbians faced workplace problems that were different than, and the same as, those faced by heterosexual women. Then a minority woman would accuse the white woman of rendering minority women invisible. The lesbians and minorities could agree that heterosexual white men were oppressing them, as long as they didn't have to acknowledge each others' suffering. Sometimes race would trump sex, and white women would be grouped with white men as a common enemy.

No matter your political stance, sex, sexual orientation, age, race, ethnicity, class (working, middle, ruling), or your personal history -- someone will always accuse a speaker of devaluing, rendering invisible, ignoring, deflecting, denigrating, and so on. (We could get into how the aristocracy of suffering works, but that's another can of worms.)

Honestly, I only entered this thread in the hopes that someone will take me up on creating black Shoegaze.

It's fine to talk about black on black crime, but it was kind of a deflective talking point in the 1990s.

Who are you that anyone should care what you think? — Ennui Elucidator

I'm a no one, and I don't think anyone should care what I have to say on the matter, really. People of color are the only ones who can really do anything about this. The rest of us can only be allies, support movements like BLM, and try to end systemic racism.

I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall here.

It isn't about what you know or what you have read, it is about whether you are trying to be a part of the system of liberation for blacks from the unjust systems or just another person choosing to ignore the unjust systems in favor of focusing on the bad behavior of individuals. — Ennui Elucidator

I can be part of the system of liberation of people of color from unjust systems and also try to empower those people of color who feel the need to advocate for greater measures against black-on-black crime by bringing it up when it is relevant - even if I can only get a few progressive white people to recognize that it is not racist to bring up black-on-black crime in this context.

I mean, do you want to talk about the destruction of black lives and property? Do you want to talk about the most significant problems facing people of color? Or do you want to virtue signal?

Look, I have nothing but love for black people - I'm even in favor of some form of reparations. But abolition isn't enough.

I wonder how you might analyze those comments in light of your "racist" detection skills. — Ennui Elucidator

What are you even talking about here? My "racist" detection skills?

Anyways - what do you think of Ahmed Muhhamad, the first black male valedictorian of his school in Oakland? Do you think he achieved this because of anti-racist policies or through hard work? My bet is that he would've achieved highly regardless of whether or not he were the beneficiary of any social programs or initiatives.

The guy's a fucking hero in my book. Would you tell him to his face that black boys and men need white people's help to achieve highly? To extricate themselves from the violence plaguing their communities? He predicates his success not to anti-racist fanatics, but the community that raised him.

I feel like I'm bashing my head against a brick wall here. — ToothyMaw

You started a thread with the following:

I have heard a number of times that any mention of black-on-black crime is a deflection from white racism and a fallacy; . . .

However, I do not think every mention of black-on-black crime is fallacious or a deflection from white racism . . .

but black-on-black crime is also worth paying attention to; — ToothyMaw

All I tried to address is that when you are writing to a non-specific audience (especially when the people/groups that are the presumable target of your message is exceedingly unlikely to read what you are writing), your arguments are fairly meaningless and presumptuous. It isn't that I question whether you are trying to be helpful, but that your methods are ineffective. Further, I tried to highlight the way in which your methods are a performative contradiction of sorts - you say that "talking about x is not always a deflection" and want to focus on X, but you don't really stop to consider what x is alleged to be a deflection from. So yes, black on black crime is an important issue (though perhaps not for the reasons that some might suggest), but is it more important than the issue that people were otherwise discussing? In the right context, it may very well be more important. In the context of systemic racism? You have yet to make your case.

And it isn't just that you keep declining to make a case, but that when you gesture in the direction of a case, you change the conversation from systemic racism to things like stopping blacks from being murdered or that any harm to the black community is equal such that the thing causing the most criminal suffering should be the focus of conversation. In any event, instead of talking about the issue (systemic racism), we are instead talking about whether something is a deflection. Not just are we not talking about what a particular person was saying when the claim of deflection was made, but we have entirely abstracted that person's message away such that the only thing we can discuss with specificity is black on black crime.

So without going round and round the bush, what context are you talking about where someone brings up black on black crime, the other audience members accuse that person of deflecting, and you believe that the mention of black on black crime was actually material to the context? And in that context, do you believe that the audience was unaware of black on black crime prior to the person bringing it up?

Would you tell him to his face that black boys and men need white people's help to achieve highly? — ToothyMaw

Do you know what farce is? Where do you think he would be if not for the 14th amendment, Brown v. Board, and the Civil Rights Act? Which levers of state power were pulled by non-whites to make them happen? It may be offensive that whites wield power in the US sufficient to change the course of someone's life based upon skin color alone, but it doesn't change the fact that US society was largely created at the expense of non-whites for the benefit of the powerful (the whites). Sure, we can tell lots of stories about how to divide the powerful from the powerless, the exploiters from the exploited, etc., but pretending like individuals are responsible for themselves based on merit alone doesn't even approach a level of serious conversation.

All I tried to address is that when you are writing to a non-specific audience (especially when the people/groups that are the presumable target of your message is exceedingly unlikely to read what you are writing), your arguments are fairly meaningless and presumptuous. — Ennui Elucidator

This is a philosophy forum, and I'm not a columnist; obviously no one is probably reading this stuff. Does that mean I can't talk about it on said forum? No. Neither does it make my arguments meaningless. I think the word you are looking for is "ineffective".

Further, I tried to highlight the way in which your methods are a performative contradiction of sorts - you say that "talking about x is not always a deflection" and want to focus on X, but you don't really stop to consider what x is alleged to be a deflection from. — Ennui Elucidator

I have said it isn't a racist deflection, yes, because if we are talking about how black lives are undervalued, then the incredible amount of black-on-black crime is relevant. When discussing consequences, such as the loss of black lives - something that is indeed being addressed somewhat by BLM and anti-racist activism - the source is not relevant unless it is being considered for remediation. Thus, black-on-black crime eclipses police brutality when discussing consequences.

Thus, black-on-black crime eclipses police brutality when discussing consequences. — ToothyMaw

A claim you keep making but have yet to demonstrate. When you look to the sociologists, they seem to be suggesting that creating a more just society where there is social buy-in would do even more to reduce black-on-black crime than trying to focus on typical crime reduction techniques (policing, punishments, etc.). It is like lancing a boil instead of giving antibiotics. Symptomatic treatment is fine so far as it goes (sometimes treating the symptoms is enough), but systemic treatment might very well solve the underlying problem even if it takes a bit more time to be effective and precludes symptomatic treatment in the meanwhile.

pretending like individuals are responsible for themselves based on merit alone doesn't even approach a level of serious conversation. — Ennui Elucidator

Never said they were. But we have to recognize that merit matters a lot, even if it is not the sole-determinant of success.

Do you know what farce is? Where do you think he would be if not for the 14th amendment, Brown v. Board, and the Civil Rights Act? Which levers of state power were pulled by non-whites to make them happen? — Ennui Elucidator

I'm starting to question your good faith. Obviously those changes were necessary, but the US is, as many people acknowledge, less racist than it has ever been; that was a totally different time, and issues of race were far clearer.

A claim you keep making but have yet to demonstrate. When you look to the sociologists, they seem to be suggesting that creating a more just society where there is social buy-in would do even more to reduce black-on-black crime than trying to focus on typical crime reduction techniques — Ennui Elucidator

When did I say that there shouldn't be a greater social buy-in? I have said very little about actual strategies for solving black-on-black crime; I would just approach it from whatever angle is most effective.

And you are not refuting my claim by listing strategies for reducing crime. I am merely claiming that there should be movements coequal to BLM to end black-on-black violence via whatever means are most effective - be they symptomatic or systemic.

I'm starting to question your good faith. Obviously those changes were necessary, but the US is, as many people acknowledge, less racist than it has ever been; that was a totally different time, and issues of race were far clearer. — ToothyMaw

Question it all you want. I neither started nor am responsible for any of the various anti-racist conversations/groups presently in existence. Tell them they are wrong and that there is no disparate impact that is presently measurable and meaningfully associated with race (rather than other categorizations such as socio-economic status). You can also educate them on how the levers of power in the US (government and corporate) are not dominated by whites and generally indifferent to remediating contemporary racial injustice.

Question it all you want. I neither started nor am responsible any of the various anti-racist conversations/groups presently in existence. Tell them they are wrong and that there is no disparate impact that is presently measurable and meaningfully associated with race — Ennui Elucidator

Did I say there was no systemic racism, or did I say that we are less racist than ever? You are being obtuse.

Did I say there was no systemic racism, or did I say that we are less racist than ever? You are being obtuse. — ToothyMaw

You asked me to tell an 18 year old that he needs white people to succeed as if that isn't patently obvious. Last I checked, black separtism isn't the driving ideology of Stanford's treatment of undergrads.

My point, obviously, is that successful people of color are doing it almost entirely on their own without being given any of the advantages a young white woman or man might, and oftentimes totally devoid of governmental initiatives or aid. While we can't all be valedictorians, we can all at least finish high-school given we put our minds to it (usually). If we invested in the communities of people of color like we should, there would be more Ahmed's.

I'm not saying you are being obtuse again, but you are being a little obtuse. Of course I know he isn't a black separatist, or that he need be one; it is relevant however that he said he was successful because of other people of color, and not woke white people and the gobbledygook they often spew.

Thus, black-on-black crime eclipses police brutality when discussing consequences.
— ToothyMaw

A claim you keep making but have yet to demonstrate. — Ennui Elucidator

Is 2,574 greater than 241?

Is 2,574 greater than 241? — ToothyMaw

Is 1,000 greater than 800? Or 2,500 greater than 1,800? It is nice that we know how to use comparative operators, but that is exactly not the point. We could reduce the number to 0 murders (for all races) if everyone is isolated in a cell. The question is, in which world do you want to live? One in which the murder rate in a community slowly declines because of increasing social buy-in or one in which it instantly goes to 0 because everyone is in a cell?

Focusing on a metric like the murder rate is swell, but has little to do with combating systemic racism except where the system is murdering people, e.g. police killings. I don't not understand how math works, I simply disagree that your numbers are particular useful when figuring out how and when to address systemic problems. I am taking a longer view of the consequences than you are.

Did I say we should throw more people of color in prison? Or did I say we should address violence in the black community in the most effective way possible?

I am taking a longer view of the consequences than you are. — Ennui Elucidator

Perhaps. I'll have to do more research; you are likely correct about how to best decrease crime.