"America Is a Tinderbox"

[Gloominary]

Factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/freewill.

There's no such thing as identical in nature.
It's impossible for two entities to be exactly the same in every way or share the exact same outcome.
This is especially true of something as complex as a pair of human beings, let alone a pair of population groups.
Even identical twins aren't genetically identical, let alone the same in every meaningful way, nor are they guaranteed a similar outcome.

Episcopalians are wealthier than Evangelicals.
Does that mean Episcopalianism is fitter than Evangelicalism?
Does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it's random, meaningless, luck of the draw or, there are reasons, but they're far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain or alternatively, it's down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could surpass Episcopalianism, these things ebb and flow.
And what, if anything, constitutes fit today may not constitute fit decades, centuries or millennia from now.

Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it's an impossibility.

[Meno_]

Other factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/free will.

There's no such thing as identical in nature.
It's impossible for two entities to be exactly the same in every way or share the exact same outcome.
This is especially true of something as complex as a pair of human beings, let alone a pair of population groups.
Even identical twins aren't genetically identical, let alone the same in every meaningful way, nor are they guaranteed a similar outcome.

Episcopalians are wealthier than Evangelicals.
Does that mean Episcopalianism is fitter evangelicalism?
Or does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it's random, meaningless, luck of the draw or alternatively, there are reasons, but they're far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain, or it's down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could be on top and Episcopalian on the bottom.
These things ebb and flow.
And what, if anything, constitutes fit today may not constitute fit decades, centuries or millennia from now.

Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it's an impossibility.

Not an impossibility, but near impossible.
The archaic derivation devolves more toward-into increasingly identifiable perceptions, and the negation of that-the decreasing interpretative apology.

The pro-position that lack of absolute identity dissolves the interlocatory at either the smallest or the largest neural junction does not sever any relative apprehension.

Call it myth or magic, it does go both ways' and creates a virtual bridge which some generate, some degrade.

Free will is the conditional to evolve a seemingly unfair program, and that proposition can not be bisected into two separate realms-one good , one bad. Only the in the realm of the ideal: the ugly and the beauty matter in the realm of genetic balancing.

[Gloominary]

Other factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/free will.

There's no such thing as identical in nature.
It's impossible for two entities to be exactly the same in every way or share the exact same outcome.
This is especially true of something as complex as a pair of human beings, let alone a pair of population groups.
Even identical twins aren't genetically identical, let alone the same in every meaningful way, nor are they guaranteed a similar outcome.

Episcopalians are wealthier than Evangelicals.
Does that mean Episcopalianism is fitter evangelicalism?
Or does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it's random, meaningless, luck of the draw or alternatively, there are reasons, but they're far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain, or it's down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could be on top and Episcopalian on the bottom.
These things ebb and flow.
And what, if anything, constitutes fit today may not constitute fit decades, centuries or millennia from now.

Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it's an impossibility.

Not an impossibility, but near impossible.

It's an impossibility.
Two pop groups are never going to make the exact same amount of money every year for however long they and civilization as we know it exists, but even if they miraculously did, they wouldn't be able to benefit from it absolutely equally.
The question is, how much variation is acceptable and why, not can we eliminate all variation.
I've never heard a liberal ask let alone answer this question.
I'm not saying it can't be meaningfully asked and answered.
If we got the African American incarceration rate down to just 10% more than White Americans would that be enough?
How bout just 1% more?
Or does it have to be lower than White Americans, and if so by how much?
Again it's never going to be absolutely the same, year after year, decade after decade, unless you start fudging the numbers.

[Meno_]

Other factors rarely considered by both liberals and conservatives are happenstance and, however we conceive of it metaphysically, individual agency/free will.

There's no such thing as identical in nature.
It's impossible for two entities to be exactly the same in every way or share the exact same outcome.
This is especially true of something as complex as a pair of human beings, let alone a pair of population groups.
Even identical twins aren't genetically identical, let alone the same in every meaningful way, nor are they guaranteed a similar outcome.

Episcopalians are wealthier than Evangelicals.
Does that mean Episcopalianism is fitter evangelicalism?
Or does that mean God favors Episcopalianism?
Or is there an Episcopalian privilege?
Of course it's random, meaningless, luck of the draw or alternatively, there are reasons, but they're far too nuanced for our primitive brains to ever ascertain, or it's down to agency/freewill.
A few decades from now, Evangelicalism could be on top and Episcopalian on the bottom.
These things ebb and flow.
And what, if anything, constitutes fit today may not constitute fit decades, centuries or millennia from now.

Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it's an impossibility.

Not an impossibility, but near impossible.

It's an impossibility.
Two pop groups are never going to make the exact same amount of money every year for however long they and civilization as we know it exists, but even if they miraculously did, they wouldn't be able to benefit from it absolutely equally.
The question is, how much variation is acceptable and why, not can we eliminate all variation.
I've never heard a liberal ask let alone answer this question.
I'm not saying it can't be meaningfully asked and answered.
If we got the African American incarceration rate down to just 10% more than White Americans would that be enough?
How bout just 1% more?
Or does it have to be lower than White Americans, and if so by how much?
Again it's never going to be absolutely the same, year after year, decade after decade, unless you start fudging the numbers.

Yes play along with the numbers long enough and you could come up with some answered, but that is only avoiding the more far reaching questions.


It is the gravity of being there, that avoids the reality of unequal treatment and perception of differing realities. The laws are not applicable equally, because of where it comes from splits into various destinations.
The economics, the politics, and the opportunities don't fit into nationalist and socially stratified brackets.

[Meno_]

Gloominary wrote:

"Variation in outcome is not necessarily indicative of anything (altho it is grounds for consideration, but can be interpreted in multiple ways, some may or may not be more apt than others), and two population groups are never going to share the same outcome, it's an impossibility.[/quote]"

{But the can share nearly similar outcomes, for being human can overcome any particular differences.} which may occur prima facie. After all, why did most settlers come here in the first place? To avoid the economic hardships, the social prejudices that
befell them in their places of origin

[Gloominary]

I'm not against any and all redistribution, but to me, the idea that we should get as close to achieving absolute parity between the races and sexes as possible is every bit as absurd as the idea that we should get as close to achieving absolute parity between individuals as possible.
And I think that, among other things, is what's turning a lot of people off from the left these days.
When it comes to race and sex: 'only absolute parity will do' (well unless nonwhites and women are doing better than whites and men in many or most ways, that's okay), but when it comes to class: 'maybe we need a bit more parity' *shrugs*.
Their new motto: 'it's race, sex and gender, stupid'.
Well they can take their oppressive race and gender communism and shove it where the sun don't shine.
Blacks, whites, men and women are not in any way shape or form the same (other than the fact that they're human), and I can believe that without also believing blacks and women are subhuman.

[Gloominary]

We can talk about degrees of difference and redistribution between the races and sexes, but this idea that any and all socioeconomic and political variation between the races and sexes is solely the product of a rich white male conspiracy to oppress the other, the aftermath of said conspiracy or a social construct, is asinine, it's not even remotely close to common sense or scientific thinking, it's a cult, I'm asinine for even entertaining it.

[Karpel Tunnel]

In North America we think of success materially, but success is multifaceted.

Sure, but I'd still rather be white than black if I am faced with law enforcement or courts.

When you think of success holistically, Hispanics, and women for that matter, do significantly better than whites and men.
And as we've seen Hispanics are less likely to be incarcerated than whites.
Polynesians are less likely to be killed by police officers.
South and East Asians tend to be more successful by many metrics.

Right, but this doesn't mean there isn't systemic racism against, say blacks, or that even members of these groups don't face different types of systematic racism than other groups. They may have cultural advantage ALSO at the same time over even whites. For example Japanese men who smoke in Japan do not suffer the same health problems as american men. Japanese americans who maintain Japanese style family relations even though they live in the US don't suffer the same health problems. If they take on the types of family relations that americans in general do, they start getting heart disease and cancer at american rates. They may of course deal with judgments of them that are negative or stereotyped that are not true. These, nowadays, not in the 40s, tend to be milder and some also positive, when compared to blacks.

They are two different issues it seems to me.

What it boils down to is, it's better to be an Asian or Hispanic American in many ways than a white American.
When other races do better, there's all sorts of explanations, but when they do worse, there can be only 1: white privilege/racism.
The dialogue, or monologue rather we have about race in North America, is rigged.

It is definitely oversimplified.

[Gloominary]

[MagsJ]

The owner said they may not have known each other as one was on internal security and the other, external security but strange enough to make you wonder...

..then I’d say, they may have known ‘of’ each other.. the victim and the cop.

The photo of the dude with an ear-piece doesn't surprise me. In lots of the big protests, there are agent provocateurs in the front lines instigating violence. There are a few videos of cops being busted by peaceful protesters and holding them down and you can see they're wearing the same boots the cops wear as part of their uniform. In other videos you see them chase the busted cops until they run behind police lines to get protection and the police take them in like one of their own.

..and in doing so, giving themselves completely away.

The left-wing media are doing their part to tear America apart by ignoring that 90% of the violence and looters are black and then saying the violence is orchestrated by right-wing, 'white-supremacists'. Funny how they know the violent whites are not ANTIFA, not BLM and not Agent Provocateurs but are 'white supremacists'.

I’ve gotten past caring about the different factions in America and the in-fighting that goes with it, of which we are now witnessing the culmination of that power struggle. Fantastic!

Citizens are being killed and maimed either side of the law, and so my neutrality has kicked in.

Anyway, there are a few places of sanity however. In some cities, cops are marching with the protestors.

Perhaps the riotous protests are staged, as the majority are peaceful and positive-gatherings, so maybe once the orchestrated anarchy has served its/a purpose, the orchestrated violence will cease.. as quickly as it began.

How will it all resolve..

[iambiguous]

If law abiding African Americans do have more to fear than other law abiding races, it's because African Americans are several times more likely to commit violent crimes than Asian, Hispanic and white Americans, presumably against police officers too.

Okay, why is this the case? Is there literally a biological gene that makes black people [black men in particular] more likely to commit violent crimes? If so, then that would be perfectly natural behavior. Or, instead, are there rather complex social, political and economic variables that configure down through the ages that make it more likely black people [black men in particular] will commit violent crimes.

Biology can be every bit as complex and varied as sociology, politics and economics.
Insofar as it's genetic, in all likelihood it's not a single gene, but a multitude of genes.
Some of these genes may be found in other races, just they may not be as prevalent.
Some of these genes may be beneficial alone or under certain conditions, like say in the boxing ring or on the battlefield, but together under the wrong conditions, lead to a greater potential for counterproductive violence.

For the liberal objectivist, as you would say, it's white privilege/supremacy and/or their environment.
For the conservative objectivist, it's their culture.
For the Social Darwinist objectivist, it's their biology.
For postmodern intersubjectivists such as yourself, unless the equation is as simple as 2 & 2 = 4, they'll either suspend judgment, or just go with whatever the prevailing narrative happens to be, but feel fragmented about it.

For me, it's probably all of the above, but with the emphasis on their environment (poverty), culture (gangsterism, victim complex/mentality) and biology (more testosterone, lower impulse control, etcetera), not on white privilege/supremacy, for the reasons already provided and others.
Hell some Sri Lankans are as black as coal, yet they're incarcerated and killed by police far less than whites.
Of course the majority of cops are white, and people do tend to be biased in favor of their own race, however culture has greatly repressed this urge, these days if anything many liberals are biased against their own race.
I just don't think privilege/racism is a major factor, it's certainly not the (only) factor.


I sympathize with conservatives, libertarians and nationalists on some issues, and socialists on others.
I think both sides, left, right and everything in between could greatly benefit from focusing far more on the economy ('it's the economy stupid') and less on issues that divide us like race, sex and gender.
Our issue is not each other, it's corrupt banks, megacorps and government, and both left/right have done an excellent job of dividing and ruling us.

Of course while socialists and capitalists markedly disagree on how to run the economy, one thing I think we can all agree on is there should be lower taxes for the working and middle classes.
The megacorps should (be broken up) receive far less, if any corporate welfare, and start actually paying their taxes.
The federal reserve should be nationalized and much, if not all the (national) debt cancelled (for conservatives: see the year of Jubilee).
I think we can all agree regime change wars and the war on terror was a terrible idea.
It's time to bring all the troops home.
As far as common ground goes, we could start with that.

Which party will actually address those issues?
In my estimation, neither mainline republicans nor democrats (or liberals and conservatives in Canada) will, perhaps a Tulsi Gabbard or Rand Paul would.
We need to turn more to 3rd parties and independents, and if that doesn't work, perhaps more drastic measures will be necessary.

I think this particular post is well put. Well articulated. Thought provoking. There are any number of points raised that I would agree with. Only in agreeing or disagreeing with them I construe my own point of view here as more a political prejudice rooted "existentially in dasein".

Or, as you noted, I will "either suspend judgment, or just go with whatever the prevailing narrative happens to be, but feel fragmented about it."

That's about as close as anyone here at ILP has come to "getting" me. Well, if I myself "get" what I think you are saying. Only even in "getting" myself, I don't exclude profound ambiguity from my point of view. Ever and always acknowledging that given new experiences, relationships and/or access to new ideas [here for example] "I" might be reconfigured again.

My main "thing" here is objectivism. The belief that not only is there just one way to understand the relationship between race and crime but that those deemed to be "one of us" have already discovered or invented what that is. Then, having convinced themselves that this is the case, once they are able to acquire actual political power, they insist in turn that everyone else must think just as they do too. The rest, as they say, being history. One or another "ist" -- fascist, communist, capitalist, socialist -- gains access to the police and the military and are able to enforce their own particular religious/ideological/objectivist agenda. And that means that all citizens must then "address" any particular interests/issues only as the ruling clique does. It could be about race or gender or sexuality or the right to own guns or abortion or religion or the role of government. And on and on and on.

Here however I do subscribe to political economy: Them that own the economy own the government.

[Karpel Tunnel]

:-k

You're walking down an urban street at night. The cops in this scenario will hear there is a man with a gun of your race on that street who shot a cop. It's a mixed race neighborhood.

Would you rather be white or black in that scenario?

You've been caught with enough drugs to be charged as a dealer.

Would you rather be white or black in court?

Me, with pretty much any crime or being considered a potential perp I would rather be white than black in relation to law enforcement - including mundane things like being pulled over for busted tail light - and the courts. In dealing health care, in relation to my kids' school and any authorities in relation to them, in dealing with city bureaucrats, crossing a border into the US, say, and more. It's not simple. Class also plays a strong role. I am sure poor whites get treated quite differently, with poor blacks generally being treated the worst.

None of this means I think destroying small businesses while rioting is a good thing or not a crime. And I think a lot of people are bursting because of unemployment and the lockdown. Again not excusing many of the things people are doing. I think the situation is being intentionally inflamed by those who stand to gain, if not outright orchestrated. These us/thems distract us from the primary one. And they help slide things to more top down control. people will end up calling for their own total disempowerment or at least acquiesing.

'Save us from Corona' 'Save us from the rioters' 'Save us from race X' 'If you have nothing to hide...'

[Gloominary]

Sure, but I'd still rather be white than black if I am faced with law enforcement or courts.

I'd rather be a (black) police officer stationed in a predominantly white neighborhood than a (white) police officer stationed in a predominantly black neighborhood, many times over.

And if I were a shapeshifter, I'd transform into a woman when dealing with police officers or going to court, and get me some of that good ol', female privilege.

It's funny feminists are always going on about male power, politicians are predominantly male, etcetera, but women get to spend a lot more time with children, where they can indoctrinate them with their female supremacist ideology, so when boys grow up, they grow up self-hating, passing legislation with female interests more in mind than male interests.
Now I'm being hyperbolic, but still one could as easily make the case women have more power as they could make the case men have more power.

Another thing people don't consider is Jews make up a very large % of academia, finance, lobbies and media and they feel very differently about white privilege than (non-Jewish) whites.

[Gloominary]

I think this particular post is well put. Well articulated. Thought provoking. There are any number of points raised that I would agree with. Only in agreeing or disagreeing with them I construe my own point of view here as more a political prejudice rooted "existentially in dasein".

Why thanks

Or, as you noted, I will "either suspend judgment, or just go with whatever the prevailing narrative happens to be, but feel fragmented about it."

That's about as close as anyone here at ILP has come to "getting" me. Well, if I myself "get" what I think you are saying. Only even in "getting" myself, I don't exclude profound ambiguity from my point of view. Ever and always acknowledging that given new experiences, relationships and/or access to new ideas [here for example] "I" might be reconfigured again.

My main "thing" here is objectivism. The belief that not only is there just one way to understand the relationship between race and crime but that those deemed to be "one of us" have already discovered or invented what that is. Then, having convinced themselves that this is the case, once they are able to acquire actual political power, they insist in turn that everyone else must think just as they do too. The rest, as they say, being history. One or another "ist" -- fascist, communist, capitalist, socialist -- gains access to the police and the military and are able to enforce their own particular religious/ideological/objectivist agenda. And that means that all citizens must then "address" any particular interests/issues only as the ruling clique does. It could be about race or gender or sexuality or the right to own guns or abortion or religion or the role of government. And on and on and on.

Here however I do subscribe to political economy: Them that own the economy own the government.

I think I understand where you're coming from.
On nearly all social, political and economic issues, especially complex and controversial ones with a lot of variables, perhaps more than one can ever hope to process in months or years of rigorous study and reflection, with lots of unknowns and schools of thought surrounding them, you prefer to play it safe intellectually.
What does play it safe mean for you?
It means taking the least controversial stance (usually center-left as opposed to right or alt-left), which means the one most experts in academia, government and MSM are taking.
Sometimes you feel fragmented about it, because while you believe the experts are the best hope we have of figuring things out in a Godless world void of certitude, they could still very well be dead wrong, we all could be.

Perhaps on occasion you will either suspend judgment or take the 2nd least controversial stance, if experts are pretty divided, after giving it a lot of thought or finding it's strictly or mostly a matter of perspective (what you consider to be philosophical rather than (socio)scientific matters: is the glass half empty/full, is abortion murder/not murder?), but you will never entertain what you consider to be the lunatic fringe has to say, except for laughs or to delve into their psychology (why would someone ever take (one of) the most unconventional stance(s) on a subject they're the least qualified to understand)?
What neurosis or psychosis compels them?
For everyone's sake, we better hope someone like that never comes to power by being just sane and smart enough to dupe the masses or the military and just crazy and dumb enough to believe whatever it is they believe.

Yea I think I understand where you're coming from and I think there's quite a bit of validity to it, but I also think there's quite a bit of validity to what you term objectivism (thinking outside the confines or parameters set by the experts) and also what I'll call intrasubjectivism (going with what resonates with you, with your gut).
Sometimes the experts are mistaken, sometimes they lie, sometimes those on the margins of or outside academia, government and MSM, who take an unconventional stance, are right, sometimes the experts eventually come around to what's both unconventional and right on their own, occasionally those on the margins of or outside can persuade the experts to change their mind.

Another principle I think is important for you is compromise.
When the experts, and the people are pretty divided, in a democracy the solution is to compromise (and collaborate) with the main opposition as much as possible, rather than dig our heels or worse, move further and further from the center until you're way out in left (or right) field.
The ability to compromise in situations like this is a good indication our society is in fair health, rigidity, fundamentalism and fanaticism on the other hand, is a sure sign our society is in decay.

[Gloominary]

:-k

You're walking down an urban street at night. The cops in this scenario will hear there is a man with a gun of your race on that street who shot a cop. It's a mixed race neighborhood.

Would you rather be white or black in that scenario?

You've been caught with enough drugs to be charged as a dealer.

Would you rather be white or black in court?

Me, with pretty much any crime or being considered a potential perp I would rather be white than black in relation to law enforcement - including mundane things like being pulled over for busted tail light - and the courts. In dealing health care, in relation to my kids' school and any authorities in relation to them, in dealing with city bureaucrats, crossing a border into the US, say, and more. It's not simple. Class also plays a strong role. I am sure poor whites get treated quite differently, with poor blacks generally being treated the worst.

None of this means I think destroying small businesses while rioting is a good thing or not a crime. And I think a lot of people are bursting because of unemployment and the lockdown. Again not excusing many of the things people are doing. I think the situation is being intentionally inflamed by those who stand to gain, if not outright orchestrated. These us/thems distract us from the primary one. And they help slide things to more top down control. people will end up calling for their own total disempowerment or at least acquiesing.

'Save us from Corona' 'Save us from the rioters' 'Save us from race X' 'If you have nothing to hide...'

I'd rather be a paramedic, policeman, security guard, teacher, hell pretty much anybody doing anything in a predominantly white or mixed race neighborhood than a predominantly black neighborhood.
Again I don't want to be too hard on blacks, the vast majority of them are alright, but I don't want to throw policemen, the white community or society as a whole under the bus either, which's what the liberal elite is doing right now.
The fact of the matter is: there're more blacks who're violent than other Americans who're violent.

From what I gather, the vast majority of blacks killed by police were hostile towards police.
Perhaps a handful of blacks are innocently killed by police every year, perhaps disproportionately, but if you're black your odds of being one of them are like one in millions annually, so I think this is being way overblown for pollical reasons.

When your demographic disproportionately commits felonies many times over, you can expect your demographic to be disproportionately innocently killed, for cops of all races are going to be more anxious, more afraid when dealing with your demographic.
The black community bears the brunt of the responsibility for the state of itself.

[Gloominary]

This article is from a left-leaning website:

https://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2016-09-29/race-and-homicide-in-america-by-the-numbers

Nonetheless they admit blacks kill more whites than whites kill blacks.

See the first graph in the article.

Blacks kill between about 450-600 whites annually, whites kill between 150 and 300 blacks annually.

So not only are blacks many times more violent than other races, their violence is more racialized.

[Gloominary]

This article is also from what appears to be a left-leaning website:

Black Cops Are Just as Likely as White Cops to Kill Black Suspects

New research suggests a culture of bias is a bigger problem than individual racist officers.

When a white police officer fatally shoots a black man, angry acquaintances often assume the tragedy was triggered by a racist cop.
New research reports that, while some officers may by driven by personal prejudice, the bias that can serve as a catalyst for killings is more institutional than individual.
"White officers do not kill black suspects at a higher rate compared with nonwhite officers," concludes a research team led by Charles Menifield, dean of the School of Public Affairs and Administration at Rutgers University–Newark. "The killing of black suspects is a police problem, not a white police problem."
Menifield and his colleagues constructed a database of all confirmed incidents in which deadly force was used by police in the United States during 2014 and 2015. It includes detailed information on both the officer and victim.
Not surprisingly, they found a huge racial disparity when it comes to who gets killed by officers. "While only about 13 percent of the American population is black," they write, "28 percent of people killed by police are black."
The victims were overwhelmingly male (95.5 percent), and less than 1 percent were unarmed at the time of the incident. "The gun could been in the car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed," Menifield noted.
The majority of officers in these situations were white. But this reflects the fact that America's police forces are disproportionately made up of whites, who account for approximately three-quarters of all officers.
Crunching the numbers, the researchers report "white police officers actually kill black and other minority suspects at lower rates than we would expect if killings were randomly distributed among officers of all races."
In contrast, "we find that nonwhite officers kill both black and Latino suspects at significantly higher rates than white officers," they write. "This is likely due to the fact that minority police officers tend to be assigned to minority neighborhoods, and therefore have more contact with minority suspects."
But if individual-level racism isn't the issue, what is? Menifield and his colleagues make a strong argument that the fundamental problem is one of institutional culture.
"We believe that the disproportionate killing of black suspects is a downstream effect of institutionalized racism ... within many police departments," they write. At least in part, "disproportionate killing is a function of disproportionate police contact among members of the African-American community."
In other words, if a certain percentage of such encounters between the police and public end in tragedy, and cops are more likely to come into contact with black citizens (for instance, ordering African-American drivers to pull over at higher rates than whites), it stands to reason that black civilians are at greater risk of ending up dead.
Blaming racist cops for this problem is emotionally satisfying (it presents a clear villain) and suggests an easy fix (weed them out). But this research suggests the real problem is the entrenched set of biases and assumptions that pervade police forces, influencing the attitudes and actions of cops of all colors.

https://psmag.com/social-justice/black-cops-are-just-as-likely-as-whites-to-kill-black-suspects

So the article admits the vast majority of blacks killed by police officers were armed, more than 99%.
It also concedes white police officers are no more likely to kill blacks than brown and black police officers.
So the problem doesn't appear to be wHiTe SuPrEmAcY after all.
The article goes onto conclude cultural bias is the problem.
My conclusion is different.
The problem is blacks are many times more violent than nonblacks, presumably more belligerent towards police officers and probably more racist too, since they kill many more whites than whites kill blacks.
Naturally white, brown and black police officers are going to be more on edge when dealing with them, leading to a few excess innocent killings of blacks annually, but not an epidemic of innocent killings like the MSM would have us believe.

[Gloominary]

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

So in 2019, 235 black men were killed by police.
And of those 235, about less than 1% were armed.

The victims were overwhelmingly male (95.5 percent), and less than 1 percent were unarmed at the time of the incident. "The gun could been in the car, or on them, but it was there at the time they were killed."

https://psmag.com/social-justice/black-cops-are-just-as-likely-as-whites-to-kill-black-suspects

So let's say a couple of black men are innocently killed every year.
How is that an epidemic?
It ain't.
Thousands or millions constitutes an epidemic, not a couple or a few.
Fake News

[iambiguous]

I think I understand where you're coming from.
On nearly all social, political and economic issues, especially complex and controversial ones with a lot of variables, perhaps more than one can ever hope to process in months or years of rigorous study and reflection, with lots of unknowns and schools of thought surrounding them, you prefer to play it safe intellectually.
What does play it safe mean for you?

What on earth does it mean to "play it safe" "intellectually" in regard to a tinderbox America? Given all of those factors that you note. No, it is the objectivists among us who do that. How? By merely assuming that their own political agenda is not just a collection of political prejudices about race and the police, but reflects the most rational manner in which one can think about those things. You are ever and always either one of us or one of them.

Period. That's how they extinguish "the unbearable lightness of being" in their own lives. By anchoring "I" to one or another all encompassing font: religion, ideology, deontology, nature.

Also, I note the extent to which the objectivists will not actually probe the manner in which I construe the "self" here as the embodiment of the points I raise in my signature threads. Instead, based on my own experiences as a political activist for nearly 25 years, the "psychology of objectivism" revolves more around the points I raise on this thread in particular: viewtopic.php?f=15&t=185296

Including myself back when I was a rabid objectivist.

It means taking the least controversial stance (usually center-left as opposed to right or alt-left), which means the one most experts in academia, government and MSM are taking.
Sometimes you feel fragmented about it, because while you believe the experts are the best hope we have of figuring things out in a Godless world void of certitude, they could still very well be dead wrong, we all could be.

Okay, but...

I certainly don't exclude those in either center-left or the center-right from the arguments I make in regard to "I" at the existential intersection of dasein, conflicting goods and political economy. Instead, I fucus in on that which anyone claims to believe about race and the police "in their heads", and that which they are able to demonstrate that all rational men and women are obligated to believe in turn.

Conservative-rightists come here with their collection of facts filtered through their own political prejudices that I construe to be the embodiment of dasein, and the liberal-leftists do the same. Then commensing with particular assumptions about race and police powers and crime and the role of government -- the "human condition" itself -- the objectivists from either end of the political spectrum dictate to all the rest of us how we are required to think and feel if we wish not to be construed as "one of them": the idiots, the morons, the scum of the earth.

They are the ones who will invariably argue that there are "experts" among us able to pin these conflicting goods to the mat. And how do they know this?

BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE!!

Again, just ask them.

And my "thing" here in regard public policy in any particular human community is to avoid as much as possible either the "might makes right" thugs or the "right makes might" philosopher-kings. The nihilists or the objectivists. Instead, as much as possible, the focus should be on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law.

While recognizing that political economy will always be around such that those who control the economy will control the government.

And that "I" am still fractured and fragmented given the manner in which I construe human interactions historically, culturally and experientially as the embodiment of dasein and conflicting goods.

[Meno_]

"And my "thing" here in regard public policy in any particular human community is to avoid as much as possible either the "might makes right" thugs or the "right makes might" philosopher-kings. The nihilists or the objectivists. Instead, as much as possible, the focus should be on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law."



Ambiguous:


Do You think moderates on either side are approaching, or distancing themselves from a position of compromise? And if so, cN be on the watch to see if the signs for this happening is escalating , or are they becoming more variable opportunistic without an eye on principle?


Lastly, just a slingshot conjecture: the Missouri compromise appearing as it did a mere few hundred years ago, did not and could not solve any underlying problems.

The lack of effective resolution resulted in the now obviously remembered American version to the European effort at Metternich's Congress of Vienna.

Do similarities stand out between Henry's efforts and those who are trying to form a similar solution? Or , may a backlash, god knows from what ardent reactionary form an even more dangerous state of affairs?

[Karpel Tunnel]

And my "thing" here in regard public policy in any particular human community is to avoid as much as possible either the "might makes right" thugs or the "right makes might" philosopher-kings. The nihilists or the objectivists. Instead, as much as possible, the focus should be on moderation, negotiation and compromise. Democracy and the rule of law.

Should be.

And yes, I know you view this as a dasein based conclusion and one that you cannot prove to all rational people.

But

then

you enter the debate, use the verb 'should', give people who don't agree with you the label 'thugs' or the sarcastic 'philosopher kings'.

If America is a tinderbox 1) labeling people pejoratively and 2) singling yourself out as one of the very, very few people who has, you think but are not sure, the right meta-ethical position
is not making conflagration less likely.

If that's your goal. If your goal is to make conflagration less likely, when discussing politics, and to head things in the direction of compromise and negotiation, then you might want to change a few things.

IOW based on YOUR OWN values as presented here, it seems like you would prefer it if people stopped being in hard line opposed factions and learned to compromise and negotiate more and better.

If that's your goal, you might want to, change a couple of things.

And it's stuff like this that makes me wonder if that's your goal or if you even know what your goal is.

Another approach that sounds much less condescending would be to simply raise your epistemological issues and suggest that we may have to compromise more and negotiate more and better. That leaves out the insults and the implicit and explicit superiority.

Which, I think, given my dasein, makes it less likely (if you leave out those things) for you to contribute to the tinderbox.

[iambiguous]

Should be.

And yes, I know you view this as a dasein based conclusion and one that you cannot prove to all rational people.

But

then

you enter the debate, use the verb 'should', give people who don't agree with you the label 'thugs' or the sarcastic 'philosopher kings'.

If America is a tinderbox 1) labeling people pejoratively and 2) singling yourself out as one of the very, very few people who has, you think but are not sure, the right meta-ethical position
is not making conflagration less likely.

If that's your goal. If your goal is to make conflagration less likely, when discussing politics, and to head things in the direction of compromise and negotiation, then you might want to change a few things.

IOW based on YOUR OWN values as presented here, it seems like you would prefer it if people stopped being in hard line opposed factions and learned to compromise and negotiate more and better.

If that's your goal, you might want to, change a couple of things.

And it's stuff like this that makes me wonder if that's your goal or if you even know what your goal is.

Another approach that sounds much less condescending would be to simply raise your epistemological issues and suggest that we may have to compromise more and negotiate more and better. That leaves out the insults and the implicit and explicit superiority.

Which, I think, given my dasein, makes it less likely (if you leave out those things) for you to contribute to the tinderbox.

Once again, this seems far more about making me the issue here rather than in discussing that manner in which I construe any particular individual's reaction to "tinderbox America".

Or, sure, so it seems to me.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Back when I studied sociology - not a lot, but some - there was a classic work analyzing Poor People's Movements (Piven and Cloward). What they looked at was how much change haspens when people go through bureaucracy, the courts, talking to politicians - iow civil (in both senses) negotiation and compromise) and how much change happens when they take to the streets and cause trouble, peacefully and even otherwise.

And what they found was that change often came not only faster, but only, if they took to the streets, were angry, maybe smashed some stuff.

Now I don't just assume this is correct though they did a vast amount of research. IOW I was (and likely they were) sympathetic to the civil rights movement and poor people's needs, etc. And given the lack of power of these people, at least relatively, making noise, forcing attention would likely be good tactics. What they found was that if people engaged in debate, channels of accepted political pressure, negotiation....the bureaucracy and political habit just

alllowed nothing to change. Or little.

But if we look at all players, not just the disenfranchized, well what happens if everyone adds chaos in fighting for their perspective.

I don't know.

But I am not convinced that compromise and negotiation is enough of a Commandment or the right one in many many instances. Because the machinery of power serves a fragment. And they can just wait out the people who stay civil, compromising, negotiating and following the protocols of what gets called democracy but isn't.

I don't think there is a rule or good heuristic and saying compromise, negotiation as ideals can actually benefit the already powerful. If they are benevolent and just (through whatever one's values happen to be) well that might be fine.

But they seem parasitic to me.

It ends up being a message something like 'let's all play nice'. And the ones who listen to that are not the ones who need to.

[Ecmandu]

Another thing sociology figured out is that societies that war more become more dominant.

After the fall of Rome ... Europe was thrown into 1000 years of brutal war. They came out of it being the most dominant force the world has ever known.