Don't the police already use kid gloves to handle most of the situations? I've been watching livestreams of these for a solid year now and that seems to be a common theme: the police are in general far nicer and accommodating than they could be or even should be.
The dramatic brush you're painting this with is extremely unrealistic.
There have been many cases of rioters claiming press credentials in attempts to bypass responsibility for criminal activity. "I'm not with mob of rioters attempting to burn down that courthouse, I'm a journalist. See, look on my helmet - P R E S S."
I think that was common in Portland over the last year.
- Define 'structural racism' and why it forces blacks to be far more criminal and violent than the rest of the population.
- Can poverty explain, for example, why blacks in Wisconsin commit 2/3 of all violent crime while they are only 7% of the state's population? There are wholly White and Native American cities in Wisconsin that are dirt poor - the poorest - and yet they are not committing insanely high levels of crime.
Criminalizing an underclass isn't a new concept, its been done in many places to many races around the world with varying success.
>why it forces blacks to be far more criminal
I think the fact that UK blacks commit crimes at a far lower rate than US whites throws a wrench in this type of oversimplification of the racial landscape.
Source? It doesn't seem to be true for homicide. The US white rate is consistently between 3-4 per 100k, and the UK black rate is often above 5 per 100k.
Either way, all this proves is that the UK is overall a safer country than the US. But the racial disparities within each country are remarkably similar.
It also points to the fact that a privileged (at least in regards to wealth/opportunity) race in the US commits crimes at the same or higher rate (depending on category) than an underprivileged race in the UK.
We can't remove bias and false criminalization from stats but the contrast between two sister countries is interesting nonetheless.
If the simplified overarching premise is "Blacks are uniquely criminal regardless of circumstance", why am I more likely to be a victim of criminality in a room filled with 1000 white Americans than 1000 black Brits?
No, it wouldn't. That is unnecessary hyperbole. Unjustified police killings, instances where the police were at fault, are a rarity. The big problem here is not lack of police training nor overreach, but violent, uncooperative suspects.
>failing to show the correct level of subservience
While there are some grotesque examples of that, like with Daniel Shaver, most police killings, the overwhelming majority of them, are due to them being attacked by someone or being confronted with an armed suspect who refuses to disarm.
>Not saying all of them are racist, but to some police, everyone is the wrong color (not blue).
Are there any actual instances of racism being the driving impetus for police killings at any time in recent decades? I cannot think of any offhand.
If you are claiming that these attacks are not racially motivated then to what cause do you assign them? The fact that they sometimes kill white people too doesn’t prove that they aren’t racist, it just shows that they are completely out of control. Half of them belong in jail and the other hal need to undergo dramatic reform.
I had previously referenced the Washington Post's police shootings database, but that is now paywalled. I was referring to that stats stating that of the roughly 1000 police killings in 2019, something like 50 involved unarmed suspects. Of those 50, almost all of them involved those suspects attacking the police and lethal force being justified.
The Botham Jeans and Daniel Shavers, as horrifically egregious as those cases are, are relatively rare.
The first question I have about this is the evidence. If the police are the only ones giving evidence/testimony, then their findings are suspect, as they have the best incentive in the world to lie and fabricate evidence. And it's not just a theory, as there is actually body cam footage showing police planting evidence and lying.
The second question I have is, why are these incidents happening? What is causing these attacks, and why were they armed or felt the need to use their arms? Especially if they keep happening predominantly to black people? There's quite a bit of evidence that when a white person is armed and attacks the police, the police give the guy a break. Whereas when it's a black person, they're more likely to antagonize the suspect and then shoot first.
>They run propaganda in prime time every single night.
All major news outlets run propaganda - not just in prime time, but all of the time. That is their job. The NY Times does have the privilege of being one of the primary establishment press outfits, resulting in their main aim being setting the tone for propaganda outfits around the nation and throughout much of the western world.
If you want to know which way the wind is blowing inside the FBI or CIA, the NY Times is where you go.
To compare them to Fox is pointless, as Fox does little to no print journalism. NY Times excels in [often overly-]lengthy, well-written articles, whereas I don't think Fox has ever done much more than briefs and blurbs.
This made-for-TV change of heart might indicate he'll be joining the league of superwealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and George Soros who leave their lengthy, extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil behind to become a power for good. I mean, surely that is exactly what this means.
>Hopefully peoples' memories aren't so short
Who has time for thinking when Marvel Megahero Show #34 has 3000 new episodes to binge? Besides, he's donating to or even directing all the Right Causes now! He's like a real life superhero.
Evil isn't really a word I'd use, but Bill has done some pretty damaging stuff. He, Allen, and Verhoeven helped create the patent regime that's now a huge bully tool in the hands of the megacorps. It's hard to put a nice face on Intellectual Ventures, a business whose model only works if independent rediscovery of a patent is common.
He was really nasty on a personal level too. Allen only saved his stake in the company because he happened to walk through the office late one night and heard Bill gloating with someone else about how they were going to screw him out of his shares.
I'm glad Bill has turned into the philanthropic leader he is now, but there was more ugly to his career than just some anticompetitive behavior.
> Allen only saved his stake in the company because he happened to walk through the office late one night and heard Bill gloating with someone else about how they were going to screw him out of his shares.
Sounds like a fun story, do you know if it's online somewhere?
> Evil isn't really a word I'd use, but Bill has done some pretty damaging stuff
The stuff you mention is so far from “evil” that it’s hardly worth mentioning in this context. Gates isn’t a saint, but calling him unforgivably evil is just ridiculous.
Soros is famous for shorting the pound. Actively screwing a whole nation for profit is probably worth describing as “evil”. Gates’s anticompetitive behaviour is dickish but calling it evil is a step too far IMO
Blaming Soros for Black Wednesday is just silly, the blame rests entirely on the government.
And in any case, “screwing a whole nation”? Are you serious? Black Wednesday screwed the Tories, not the UK. Poor monetary policy cost the UK a few billion pounds, small money in the grand scheme of things.
It was convenient for the people who caused Black Wednesday to pin the blame on George Soros. That this would later lead to thinly-veiled anti-semetic conspiracy theories didn't matter.
Anti-semitism exists and is reprehensible. That having been said, using it hand-wave away what could be legitimate examination and discussion of a person whose behavior may be controversial is dangerous- and could encourage true anti-semitism. Over-use of accusations of anti-semitism in such a way that discourages discussion encourages bigots to say "All <insert a people> are <insert a pejorative>", particulary if the discussion topic is a figure whose actions may be controversial at times, such as Soros. I'm focused on Soros here because he came up in discussion; this is but one example of over-use of claims of racism, anti-semitism, etc. being used to stifle legitimate discussion.
I can remember 4 controversies surrounding Soros off the top of my head. There is (or there should be) room to discuss the statements below without redirecting off-topic by raising a curtain around the subject through claims of anti-semitism:
* In the late eighties Soros was convicted of insider trading by some French regulatory authority. If memory serves, his appeals of these convictions failed. Some people claim the conviction and fine was politically motivated, some claim the conviction was true as written.
* In 2009 a Hungarian agency fined Soros Fund Management LLC for manipulating values of Hungarian OTP bank stocks. The same arguments were made for/against the justice of the conviction.
* There are claims that Soros took advantage of the British screwing up when they pegged the Pound against the Deutschmark under the Exchange Rate Mechanism, and that he gamed a lot of value from the British economy as a result. I probably don't have the details right, I've heard people say that he sucker-punched the British, and others say that it actually helped the Brits in the long run.
* There are claims that in the 90's Soros manipulated the Maylaysion economy, society and currency for his profit, and that many suffered as a result. Some believe Soros had nothing to do with the Malaysion troubles and call this a conspiracy theory- it's still worth discussing.
My point is that the use of labels that identify real problems to distract from or avoid altogether a potentially controversial discussion has the potential to make [real] racism, [real] anti-semitism, etc. much worse, and should be avoided.
You're conflating two posts- each is taking a different position.
The OP mentions "...the league of superwealthy philanthropists like Bill Gates and George Soros who leave their lengthy, extraordinarily and unforgivably damaging lives of evil...". He was referring to his belief that there is an evil group of wealthy people- and that this group includes Soros as well as Gates. My post gave examples of controversy surrounding Soros, with the admonition that these should be discussed instead of being labeled then memory-holed because of the man's ancestry.
In the OP's post, Soros was included as a member of a group- without mention or implication of any member's ancestry or race. The accusation of anti-semitism regarding the post, based only on Soros having been included in a list of "bad" superwealthy people, lacks any support other than Soros's inclusion in the list- which itself is not even "thinly veiled" evidence of anti-semitism.
The application of the label "anti-semitic" to either post is an over-reaching use of the term, and this over-reach very likely contributes to an increase in real anti-semitism.
I think you are ignoring the very real fact that there are very few people in the world who’d describe Soros in that manner and don’t subscribe in anti-semitic conspiracy theories.
The inclusion of Bill Gates further supports this view, most of the people who’d describe him that way believe in weird right wing conspiracy theories about microchips and 5G.
He seems like a pretty reasonable and interesting guy. The Vox episode sounded like a balanced take on his legacy: mixed but generally positive impact. The biggest argument against him that resonates with me is the same that applies to all the mega-wealthy: a handful of rich individuals should not have ultimate power to craft policy decisions, rather the world would benefit from a more balanced democratic process.
I don't think there's any indication that mask requirement will abate anytime soon. All posturing from western leadership point to precisely the opposite. The notion that the mask requirement will disappear in as early as 1-2 years is farcically optimistic.
Your snarky, condescending post most definitely goes against HN rules. You did not attempt engage the parent, you did not address the content of their post whatsoever, instead, in a sarcastic tone, resorted to preaching a total aside.
You have it exactly backwards, the post I replied to started with a sarcastic sentence but mine contained none and wasn’t meant to have any snark or condescension.
My assumption is that they are not aware of the tragic, race-based history here (they said they live in Poland, I doubt the curriculum there has years and years of US history) so I gave them a brief overview of the history behind the current inequity that this group aims to help correct (including specifically talking about some related differences between their statement about the Polish constitution and how the US constitution started and changed over the centuries)
Once that is accomplished you'd be living in a land of warlord fiefdoms. No women or children would ever be safe unless protected by strongmen. Society would stagnate into a dark age. You might as well move to Afghanistan.
The dramatic brush you're painting this with is extremely unrealistic.