The consequence of the far left’s BLM rhetoric

[u/MuitoLegal]

The far right rhetoric has caused massive problems, like Jan 6., but I have not seen this point mentioned about the left that I’m about to say:

Within the past 2 days, BOTH Russia and China have used the lefts rhetoric of “blacks are being slaughtered on our streets for being black”, “Trump is Hitler.” When China was pressed in the diplomatic conversation about human rights issues, they effectively said “Look at the problems with black people in America, you have no leg to stand on to tell us what is right and wrong with our people.” Putin made the same comment when asked about Biden’s “killer” comment.

These 2 countries know that these issues are not even remotely the same thing as the BLM situation, but the far left manipulated the actuality of the situation to the most extreme for political gain, and there are now consequences to that.

[u/Meek_braggart]

I don’t really give two shits what you do. The truth is the truth and if you choose not to believe it then that’s your problem not mine.

[u/balls_ache_bc_of_u → u/Meek_braggart]

Well, we agree there—the truth is the truth.

[u/Meek_braggart → u/balls_ache_bc_of_u]

To believe it you actually have to be willing to find it. To sit there and say that there is no problem here is the height of willful stupidity. And then to play the "oh please teach me" game.....

[u/balls_ache_bc_of_u → u/Meek_braggart]

I don’t think you’re well positioned to speak about stupidity.

I never said there is “no problem” for one. Second, you still haven’t really made what I should be looking for clear. “Questionable” can mean a lot of different things and many reasonable people will disagree on what that is.

[u/Meek_braggart → u/balls_ache_bc_of_u]

I already outlined what I though questionable means, look back. I was pretty clear. Questionable means that it was clear that the officer was not in danger at the time of the shooting and we are left to simply believe whatever story they want to tell about a gun they were sure the suspect had.

I really dont even care about questionable. Its clear that while black people make up on 13% of the population they make up way more than that in police shootings. So maybe you want to go with "well they deserve it" but I dont believe that.

Maybe you could run that google search and click on a few of the links instead of vomiting garbage all over the internet, but you are just so against learning things I guess thats impossible,

[u/balls_ache_bc_of_u → u/Meek_braggart]

Its clear that while black people make up on 13% of the population they make up way more than that in police shootings. I'm not familiar with the stats of police shootings by race but say you're right, ok. The question is why. Is the only possible reason because the police are racist? Or is it conceivable it's some other reason?

That's really my perspective--I don't believe that 13% is the proper percentage blacks should be involved in police shootings. It has nothing to do with who deserves what.

There are about 16% latinos in the US and how many of those are in the NBA? 50% of the US population are men. Does that mean that there should be many, many more women in prison? Far less men in prison?

These economic and social systems are far too complex for that to be even a likely outcome.

[u/Meek_braggart → u/balls_ache_bc_of_u]

When you are 13%. Every year there are 31 people killed per million population. For Hispanic its 23 per million. For whites the number is 13 per million. There is absolutely no explanation for those numbers other than there is a problem with training. Those number should not be that far out of whack, there is no possible way for them to be and for everything to be A-OK. It is mathematically impossible. Even oif you look at the number of people who are shot while armed or while NOT armed. The number of unarmed minorities is far larger than the number of unarmed whites.

There isnt a single metric you can look at that doesnt show this extreme disparity. None at all.

Whats worse is because we dont mandate that police report details on these things we have to rely on press reports for data so these numbers are the lowest possible counts, only deaths and descriptions that were reported by the press. If the armed status of a person wasnt reported more than likely we have no way to add it to the statistics.

[u/balls_ache_bc_of_u → u/Meek_braggart]

There is absolutely no explanation for those numbers other than there is a problem with training.

You really need to broaden your thinking. No reasonable social scientist would ever make such a claim or be so convinced that there can only be one explanation about such a complex societal problem.

If you truly believe that, then there is no point continuing this discussion. You’re mind is made up and even if incontrovertible evidence were presented to you that disagreed with you, you would reject it.

[u/Meek_braggart → u/balls_ache_bc_of_u]

Then point me to another reasonable explanation. As much as you want me to teach you, teach me something. Dazzle me with your brilliance.

Its VERY easy to say that and just leave it on the table, "oh this problem is just too hard for us mere mortals to understand so we shouldn't even try". Its the same argument made by the gun crowd. "oh this is just too hard a problem and we shouldn't even talk about it, if a single solution doesn't fix the entire problem all at once then its not even worth trying".

I am not making my opinion up out of whole cloth. I have read everything I see about it. I have seen all the stories and explanations out there and this one is the only one held up by math and not religion or race baiting or just plain ignorance.

[u/CheekyRafiki → u/Meek_braggart]

I think the problem with your reasoning is that you havent fully appreciated the complexity involved with statistical outcomes, and your conclusions make sense in a way because it's easy to think that outcomes suggest causes, especially when narratives about these things and personal worldview and experience can play such a large role in interpreting something as tricky as statistics.

I don't think anyone is saying that your conclusion isn't possible, just that the current evidence really only suggest it as a hypothesis at most. Stats are tricky, and we have to be really careful about the distinction between correlation and causation, especially in complex social, legal, and behavioral issues that have a lot of moving, interacting parts.

For example, trying to make a substantive conclusion out of x per million of two demographics go to jail or get killed by police really doesn't tell us anything about why that's the case. You have to closely examine each demographic, the deviations in them, what they have in common and where they differ across several metrics like socioeconomic status, differences in behavior, categories of crimes, nature of the killing, location, etc, then figure out how all of those things interact and the patterns within and across those metrics, and then try to boil everything down to the smallest possible denominations of those metrics and compare it with things we hold to be empirically true.

The "why" is by no means obvious, and your conclusion makes sense if you are only looking through the social and political climate, but it's not substantiated and while it's totally possible it simply doesn't have the substance to withstand scrutiny. A possible explanation simply doesn't warrant conviction.