Protests following the killing of George Floyd

From my brief skim, they both seem like opinion pieces using exceptions to the rule for the basis of their arguments?

Well, if you want the whole argument backed by philosophic reasoning, statistics and history you might need to read the same books they've read and authors of most articles you read.

McWhorters point is relevant to the situation we're in atm.
Colemans is actually well argued on the topic of racism.
 
I started reading that first one and had to stop because it was bloody awful.

This is even overlooking the fact that you can find fluffed up opinion pieces to support anything, especially on trash like Quillette.

Are you serious? I guess you made up your mind then. Carry on, don't look back!
 
Well, if you want the whole argument backed by philosophic reasoning, statistics and history you might need to read the same books they've read and authors of most articles you read.

McWhorters point is relevant to the situation we're in atm.
Colemans is actually well argued on the topic of racism.

Actually I’d prefer your arguments to be backed by peer reviewed studies if you’re going to insist on citing your arguments with a source.
 
With all do respect, I don't need an article from two nobody to tell me that there isn't a very fundamental systemic racism in America.

It's at best 1000 words opinion on something, it's hardly a defense that there's no systemic racism. There's no racism because Coleman and Mcwhorter says so?

No, not because anyone says so. They just ask you to think about the matter. Don't let your feelings decide, they might deceive you..
 
Imo, Britain will turn into an even bigger mess when it comes to racism in the coming year due to covid and brexit contribution towards a deep recession and high unemployment. During the times like these the issue won't be able to cover itself behind the mask of traditional British politeness, it will find it's way fully onto the suffice.
 
Yes, don't let reason get in the way.

My point is you are pushing opinion pieces which inherently have an agenda attached to them. A peer review study should not, if the study has been done correctly to remove biases.
 
Yes it doesnt address the point that a black person will face a harsher sentence for the same crime.
Because there is no reason that anyone can come up with to counter the obvious bias of the system.

That is not to say that progress has not been made either. I dont think anyone is arguing that point.

Reading the first one when it gets into athletic achievement its starts to get very problematic.

Yes, but there's a lot of bias in "the system". You don't need racism to explain it. The bias goes many ways. Agianst sex, race, health, income..
 
No, not because anyone says so. They just ask you to think about the matter. Don't let your feelings decide, they might deceive you..

I've seen enough btw. We're not talking about breona or floyd incident. These things happens far to common and recurring for it not to be systemic.

I'm sorry cantone. It's just this whole thing has been going to far, too blatant for any devil advocate. American cops are systemically racist.
 
My point is you are pushing opinion pieces which inherently have an agenda attached to them. A peer review study should not, if the study has been done correctly to remove biases.

Yes. I am pushing opinion. But opinion based on reason and, I'd argue, a more complete picture then what we see unfolding these days
 
Are you serious? I guess you made up your mind then. Carry on, don't look back!

Yea I’ve made up my mind that systemic racism exists and a waffly pseudo-intellectual opinion piece that talks about how “they don’t cite racism when things benefit blacks over whites” isn’t going to alter that.
 
No, not because anyone says so. They just ask you to think about the matter. Don't let your feelings decide, they might deceive you..
I think the point is that there are peer reviewed studies that say the opposite...

It not about feelings, and its a little condescending for you to suggest that
 
Yes. I am pushing opinion. But opinion based on reason and, I'd argue, a more complete picture then what we see unfolding these days

So essentially you’re arguing against facts with opinions, which provide you with a more complete picture than what the rest of see unfolding the these days because their opinions agree with yours. Glad we understand each other
 
Yes, but there's a lot of bias in "the system". You don't need racism to explain it. The bias goes many ways. Agianst sex, race, health, income..
So other biases will explain why being a particular skin colour will get you a harsher sentence? Its not a racial bias?

Sorry but I am not understanding what you’re getting at.

Yes we know sexism exists so why you insistent that racial bias doesnt exist in the system but other biases do?
 
Yea I’ve made up my mind that systemic racism exists and a waffly pseudo-intellectual opinion piece that talks about how “they don’t cite racism when things benefit blacks over whites” isn’t going to alter that.

Ok
 
So other biases will explain why being a particular skin colour will get you a harsher sentence? Its not a racial bias?

Sorry but I am not understanding what you’re getting at.

Yes we know sexism exists so why you insistent that racial bias doesnt exist in the system but other biases do?

I'm saying it's not easily explained. You don't need malevolence to explain incompetence.
 
So essentially you’re arguing against facts with opinions, which provide you with a more complete picture than what the rest of see unfolding the these days because their opinions agree with yours. Glad we understand each other

No, that's not what I've said
 
I'm saying it's not easily explained. You don't need malevolence to explain incompetence.

I would agree if it was incompetence. Its happening on the scale it does and for the length of time it has it not incompetence to me and more important to the countless studies that have been conducted on the matter
 

Yea, this fecking guy:

the guy e.cantona wants us all to listen to said:
In the fall of 2016, I was hired to play in Rihanna’s back-up band at the MTV Video Music Awards. To my pleasant surprise, several of my friends had also gotten the call. We felt that this would be the gig of a lifetime: beautiful music, primetime TV, plus, if we were lucky, a chance to schmooze with celebrities backstage.

But as the date approached, I learned that one of my friends had been fired and replaced. The reason? He was a white Hispanic, and Rihanna’s artistic team had decided to go for an all-black aesthetic—aside from Rihanna’s steady guitarist, there would be no non-blacks on stage. Though I was disappointed on my friend’s behalf, I didn’t consider his firing as unjust at the time—and maybe it wasn’t. Is it unethical for an artist to curate the racial composition of a racially-themed performance? Perhaps; perhaps not. My personal bias leads me to favor artistic freedom, but as a society, we have yet to answer this question definitively.

One thing, however, is clear. If the races were reversed—if a black musician had been fired in order to achieve an all-white aesthetic—it would have made front page headlines. It would have been seen as an unambiguous moral infraction. The usual suspects would be outraged, calling for this event to be viewed in the context of the long history of slavery and Jim Crow in this country, and their reaction would widely be seen as justified. Public-shaming would be in order and heartfelt apologies would be made. MTV might even enact anti-bias trainings as a corrective.

Though the question seems naïve to some, it is in fact perfectly valid to ask why black people can get away with behavior that white people can’t. The progressive response to this question invariably contains some reference to history: blacks were taken from their homeland in chains, forced to work as chattel for 250 years, and then subjected to redlining, segregation, and lynchings for another century. In the face of such a brutal past, many would argue, it is simply ignorant to complain about what modern-day blacks can get away with.

Yet there we were—young black men born decades after anything that could rightly be called ‘oppression’ had ended—benefitting from a social license bequeathed to us by a history that we have only experienced through textbooks and folklore. And my white Hispanic friend (who could have had a tougher life than all of us, for all I know) paid the price. The underlying logic of using the past to justify racial double-standards in the present is rarely interrogated. What do slavery and Jim Crow have to do with modern-day blacks, who experienced neither?

Ain’t giving me cause to rethink my views.
 
I would agree if it was incompetence. Its happening on the scale it does and for the length of time it has it not incompetence to me and more important to the countless studies that have been conducted on the matter

Let's agree there is racial bias. I agree with that. Then one question may be, to what extent? Is it racial or is it more complex. Does poverty, social status, sex, or other things play into it as well? How do we decide what is what? I'd argue it is a complex question, and there's is not a clear cut answer. Yes, there is racial bias. There is also other biases at play. There are many things behind the numbers. How do one decide what is what.. We see 10 videos of apparent racist behaviour. Does that extend to the general population? Are there other similar videos, showing non racial bias? It is an almost endless thing. And some might say, but you didn't mention this or that. Well I f'n can't. It's complex. Read opposing views
 
I'm saying it's not easily explained. You don't need malevolence to explain incompetence.

You know all this was already said before the MacPherson report came out right? Which found that it was bollocks, and the police were indeed institutionally racist, along with much of the rest of our government institutions.
 
Let's agree there is racial bias. I agree with that. Then one question may be, to what extent? Is it racial or is it more complex. Does poverty, social status, sex, or other things play into it as well? How do we decide what is what? I'd argue it is a complex question, and there's is not a clear cut answer. Yes, there is racial bias. There is also other biases at play. There are many things behind the numbers. How do one decide what is what.. We see 10 videos of apparent racist behaviour. Does that extend to the general population? Are there other similar videos, showing non racial bias? It is an almost endless thing. And some might say, but you didn't mention this or that. Well I f'n can't. It's complex. Read opposing views

Then there is nothing else to discuss since no body argued that there are not any other issues or biases at play

Having racial bias in the system is wrong and that is the crux of the point. A racial bias in the system of justice is wrong and that is why people are fighting to eradicate it.

Separately people are also fighting to eradicate sexism, homophobia, non binary gender bias and other things

Seperately people alo fight against oppression based on class.

So I dont know why you would come into a thread based on race to argue that racial bias isn't an issue when you agree there is racial bias.
 
Then there is nothing else to discuss since no body argued that there are not any other issues or biases at play

Having racial bias in the system is wrong and that is the crux of the point. A racial bias in the system of justice is wrong and that is why people are fighting to eradicate it.

Separately people are also fighting to eradicate sexism, homophobia, non binary gender bias and other things

Seperately people alo fight against oppression based on class.

So I dont know why you would come into a thread based on race to argue that racial bias isn't an issue when you agree there is racial bias.

Don't think I ever said it's not an issue. If we're discussing it, it's an issue. What I did hint at, was it not being systemic. And there's a lot to discuss regarding racial bias and to what extent it's affecting society.
 
I'd advise both of you to read some opposing views. They are out there.
Here's two articles. They don't address all of the points you raise, but some at least.

Coleman Hughes from 2018
John McWhorter from 2016

Hughes has written some good articles over the past couple of years. Hard to believe he’s still only 24. The kid has a bright future ahead.
 
Hughes has written some good articles over the past couple of years. Hard to believe he’s still only 24. The kid has a bright future ahead.

Agree. Young but really good writer. Seemingly tries to see both sides of it. Probably gets it wrong now and then, but not afraid to correct himself
 
If the police are looking at you, for whatever reason, you should comply. 100%. Every time. You don't know what information they've got. They don't know who you are, if you're armed or not. For them every encounter may be life and death. If you resist arrest, the police do not know what your intentions are.
I'm sorry but you're wrong and it is NOT the law in the US. You have no obligation to comply with the police if there is no probable cause to stop you. Period. It's illegal for a cop to detain you if there is no crime or suspicion of a crime. It's crazy people think police have the license to do anything just because of the hazards of their jobs.

Outlier as in racist motivation and or the intent was to murder an innocent person, etc. As above, the police wont know what the person of interest is going to do or if they are innocent. The police in USA are armed. I belive most living in the US will be aware of this. There are also 100s of millions of firearms in the US. The police won't know who's armed or not. They pretty much have to assume the worst.
Completely inane logic. Assuming the worst is why only 83% of people who are killed by police are armed. The racist motivation lies in the systemic racism in crime and punishment in the US. I can point you literature from criminologists who lay it out using publicly available data.

Furthermore, in affluent neighborhoods in the US, the police do not assume worst. Detectives don't assume the worst. Prosecutors don't assume the worst. Judges don't assume the worst. Probation officers don't assume the worst. They do everything in their power to rehabilitate "thugs" from these neighborhoods.

I assumed you ment it like "pseudo" intellectual.
Both of them being respected professors in their fields, and both of them having been in the public discussing matters like these for years, I give them the benefit of the doubt on most things they state as factual. If something sound too incredible and others I tend to belive start talking against them on facts, I'll rethink.
This is also a one hour conversation. You'll be often disappointed if you always expect what you deem most important to be covered, and how you want it. Take a look at some of their many other conversations.
I prefer arguments backed by a preponderance of evidence and, preferably, statistical regressions. Saying "black people commit more crimes than whites" or "only X amount of people have died from police violence" is lazy and there is no attempt to analyze the data. There are also respected criminologists and Ivy League researchers who have written extensive literature that would completely destroy some of the arguments they are using.

It's pretty easy to watch a youtube video of an eloquent person with a bunch of degrees saying things, but anyone who gives a shit should trust the countless peer-reviewed literature more than a talking head.

EDIT: I suggest you read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander if you want to understand how systemic racism works in US criminal defense. Also, read Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson if you want to look at it from the view of cops, detectives, prosecutors, and judges. The data is there.
 
Last edited:
What do you mean with systemic?
In the US, according to google there's about 800.000+ law enforcement. Again google, about 1% of the population will have some level of psychopathy. One might expect higher numbers in law enforcement then the general population. But let's say 8000. Then add all the ones doing it for other bad reason, like lack of better options, or probably any number of reasons they shouldn't be in a position like this. You don't need racism to explain bad cops. There's enough reason. I'm not saying racism does not exist in the police. I'm sure it does. But systemic?
Let's go for the psychopathy angle then. What are the odds of 4 of those 8000 being in one place at one time as with Floyd's death?

Or we follow a different track and say it just takes one, and three officers who are either indifferent to human life or cowards, and who don't even react to being filmed from multiple angles, for minutes. And there's the other problem, this is isn't a few seconds worth of cop behaving badly in a complicated, fast-moving situation where they feel their lives are in danger, it's around ten minutes worth of footage of them watching someone die.

If it's not something systemic allowing them to switch off their sense of right and wrong, then what is it?

The same goes for the statistical analysis that asks why are the numbers are so high. Maybe they put most of those "8000+" worst cops into predominantly black areas? In which case, that's also systemic.

It's also about the aftermath of the shooting. Who gets arrested? Whose evidence gets heard - and listened to, and whose gets written off as unreliable or biased? Who has the best lawyers presenting their case, even if the police department actually take it to trial?
 
I'm sorry but you're wrong and it is NOT the law in the US. You have no obligation to comply with the police if there is no probable cause to stop you. Period. It's illegal for a cop to detain you if there is no crime or suspicion of a crime. It's crazy people think police have the license to do anything just because of the hazards of their jobs.

I didn't say it's the law. I said you should comply. You don't know what information the cop has. You may know you're innocent. The cop don't. There's at least one gun in this interaction. I didn't say the police should detain you for no reason or suspicion of a crime. I am saying the opposite.

Completely inane logic. Assuming the worst is why only 83% of people who are killed by police are armed. The racist motivation lies in the systemic racism in crime and punishment in the US. I can point you literature from criminologists who lay it out using publicly available data.

My logic may be inane. How do you propose an armed cop, in the US, with the amount of crime and firearms in play, should approach a potentially dangerous interaction? I don't understand what you're trying to say here, the 17% unarmed killed by police were all unjust? If you claim systemic racism, you should be able to back it up. By actual data points. You claim there's plenty. Shouldn't be hard to provide.

Furthermore, in affluent neighborhoods in the US, the police do not assume worst. Detectives don't assume the worst. Prosecutors don't assume the worst. Judges don't assume the worst. Probation officers don't assume the worst. They do everything in their power to rehabilitate "thugs" from these neighborhoods.
I probably agree with this.

I prefer arguments backed by a preponderance of evidence and, preferably, statistical regressions. Saying "black people commit more crimes than whites" or "only X amount of people have died from police violence" is lazy and there is no attempt to analyze the data. There are also respected criminologists and Ivy League researchers who have written extensive literature that would completely destroy some of the arguments they are using.
I agree. One should have evidence to support ones argument. One should use relevant data, analyse it and reason from that.


It's pretty easy to watch a youtube video of an eloquent person with a bunch of degrees saying things, but anyone who gives a shit should trust the countless peer-reviewed literature more than a talking head.

Yes.

EDIT: I suggest you read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander if you want to understand how systemic racism works in US criminal defense. Also, read Just Mercy by Bryan Stevenson if you want to look at it from the view of cops, detectives, prosecutors, and judges. The data is there.

Alexander seem somewhat biased, can't say much about Stevenson. I'm sure there are many examples of injustice. The conclusion from that won't necessarily be systemic racism.
 
Let's go for the psychopathy angle then. What are the odds of 4 of those 8000 being in one place at one time as with Floyd's death?

Or we follow a different track and say it just takes one, and three officers who are either indifferent to human life or cowards, and who don't even react to being filmed from multiple angles, for minutes. And there's the other problem, this is isn't a few seconds worth of cop behaving badly in a complicated, fast-moving situation where they feel their lives are in danger, it's around ten minutes worth of footage of them watching someone die.

If it's not something systemic allowing them to switch off their sense of right and wrong, then what is it?

The same goes for the statistical analysis that asks why are the numbers are so high. Maybe they put most of those "8000+" worst cops into predominantly black areas? In which case, that's also systemic.

It's also about the aftermath of the shooting. Who gets arrested? Whose evidence gets heard - and listened to, and whose gets written off as unreliable or biased? Who has the best lawyers presenting their case, even if the police department actually take it to trial?

I agree, it is an horrendous thing that happened to George Floyd. Is nothing one can say to justify it.
 
What do you mean with systemic?
In the US, according to google there's about 800.000+ law enforcement. Again google, about 1% of the population will have some level of psychopathy. One might expect higher numbers in law enforcement then the general population. But let's say 8000. Then add all the ones doing it for other bad reason, like lack of better options, or probably any number of reasons they shouldn't be in a position like this. You don't need racism to explain bad cops. There's enough reason. I'm not saying racism does not exist in the police. I'm sure it does. But systemic?

This is further complicated by the fact that the country is swimming in about 400m firearms (about half the global population of guns), at a time when there are disproportionate economic disparities the races. This creates a social powderkeg each time cops pull someone of another race over, and all of this is even before we get into bad cops/racist cops etc.
 
This is further complicated by the fact that the country is swimming in about 400m firearms (about half the global population of guns), at a time when there are disproportionate economic disparities the races. This creates a social powderkeg each time cops pull someone of another race over, and all of this is even before we get into bad cops/racist cops etc.

400? Half the global population of guns? That's insane. A population of 328 million. Just imagine being a lone cop walking up to some reported unrest, or car pulled over with high music blasting. I'd be scared out of my mind being a cop in the US.
 
400? Half the global population of guns? That's insane. A population of 328 million. Just imagine being a lone cop walking up to some reported unrest, or car pulled over with high music blasting. I'd be scared out of my mind being a cop in the US.

That's the most recent number I've seen, which breaks out to more than 1.2 guns per household. Cops go to work through the prism of this security dilemma every day ; a securitized mindset that incentives them to escalate for fear of getting killed (this is again before we factor in bad or racist cops). When you combine what is happing on the cop side with what is happening on the side of minority citizens in terms of lingering structural disenfranchisement, it really isn't much of a surprise to see where we are today.