The murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, MN last Monday, May 25

[writingprof]

Tucker Carlson and one loses all legitimacy.

Really?  I understand that people on the left may think him a liar, and certainly his factual claims should be checked.  However, his analysis is an argument like anyone else's and must be either shouted down (in which case you're a moron) or defeated (in which case, well done).  Merely dismissing his reasoning because he's a current hate-figure is childish.

[Wahoo Redux]

Tucker Carlson and one loses all legitimacy.

Really?  I understand that people on the left may think him a liar, and certainly his factual claims should be checked.  However, his analysis is an argument like anyone else's and must be either shouted down (in which case you're a moron) or defeated (in which case, well done).  Merely dismissing his reasoning because he's a current hate-figure is childish.

"hate-figure"

That is a perfect description of his career.  Apparently Carlson refuses to accept the results of autopsies.  He claims we don't know what actually happened.  He claims that Floyd was aggressive toward the officers (despite the many "please Mr. Officer" Floyd utters) and no evidence that he was actually attacking anyone---if anything Floyd is docile but upset.  Apparently Carlson relies on reports that drugs were the cause of death that have now been debunked.   And Carlson simply refuses to believe what the video shows.  In other words, he makes a number of claims as if he is a careful journalistic commentator dissecting the news.

But we all know what Carlson is going to say before he says it.  We all know that he is going to challenge anything not palatable to people like you, WP.  He is going to tell you what you want to be true.  Carlson is going to tell you what you want to hear, WP, because that's his job.  There is no real "argument" in anything he says, simply opinions designed to appeal to the hard-right niche. 

Sorry WP, if you follow Carlson et al. you've hitched yourself to the agitprop.  I will not waste any more of my time. 

[mahagonny]

I just picked one paragraph at random. I could have found more. This is pretty grandstand-y, gratuitous. And did we really need another definition of 'gas lighting?' Has anyone been in a coma?
"The declarations, the truths, the realities of Black people in America are too often disregarded. Across the nation, Black people are suffocating under the weight of anti-Black hatred. They cannot breathe. And even as they gasp for air, structural gaslighting operates to deny the truths of the causes of their suffocation."
Pretty [melodramatic downright silly and implausible. I don't know any people who hate black people. Guess I should get out more. Wait a minute, I've been teaching at multiple colleges for decades and running my own business. What the...?
The five physicians are dying to get their fifteen minutes of fame. That doesn't mean they're wrong about how George Floyd died, but neither did they convince me that they know for certain.
Angel's wings. Wow.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't know any people who hate black people. Guess I should get out more.

OMG my brother.  Get out more.  Your college crowd ain't a 'tickerlarly great control group, first of all, and secondly, I suspect you know these people less well than you imagine.  I'm willing to believe it's now a minority of Americans who are actually acting racists this day and age, but they are our there.  I know, I've met them.  I grew up with them.  Some are in my extended family.  Heck, just head on over to Breitballs or Reddit for a gander.

In the mean time, avoid exposing naivete if you can.

[financeguy]

There's definitely a ton a racism out there, a large portion of which is engaged in by non-whites, not to mention the insanely high level of accepted anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as evidenced by the hugely disproportionate prop 8 CA vote in 2008, the Buttigeig 0% (!) black rating when leading a state and many comments by prominent leaders that are less than twitter approved to say the least. I don't mind admitting there are problems whites need to address, but it gets exhausting being critiqued from the inhabitants of a giant glass house.

[writingprof]

Sorry WP, if you follow Carlson et al. you've hitched yourself to the agitprop.  I will not waste any more of my time.

I can honestly say that I have never watched his show in my life and am not totally sure what he looks like.  I don't watch cable news, and I'm not on social media.  That said, I still insist that individual arguments should be reckoned with even if the arguer is despised.

[Wahoo Redux]

Sorry WP, if you follow Carlson et al. you've hitched yourself to the agitprop.  I will not waste any more of my time.

I can honestly say that I have never watched his show in my life and am not totally sure what he looks like.  I don't watch cable news, and I'm not on social media.  That said, I still insist that individual arguments should be reckoned with even if the arguer is despised.

I also do not spend my time listening to David Duke.  I feel no need to reckon with anything he says.

[mahagonny]

There's definitely a ton a racism out there, a large portion of which is engaged in by non-whites, not to mention the insanely high level of accepted anti-gay sentiment in the black community, as evidenced by the hugely disproportionate prop 8 CA vote in 2008, the Buttigeig 0% (!) black rating when leading a state and many comments by prominent leaders that are less than twitter approved to say the least. I don't mind admitting there are problems whites need to address, but it gets exhausting being critiqued from the inhabitants of a giant glass house.

A gay friend of mine describes a black person in our field as 'very racist' but I wonder if what's really bothering her is he is anti-gay.

I have noticed a shift in how people are talking on the internet. Since the Floyd incident. A handful of my FB friends now seem incapable of processing many experiences without discussing racism. It's maddeningly negative. Most but not all are white.

Here's something only seven years old that may confirm what you posted: https://www.oaoa.com/editorial/columns/opinion_columnist/article_a7b9c3a2-ea82-11e2-8c20-0019bb30f31a.html

[mahagonny]

I don't know any people who hate black people. Guess I should get out more.

OMG my brother.  Get out more.  Your college crowd ain't a 'tickerlarly great control group, first of all, and secondly, I suspect you know these people less well than you imagine.  I'm willing to believe it's now a minority of Americans who are actually acting racists this day and age, but they are our there.  I know, I've met them.  I grew up with them.  Some are in my extended family.  Heck, just head on over to Breitballs or Reddit for a gander.

In the mean time, avoid exposing naivete if you can.

It's not naiveté. It's something closer to disgust. People who see white against black racism everywhere are a profound disappointment.

[Wahoo Redux]

I don't know any people who hate black people. Guess I should get out more.

OMG my brother.  Get out more.  Your college crowd ain't a 'tickerlarly great control group, first of all, and secondly, I suspect you know these people less well than you imagine.  I'm willing to believe it's now a minority of Americans who are actually acting racists this day and age, but they are our there.  I know, I've met them.  I grew up with them.  Some are in my extended family.  Heck, just head on over to Breitballs or Reddit for a gander.

In the mean time, avoid exposing naivete if you can.

It's not naiveté. It's something closer to disgust. People who see white against black racism everywhere are a profound disappointment.

Perhaps.  But that's a strawman. 

[financeguy]

mahagonny, I'm frequently interested with what Sowell has to say about these issues. It's funny that he mentions the reaction of black leaders to the Duke case and OJ Simpson trial. That's not nearly as problematic as actual jurors admitting to deciding trials based on race which is exactly what OJ Juror Carrie Bess admitted "90% of the jury" made their decision on.

Ann Coulter has cited this moment as the "end of white guilt." I have to admit that seeing people cheering at the result of a double murder trial lessens my sympathies for their concerns as actors attempting to apply a standard of fairness for all rather than simply following own group preference.

[mahagonny]

Oh, I get Coulter's point. OJ's acquittal represented a shift. The resentment is there for all to see. In the meantime many of us have had OJ moments in our private lives with that moment where you see that someone hates you because of your skin color.
But white guilt and sweeping black on white racism under the rug are still alive and well and big business in academia. It's gives one a skewed picture of what really goes on, of course. Perhaps interesting, as faculty get ready for fall by wondering if there's going to be one, diversity and inclusion staff all across the nation get the shot in the arm from George Floyd and the four policemen. And Robin D'Angelo gets a second wind. What do you think she gets for a fee these days? Bonanza. And please, let's not expose naïveté by trying to deny it.
Another thing getting swept under the rug -- how do all the white guilt orgies help Black America with its challenges and pain? (Answer?: not our problem?)

[mahagonny]

Finishing up here, perhaps.

That is a perfect description of his career.  Apparently Carlson refuses to accept the results of autopsies.  He claims we don't know what actually happened.  He claims that Floyd was aggressive toward the officers (despite the many "please Mr. Officer" Floyd utters) and no evidence that he was actually attacking anyone---if anything Floyd is docile but upset.  Apparently Carlson relies on reports that drugs were the cause of death that have now been debunked.   

Just to give us an idea of how on-the-level these physicians are (they obviously are not):

"A timeline of events illustrates how a series of omissions and commissions regarding Mr. Floyd's initial autopsy results deceptively fractured the truth. On May 28, a statement released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office reported ongoing investigations and acknowledgement from the forensic pathologist that an "autopsy ... must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information." As per standardized medical examination, Floyd's underlying health conditions and toxicology screen were documented. These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd's coronary artery disease and hypertension, which increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted."

They're assuming you won't think enough to envision George Floyd going to any one of them for an annual physical:
'I'm 46 years old. I have a 48% enlarged heart, several main arteries that are severely blocked, hypertension, I smoke cigarettes, and when I can get 'em I Take methamphetamine/fentanyl goofballs. Oh, I have trouble with the law too.'

'Oh, OK. Well, some time in the next five, ten years, you might plan to cut down on the smoking and goofballs.'

No, obviously, if they are any kind of physician at al they'd be quite alarmed, because he was on borrowed time.

Your source is not good,

[Wahoo Redux]

Finishing up here, perhaps.

That is a perfect description of his career.  Apparently Carlson refuses to accept the results of autopsies.  He claims we don't know what actually happened.  He claims that Floyd was aggressive toward the officers (despite the many "please Mr. Officer" Floyd utters) and no evidence that he was actually attacking anyone---if anything Floyd is docile but upset.  Apparently Carlson relies on reports that drugs were the cause of death that have now been debunked.   

Just to give us an idea of how on-the-level these physicians are (they obviously are not):

"A timeline of events illustrates how a series of omissions and commissions regarding Mr. Floyd's initial autopsy results deceptively fractured the truth. On May 28, a statement released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office reported ongoing investigations and acknowledgement from the forensic pathologist that an "autopsy ... must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information." As per standardized medical examination, Floyd's underlying health conditions and toxicology screen were documented. These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd's coronary artery disease and hypertension, which increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted."

They're assuming you won't think enough to envision George Floyd going to any one of them for an annual physical:
'I'm 46 years old. I have a 48% enlarged heart, several main arteries that are severely blocked, hypertension, I smoke cigarettes, and when I can get 'em I Take methamphetamine/fentanyl goofballs. Oh, I have trouble with the law too.'

'Oh, OK. Well, some time in the next five, ten years, you might plan to cut down on the smoking and goofballs.'

No, obviously, if they are any kind of physician at al they'd be quite alarmed, because he was on borrowed time.

Your source is not good,

Scientific American is "not good?  Yeah---okay.

And even if Floyd was on "borrowed time"----which you don't know----that excuses nothing that was done to him.  Why is it that conservatives are always such inhumane thinkers?

Unless I am mistaken, my friend, you are not a doctor or a coroner, nor do you have much experience with police investigations and no first hand knowledge of this case.

You've just fallen into the pit of a reality you don't like and don't want to believe in.

Sometimes we have to accept things we don't want to.

[mahagonny]

Finishing up here, perhaps.

That is a perfect description of his career.  Apparently Carlson refuses to accept the results of autopsies.  He claims we don't know what actually happened.  He claims that Floyd was aggressive toward the officers (despite the many "please Mr. Officer" Floyd utters) and no evidence that he was actually attacking anyone---if anything Floyd is docile but upset.  Apparently Carlson relies on reports that drugs were the cause of death that have now been debunked.   

Just to give us an idea of how on-the-level these physicians are (they obviously are not):

"A timeline of events illustrates how a series of omissions and commissions regarding Mr. Floyd's initial autopsy results deceptively fractured the truth. On May 28, a statement released by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner's office reported ongoing investigations and acknowledgement from the forensic pathologist that an "autopsy ... must be interpreted in the context of the pertinent investigative information." As per standardized medical examination, Floyd's underlying health conditions and toxicology screen were documented. These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd's coronary artery disease and hypertension, which increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted."

They're assuming you won't think enough to envision George Floyd going to any one of them for an annual physical:
'I'm 46 years old. I have a 48% enlarged heart, several main arteries that are severely blocked, hypertension, I smoke cigarettes, and when I can get 'em I Take methamphetamine/fentanyl goofballs. Oh, I have trouble with the law too.'

'Oh, OK. Well, some time in the next five, ten years, you might plan to cut down on the smoking and goofballs.'

No, obviously, if they are any kind of physician at al they'd be quite alarmed, because he was on borrowed time.

Your source is not good,

Scientific American is "not good?  Yeah---okay.

If it were an infallible source then I should be able to tell what this means:

"These are ordinary findings that do not suggest causation of death, yet headlines and the May 29 charging document falsely overstated the role of Floyd's coronary artery disease and hypertension, which[i] increase the risk of stroke and heart attack over years, not minutes. [/i]Asphyxia—suffocation—does not always demonstrate physical signs, as other physician groups have noted."

And I can't, because it's meaningless, and an editor can see that. Obviously the authors do not know when Floyd's heart conditions were first diagnosed. From the argument they make if it were very recent then their argument is stronger. So they don't know that information or they'd be telling you. Or else they expect the problems had existed for some time, which I do, because we know he was getting busted for cocaine twenty years earlier. You don't have to be a doctor to know cocaine is bad for your heart. It's common knowledge. Also obvious, when you finally do suffer a lethal stroke or heart attack, you can be finished off within minutes of the onset.

You've just fallen into the pit of a reality you don't like and don't want to believe in.

Sometimes we have to accept things we don't want to.

The reality is we don't know to what extent the treatment he got from police contributed to his death, as Carlson pointed out, which is really nothing to be uncomfortable about. So, no.