You were quoting the supposed evidence to the contrary produced by those who have made a serious study of the issue (so you say). This is not “asking for evidence”. This is “claiming evidence”. And it is based on the “authority” of the “serious” examiners of the records. Apparently the only “serious” examiners of the records are those that agree with you. Why were none of my references “serious?”LeafByNiggle:
I don’t think asking for serious evidence counts as an appeal to authority.
I disagree that they are mere anecdotes. But there is an easy way for you to show me that they are “mere anecdotes”. Just give me a similar list of innocent white people who have been killed by police. I can give you a start - only one I know about - which also happened in my town: Justine Damond. Now just add a convincing dozen or so names of innocent white people. Oh, by the way, the police officer who shot Justine Damond was convicted. So justice is swift when it is an innocent white who dies at the hands of police misconduct.
But you have not followed through on your claim by showing that “fatherless families” is not the result of racism. Nor have you addressed the fact that one of the fatherless families was made so by the killing of George Floyd. Nor have you actually supported you claim that fatherless families is the reason so many blacks have to be killed by the police.
www.city-journal.org
When one accuses someone without evidence, it is both.
Resorting to fascistic solutions isn’t a solution.
Progressives have run these cities for 50 years or more. They created and imposed those institutions.
Desperately? Integrity demands it. I must have missed Leaf’s evidence. So, @LeafByNiggle, could you point me to the evidence that Chauvin acted out of racism? @sloancaprice wants to accuse without it.
I say due process for the officers involved, but perhaps you are right about police unions. I’ve always opposed public sector unions.
Picking at nits. The liberals are few and far between.
Didn’t ask you to. I asked Leaf.
And Gregory Floyd killings. Making sure police are properly trained is the responsibility of the mayor.
Nobody said absolute power. Just responsibility for his/her employees and the culture of the workplace.
Hmmm…in that case, whose responsibility is it to avoid smoke-bombing clergy in front of a church?
The argument that was made was spurious. I discounted that argument even before you provided the citation showing that was the argument they made. It is meaningless.
Really? I can rebut your list of anecdotes by providing my own list of anecdotes? That’s not the way evidence works.
Why is the burden not on you to demonstrate that racism exists? That was your claim. In fact, though, I don’t believe the destruction of the black family is the result of racism. I believe it is the result of liberal social policies implemented with the aim of helping.
That’s more an argument against faulty subsidising than against subsidies themselves.
Was it government that smoke bombed clergy?
Correct. And these actions overwhelmingly happen in cities run by progressive Democrats. And they are never held accountable.
You’re welcome to cover for those who are responsible, but if it is shown he acted out of racism, that is what you are protecting him from: his complacency or complicity in a brutal racist act.
Neither you nor I nor anyone else can possibly know what motivates the actions of others. I imagine this is why, although we are justified in judging actions, we are forbidden from judging intentions.
I’m not addressing the efficacy of particular social programs. I’m only arguing that most of what passes for racism…isn’t.
Address the argument instead of slinging names at it.LeafByNiggle:
The argument that was made was spurious. I discounted that argument even before you provided the citation showing that was the argument they made. It is meaningless.
You don’t get away with dismissing my argument that easily! This is important. I claimed that police brutality toward blacks is worse than police brutality toward whites. I gave you a long list of incidents that you dismissed as being “merely anecdotes”. The fact that you were unwilling or unable to come up with one single comparable example against whites is telling.LeafByNiggle:
Really? I can rebut your list of anecdotes by providing my own list of anecdotes? That’s not the way evidence works.
Watch out. Your right-wing ideology is showing.
That is a serious misapplication of a principle in economics that only applies when other factors being equal. What applies to automobiles and chickens does not apply to helping the poor. That is like saying if you subsidize broken legs by funding an orthopedics department there will be more broken legs!
It wasn’t the private sector.
If you think the administrations of these cities are being left off the hook by protesters, think again.
I did. It is a statistic that measures nothing useful. Essentially it says “Here is a statistical discrepancy between blacks and whites. This shows racism.” This is the kind of thing that belongs on the bottom of bird cages. As I said, no serious researcher would make that argument.
Listing names is not an argument, nor is it “telling” that I didn’t list anyone. If I gave you one name you would ask for two; if I gave you two you would demand five. This argument is irrelevant, and a list of individuals who have been badly treated by police says nothing whatever about the overall statistics.
Perhaps so, but (a) it doesn’t mean I’m wrong, and (b) it is a non-racist explanation, which seems a more reasonable one than “White man bad.”
Not at all. People don’t choose to break their own legs simply because they can be fixed. They often, however, choose the guarantee of short term gain without giving adequate thought to the long term consequences.
These two paragraphs are contradictory. On one hand you say mere statistics on different treatment of blacks cannot prove racism. On the other hand you say only statistics can prove racism. What you are trying to establish is that there is no way to prove racism. Perhaps you could tell me how you would go about proving racism if you thought it existed.
They’re being left off the hook by the media. These cities are run by progressive Democrats. They have been for 50 years in most cases. They way blacks are often treated there reminds one of the way they were treated in the south in the late 50’s and early 60’s by guess who? The Democrats. Same party. Same results.
I stand with those who oppose government violence on citizens, particularly when it is done by progressives against Americans of color.
Statistics are pretty much the only way to prove racism, but the simple existence of statistical differences proves nothing at all. The statistics have to measure something meaningful. Does the overwhelming predominance of blacks in the NBA demonstrate bias against whites? Clearly not. It is a statistical fact that measures nothing useful, at least in the way of demonstrating racism.
All kinds of people claim racism exists; that doesn’t make it true. What is lacking is any real evidence. The claim is false, unsupported, and extremely damaging, as the riots are demonstrating. That’s what I’m not turning a blind eye toward.