Somebody Finally Says It

[pepsi_alum]

When university presidents send out emails endorsing the need for racial justice, I really don't take that as an endorsement of critical race theory or even identity politics. Indeed, I don't think that most of the people who go on protests against police violence and those who put up BLM banners in their windows or yards are endorsing critical race theory either.

One of my major reservations about the current protests has been that there haven't been a clear set of solutions proposed. "Defund the police" seems to mean something different to whoever proposes it.  I've seen plenty of ideas proposed, but there's no consensus. So all I see is a desire for more social justice, which seems bland to me.

What wasn't clear to me from the video was what solutions Glen Loury or John McWhorter are proposing for the high rate of police killings in the US. They were skeptical about the "defund the police" approach and other previously suggested solutions. But they didn't propose any alternatives.

I agee on all points, Downer. I think it's possible (even probable) that many people recognize there are serious issues with policing in the United States and believe that something should be done about it, but don't endorse critical race theory or "defund the police." For the record, I don't think that "defund" is quite the right verb. "Reform and reorganize the police" doesn't have quite the same panache, but that's essentially what happened in places like Camden, New Jersey that successfully rebuilt frayed community-law enforcement relations.

[mahagonny]

Oh, for Pete's sake. All lives matter! Yes, they do! And there is a disproportionate amount of police brutality aimed at black people!

This is something I keep hearing, but never with credible sources/numbers identified. I need more information to believe it.
How are we calculating this? By blacks being only some 13% of the population but receiving more than 13% of the brutal treatment? That might be assuming that only 13% of the encounters with policemen involve blacks, or that there isn't more criminal activity in black neighborhoods. Which I have never seen anyone show.

There's more criminal activity in black neighborhoods, but there's also widespread evidence that many police forces take a more heavy-handed approach toward black neighborhoods and toward black youth.  It's this heavy-handedness, and the resentment that it stores up in black communities, that lies behind the explosions of protest and rioting that occasional exceptionally egregious cases like the Floyd killing set off.  There's an urgent need to address this issue more effectively and consistently than it has been in the past.

The situation with Floyd as I understand it was officer Keung (sad story here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/27/us/minneapolis-police-officer-kueng.html) and the other rookie who tried to get Floyd into the patrol car. He complained of claustrophobia, which sounds odd to me, because when they found him he was sitting in his car, but then he was way stoned, so probably talking ragtime. They relented whereupon Chauvin and the other cop with the long list of violence on the job complaints came in and subdued him and we know the rest of the unfortunate scene.

Sometimes the guy with the most confidence and experience gets to be boss, but he may be the worst choice. This happens in my workplace too.

I would expect in areas where the concentration of criminality is greater the amount of stress and fear experienced by the police is greater so the errors are more numerous. We are entitled to the best they can do, but it won't be perfect. Over the course of the summer I wouldn't be at all surprised if it gets worse.

My heart doesn't bleed for the cops that much, although Alex Keung's story is heart wrenching. Some of them get pretty cushy deals. I mainly object to the pressure for everyone to put on BLM T-shirts (including, like the North Carolina Courage girls soccer team) and rave about white supremacy.

[bento]

"Somebody finally says it":  No, it's been said for a very long time in this country.  It's the default defense of white bullies.  It's the oldest American story.  It's depressing to see it celebrated as some sort of awakening, on an academic forum.

[mahagonny]

"Somebody finally says it":  No, it's been said for a very long time in this country.  It's the default defense of white bullies.  It's the oldest American story.  It's depressing to see it celebrated as some sort of awakening, on an academic forum.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not an academic. I'm an adjunct. I just come in and teach my subject. I teach people from all over the world, and I have a lot of investment in their progress and affection for them, but the diversitarianism publishing and career advancing gravy train left without me, so I just say whatever I truly think. Or at least Mahagonny does.

And in case you missed it with Joe Biden, 'you're not black' bombed...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2vctUezliE

[Baldwinschild]

"Somebody finally says it":  No, it's been said for a very long time in this country.  It's the default defense of white bullies.  It's the oldest American story.  It's depressing to see it celebrated as some sort of awakening, on an academic forum.

If it makes you feel any better, I'm not an academic. I'm an adjunct. I just come in and teach my subject. I teach people from all over the world, and I have a lot of investment in their progress and affection for them, but the diversitarianism publishing and career advancing gravy train left without me, so I just say whatever I truly think. Or at least Mahagonny does.

And in case you missed it with Joe Biden, 'you're not black' bombed...https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2vctUezliE

This makes me feel better. 

[Treehugger]

"Somebody finally says it":  No, it's been said for a very long time in this country.  It's the default defense of white bullies.  It's the oldest American story.  It's depressing to see it celebrated as some sort of awakening, on an academic forum.

To be honest, there is definitely bullying on both sides. Have you seen that "silence = violence" slogan? Pure bullying. As if someone who chooses to do anything else with their time than be an anti-racist is committing violence? So if a single white woman is too busy struggling to both work and be a mother to be an anti-racist, she is committing "violence'?" If someone is too busy caring for an elderly parent to really care about anti-racism, they are committing "violence?" Let's say that race just isn't someone's thing and they are much more into environmentalism and trying to do their part to save the planet, they are engaging in "violence?" Let's say someone is too busy trying to find a vaccine against Covid to participate in a protest march, is their silence "violence?" Or let's say there was a white woman who was actually brutally stranger raped by a black man (it does happen you know), is she committing "violence" if she doesn't drop everything in her life to be an anti-racist?

Before anyone says, "Oh, that was just one silly sign," you know that that is not true. I have heard and read the "if you are not actively for us, you are a white supremacist" all too many times. As if white/black race relations were the. most. important. thing. in the history of the cosmos for everyone. Well, guess what? They aren't. Nor should they be.

[mahagonny]

'What wasn't clear to me from the video was what solutions Glen Loury or John McWhorter are proposing for the high rate of police killings in the US. They were skeptical about the "defund the police" approach and other previously suggested solutions. But they didn't propose any alternatives.

Sometimes it's the people who have solutions who are the biggest problem. And how do you define 'high rate of killings?' There is no consensus on that. There is the usual 'even one unnecessary killing by police is too many' which is impossible to disagree with until you consider (1) there is a steady supply of criminal activity in our midst, and (2) when you hire a cop, it has to be a human being. There aren't any Lucas McCains or Matt Dillons who always think quickly and rationally and never err and only shoot straight. They are fictional people.

I'm wondering as the months pass will we find out that Derek Chauvin and Tou Thau, each with numerous complaints of violence, were being shielded by their union. That could be a clock that needs cleaning.

[Baldwinschild]

'What wasn't clear to me from the video was what solutions Glen Loury or John McWhorter are proposing for the high rate of police killings in the US. They were skeptical about the "defund the police" approach and other previously suggested solutions. But they didn't propose any alternatives.

Sometimes it's the people who have solutions who are the biggest problem. And how do you define 'high rate of killings?' There is no consensus on that. There is the usual 'even one unnecessary killing by police is too many' which is impossible to disagree with until you consider (1) there is a steady supply of criminal activity in our midst, and (2) when you hire a cop, it has to be a human being. There aren't any Lucas McCains or Matt Dillons who always think quickly and rationally and never err and only shoot straight. They are fictional people.

I'm wondering as the months pass will we find out that Derek Chauvin and Tou Thau, each with numerous complaints of violence, were being shielded by their union. That could be a clock that needs cleaning.

You may find it impossible to agree with when you justify it with rhetoric like that.  I think that the when you attach a human life to the "one unnecessary killing," things get clearer.  That "one" is someone's child, a person, a human being, and his or her life was taken away "unnecessarily."  Your language is similar to that found in racial science narratives and eugenics narrative.  Actually, it is similar to that found in social scientific research and scholarship on black and Hispanic urban communities. 

It's actually hate speech.  And it is repugnant. 

[mahagonny]

Baldwinsville, for Christ's sake, don't be naive.
Note: the killing of George Floyd is not being treated as acceptable; it's being treated as a felony murder, and there's no one objecting to that from any quarter. It's unanimous. Whereas, also, the incidence of police killings in the future whether accidental or something where the police are more culpable than incompetence or mistake is a certainty. But we could elect you to change that if you have a plan. Your turn at bat, friend. No possibility of police killings, ever again. How? What's involved in the trade?
And what does 'hate speech' mean where Daniel Shaver was concerned? That I hate white people?

[ergative]

"Somebody finally says it":  No, it's been said for a very long time in this country.  It's the default defense of white bullies.  It's the oldest American story.  It's depressing to see it celebrated as some sort of awakening, on an academic forum.

To be honest, there is definitely bullying on both sides. Have you seen that "silence = violence" slogan? Pure bullying. As if someone who chooses to do anything else with their time than be an anti-racist is committing violence? So if a single white woman is too busy struggling to both work and be a mother to be an anti-racist, she is committing "violence'?" If someone is too busy caring for an elderly parent to really care about anti-racism, they are committing "violence?" Let's say that race just isn't someone's thing and they are much more into environmentalism and trying to do their part to save the planet, they are engaging in "violence?" Let's say someone is too busy trying to find a vaccine against Covid to participate in a protest march, is their silence "violence?" Or let's say there was a white woman who was actually brutally stranger raped by a black man (it does happen you know), is she committing "violence" if she doesn't drop everything in her life to be an anti-racist?

Before anyone says, "Oh, that was just one silly sign," you know that that is not true. I have heard and read the "if you are not actively for us, you are a white supremacist" all too many times. As if white/black race relations were the. most. important. thing. in the history of the cosmos for everyone. Well, guess what? They aren't. Nor should they be.

Actually, I won't say 'oh, that was just one silly sign.' Instead, I'll say that whataboutism is a bad-faith argument against the genuine need for allies against racism. The people who genuinely don't have time or resources to engage are not the people that this sign is targeting (although I wonder what your response would be if that rape survivor decided that instead of anti-black bigotry she would instead react with anti-man bigotry. #notallmen, or do you also stand up for her right to hate all dudes?) Rather, it's the people who know what's going on, who have the resources to fight back, and who choose instead to prioritize something that is objectively less important.

[Treehugger]

"Somebody finally says it":  No, it's been said for a very long time in this country.  It's the default defense of white bullies.  It's the oldest American story.  It's depressing to see it celebrated as some sort of awakening, on an academic forum.

To be honest, there is definitely bullying on both sides. Have you seen that "silence = violence" slogan? Pure bullying. As if someone who chooses to do anything else with their time than be an anti-racist is committing violence? So if a single white woman is too busy struggling to both work and be a mother to be an anti-racist, she is committing "violence'?" If someone is too busy caring for an elderly parent to really care about anti-racism, they are committing "violence?" Let's say that race just isn't someone's thing and they are much more into environmentalism and trying to do their part to save the planet, they are engaging in "violence?" Let's say someone is too busy trying to find a vaccine against Covid to participate in a protest march, is their silence "violence?" Or let's say there was a white woman who was actually brutally stranger raped by a black man (it does happen you know), is she committing "violence" if she doesn't drop everything in her life to be an anti-racist?

Before anyone says, "Oh, that was just one silly sign," you know that that is not true. I have heard and read the "if you are not actively for us, you are a white supremacist" all too many times. As if white/black race relations were the. most. important. thing. in the history of the cosmos for everyone. Well, guess what? They aren't. Nor should they be.

Actually, I won't say 'oh, that was just one silly sign.' Instead, I'll say that whataboutism is a bad-faith argument against the genuine need for allies against racism. The people who genuinely don't have time or resources to engage are not the people that this sign is targeting (although I wonder what your response would be if that rape survivor decided that instead of anti-black bigotry she would instead react with anti-man bigotry. #notallmen, or do you also stand up for her right to hate all dudes?) Rather, it's the people who know what's going on, who have the resources to fight back, and who choose instead to prioritize something that is objectively less important.

So, I see you have failed to get my point. Has this puerile "if you aren't whole-heartedly actively for us 100% of the time mean you are a bigot" mentality now become so ingrained that you can't help yourself? Hint: If a white women who was raped by a black man doesn't feel like rushing out in the middle of a pandemic and protesting, that doesn't mean she is reacting with "anti-black bigotry." Maybe she is just doing something else with her time. Or does the fact that she was raped make her someone more responsible than the average white woman?

Speaking as a white woman who was indeed violently sexually assaulted and held prisoner by a black gang many years ago, as someone who has more or less succeeded in rising above her own past and going for months on end without giving it any serious thought, as someone who by nature is more of an intellectual than an activist, as someone who has always played the devil's advocate and hated self-righteous groupthink of any nature, I whole-heartedly claim a neutral middle ground and will continue to do so whenever anyone has the indecency to deny that to me.

Oh and by the way, I don't hate men and I don't hate blacks and I don't hate "white supremacists" and I dont't hate Trump supporters. I don't hate queers and I don't hate straights and I don't hate peoples who use whatever pronoun they feel like using.  I don't hate groups of people. I also don't hate myself. I have hated admittedly my mother, but I have mostly grown out of that.

[ergative]

Ah, I think we're getting confused by absolutes. I don't at all agree with the statement 'If you aren't wholeheartedly actively for us 100% of the time that means you are a bigot.' I agree with you that this is going way too far.  If you, because of your past experiences, cannot bring yourself to engage with this, that's cool. You look after yourself first. You are the people I mean when I say 'people who genuinely don't have the time or resources to engage are not the people that this sign is targeting.'

I also don't think that 'engaging' must mean rushing out to a protest in the middle of a pandemic.

I do, however, think that choosing not to engage when you do have the resources---either in time, in money, or in mental resilience---to protest in some way or another (letter to your congressperson? $20 to the ACLU?) is not choosing a neutral middle ground. There's nothing "neutral" or "middle ground" about sitting back and let an arm of the government murder people with impunity. (Well, there is, but it's the middle ground between saving them on the one hand and going out to murder them yourself on the other.)

Choosing to do nothing to protest injustice---knowing that you could do something and then choosing not to do it---is exactly what 'silence=violence' is about.

[downer]

I'm against injustice. It's clear the protests have highlighted injustices.

However, there are many injustices in the world, and we all choose what to put our energies into. It's good to be involved. But I don't feel any obligation to join the current protests.

Part of it is that I'm pretty resistant to jumping on the latest bandwagon. I also often feel that it makes little difference to join the well-attended protests and donate to causes that are already getting plenty of money, when I could be contributing to other causes where my efforts will make more difference.

[Treehugger]

Ah, I think we're getting confused by absolutes. I don't at all agree with the statement 'If you aren't wholeheartedly actively for us 100% of the time that means you are a bigot.' I agree with you that this is going way too far.  If you, because of your past experiences, cannot bring yourself to engage with this, that's cool. You look after yourself first. You are the people I mean when I say 'people who genuinely don't have the time or resources to engage are not the people that this sign is targeting.'

I also don't think that 'engaging' must mean rushing out to a protest in the middle of a pandemic.

I do, however, think that choosing not to engage when you do have the resources---either in time, in money, or in mental resilience---to protest in some way or another (letter to your congressperson? $20 to the ACLU?) is not choosing a neutral middle ground. There's nothing "neutral" or "middle ground" about sitting back and let an arm of the government murder people with impunity. (Well, there is, but it's the middle ground between saving them on the one hand and going out to murder them yourself on the other.)

Choosing to do nothing to protest injustice---knowing that you could do something and then choosing not to do it---is exactly what 'silence=violence' is about.

Well, if it makes you feel better, I am actively contributing to The Bail Project. One reason I chose that is because it is ostensibly not race-based, but purely injustice-based.

[marshwiggle]

Ah, I think we're getting confused by absolutes. I don't at all agree with the statement 'If you aren't wholeheartedly actively for us 100% of the time that means you are a bigot.' I agree with you that this is going way too far.  If you, because of your past experiences, cannot bring yourself to engage with this, that's cool. You look after yourself first. You are the people I mean when I say 'people who genuinely don't have the time or resources to engage are not the people that this sign is targeting.'

I also don't think that 'engaging' must mean rushing out to a protest in the middle of a pandemic.

I do, however, think that choosing not to engage when you do have the resources---either in time, in money, or in mental resilience---to protest in some way or another (letter to your congressperson? $20 to the ACLU?) is not choosing a neutral middle ground. There's nothing "neutral" or "middle ground" about sitting back and let an arm of the government murder people with impunity. (Well, there is, but it's the middle ground between saving them on the one hand and going out to murder them yourself on the other.)

This illustrates exactly why many people choose not to "engage".
"an arm of the government " is allowed to "murder people with impunity"; SEROIUSLY??????

The officers involved in this incident have been charged with criminal offences. Active duty military personel involved in the killing of civilians are charged with criminal offences.

There is no member of an "arm of the government " who is allowed to "murder people with impunity".

Academics are (or at least were) the people society counts on to examine issues deeply and consider all of the nuance to arrive at rational, if necessarily complex, inteprpretations. That kind of breathtaking hyperbole is the antithesis of what is expected of an academic, and the more academics talk that way the more understandable that members of the public dismiss ramblings from the ivory tower out of hand.