A few months ago I responded to one of your articles on Medium, before they booted me again, and gave some statistics comparing black and white treatment by cops. The statistics are not favorable.
I don't think you recognized me and I didn't identify myself because I would just have been booted that much sooner. Medium has some algorithmi…
A few months ago I responded to one of your articles on Medium, before they booted me again, and gave some statistics comparing black and white treatment by cops. The statistics are not favorable.
I don't think you recognized me and I didn't identify myself because I would just have been booted that much sooner. Medium has some algorithmic scan for people who have disagreed with any tenet of "gender ideology" and they ban us on sight. Medium has decided that protecting the enraged "trans" activists (like the one whose header image is "her" flipping off the reader) as their prime imperative. Debate is transphobic. Anyway.
I was with you on this until you got to "everybody coming together to solve a common problem." You're a good man Steve but that stuff is just starry-eyed, it is not going to happen. We're seeing the beginning of solutions with body cameras that override dishonest reports. That's law. I doubt everyone came together and prayed and sang a song before they all held hands and approved making cops wear cameras that tell What Really Happened. I bet there was a lot of pushback on that but it could not be too vigorous because opposition to it is not very defensible.
If Rosalyn actually believes that all sources are trustworthy, she's a little umm off. That's past naïve. And if she's getting her data from Twitter, well, Musk recently interviewed and pulled that "who gets to decide" shit on defining misinformation.
But cops are disproportionately violent and murderous to black people. If I recall, about four times as much. This is not a genocidal statistic but it ain't good. I've read it so many times:
"I need to see your driver's license"
Man reaches into his jacket for his wallet.
Cop shoots him in the head.
"I thought he was reaching for a gun"
But the murder statistics are the only quantifiable part of the tale. What you won't find any statistics for is the intimidation. Whether or not the cop swaggers in his power, and many do, a black driver pulled over for any trivial reason probably has his pulse go to 150 wondering if this is his last minute of life. When I got pulled over, me with my titanium oxide complexion, the worst I feared was a fine and my politeness and concession got me out of that almost always. Yes, officer, I was speeding, I have no excuse. "Move along."
As for the general topic, we are in a crisis of misinformation right now. In so many subjects. Rosalyn believes the cops are killing black people for sport and it's only recently that killing a black man finally got a cop into prison.
I have a friend I talk to every Sunday, and "trans" is off limits because he thinks they're just peaceful people being true to who they are and only want to be left alone. He thinks the violent episodes and all the death threats are equivalent to antifa attacking the Capitol. I've tried to ask him where he gets this crap and he just blows up like I'm some Republican bigot.
Trump supporters claim to believe he won the election. Libertarians believe the government is after their freedom. Gun nuts think there's a conspiracy to disarm them so government can enslave them. There is no reaching any of these people, and I hope I don't need to mention "confirmation bias."
"You're a good man Steve but that stuff is just starry-eyed, it is not going to happen. We're seeing the beginning of solutions with body cameras that override dishonest reports. That's law"
Yeah, you're conflating different things here. All meaningful activism ends with the law. All the marches and sit-ins and slogans, they're all ultimately aimed at changing laws. And activism is most effective when a) as many people agree with the ideas presented as possible, and b) there's as little crosstalk on the issue as possible. This applies the maximum possible pressure on politicians and law makers in order to effect positive change.
The article criticises BLM for turning police brutality into an issue plagued with cross talk and where the ideas the presented (abolish the police etc.) were enormously unpopular. As a bonus we can add corruption and a failure to address even the limited problem they were ostensibly trying to fix.
Yes, the police disproportionately harm black people. There are many reasons for this, one of which is racism. I care about this deeply. But even if the cause were 1000% racism, that wouldn't be an argument against trying to solve the problem in as race-neutral a way as possible. In fact, if it *were* 100% racism (which it obviously isn't), the *smartest* thing to do would be to present it in a way that motivates the broadest cross-section of people in fighting it.
I agree with every word you wrote. Changes in attitude have to precede changes in law and it's only changes in law that preserve what would otherwise be a temporary change in attitude.
Legislating for same-sex marriage didn't make people support it; the law changed when popular sentiment moved far enough.
But you weren't rebutting my point. I was not saying that law will ever precede activism; I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction. The other side is going to have to be pushed against their will, they are never going to take a place at the table and engage honestly. Never.
“I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction.”
Ah, yeah, that’s a different issue. Yes, sad to say, you’re right. We are accelerating in the other direction. I don’t see an alternative to being one of the voices arguing, as persuasively as possible, to stop and reverse that trajectory.
I (and the many others arguing for the same thing) will either be ignored, and we’ll continue going in that direction, or enough voices will speak up and things will improve.
The good news is that the people arguing for more unity aren’t being ignored. The silent majority really is a majority. The challenge is finding the right words to mobilise them.
I've long been mystified by your disdain for "who gets to decide". There is no absolute democracy anywhere, it is typically representative democracy where voting is above all else about who gets to decide.
Packing the court, a new collection of deciders and Roe v Wade gets canceled. Deciders in some places would make you a criminal for your disdain of they as a personal pronoun. If I was a decider on Medium you'd still have your account that was bringing you income, but I'm not a decider there.
I respect you as an intelligent man so I'm asking you to explain your view on that. I don't want to argue about it, I've already given my thoughts about it here. I would just like to resolve my puzzlement about your view on it.
Simple. It's a dullard's way of trying to make a point when he disagrees but can't say why: point out some potential for subjectivity and then pretend he's made a point when in fact all he's shown is that he's over his head.
Let me flesh this out with an example. I am against concentrated wealth. I don't think anyone should have the kind of money that Bill Gates or Elon Musk have. So I say, " think the tax code should unapologetically set out to limit wealth concentration."
I don't have a number at hand, off the cuff I would say a billion is more than anyone needs.
So some little smarty who used to wear out "envy" and "class warfare" pipes up and boldly questions:
"but *who gets to decide* how much is too much?"
As if the potential arbitrariness of pegging a number invalidates the whole point that wealth is power, and power is supposed to be elected. As if we could never come up with a reasonable figure and adjust it over time.
"Who gets to decide" is not an argument. It's a minor consideration.
Thanks for the kind words but in some places I could already be fined or fired for refusing to use the nonbinary "they." A judge would be unsympathetic about the grammar.
A few months ago I responded to one of your articles on Medium, before they booted me again, and gave some statistics comparing black and white treatment by cops. The statistics are not favorable.
I don't think you recognized me and I didn't identify myself because I would just have been booted that much sooner. Medium has some algorithmic scan for people who have disagreed with any tenet of "gender ideology" and they ban us on sight. Medium has decided that protecting the enraged "trans" activists (like the one whose header image is "her" flipping off the reader) as their prime imperative. Debate is transphobic. Anyway.
I was with you on this until you got to "everybody coming together to solve a common problem." You're a good man Steve but that stuff is just starry-eyed, it is not going to happen. We're seeing the beginning of solutions with body cameras that override dishonest reports. That's law. I doubt everyone came together and prayed and sang a song before they all held hands and approved making cops wear cameras that tell What Really Happened. I bet there was a lot of pushback on that but it could not be too vigorous because opposition to it is not very defensible.
If Rosalyn actually believes that all sources are trustworthy, she's a little umm off. That's past naïve. And if she's getting her data from Twitter, well, Musk recently interviewed and pulled that "who gets to decide" shit on defining misinformation.
But cops are disproportionately violent and murderous to black people. If I recall, about four times as much. This is not a genocidal statistic but it ain't good. I've read it so many times:
"I need to see your driver's license"
Man reaches into his jacket for his wallet.
Cop shoots him in the head.
"I thought he was reaching for a gun"
But the murder statistics are the only quantifiable part of the tale. What you won't find any statistics for is the intimidation. Whether or not the cop swaggers in his power, and many do, a black driver pulled over for any trivial reason probably has his pulse go to 150 wondering if this is his last minute of life. When I got pulled over, me with my titanium oxide complexion, the worst I feared was a fine and my politeness and concession got me out of that almost always. Yes, officer, I was speeding, I have no excuse. "Move along."
As for the general topic, we are in a crisis of misinformation right now. In so many subjects. Rosalyn believes the cops are killing black people for sport and it's only recently that killing a black man finally got a cop into prison.
I have a friend I talk to every Sunday, and "trans" is off limits because he thinks they're just peaceful people being true to who they are and only want to be left alone. He thinks the violent episodes and all the death threats are equivalent to antifa attacking the Capitol. I've tried to ask him where he gets this crap and he just blows up like I'm some Republican bigot.
Trump supporters claim to believe he won the election. Libertarians believe the government is after their freedom. Gun nuts think there's a conspiracy to disarm them so government can enslave them. There is no reaching any of these people, and I hope I don't need to mention "confirmation bias."
"You're a good man Steve but that stuff is just starry-eyed, it is not going to happen. We're seeing the beginning of solutions with body cameras that override dishonest reports. That's law"
Yeah, you're conflating different things here. All meaningful activism ends with the law. All the marches and sit-ins and slogans, they're all ultimately aimed at changing laws. And activism is most effective when a) as many people agree with the ideas presented as possible, and b) there's as little crosstalk on the issue as possible. This applies the maximum possible pressure on politicians and law makers in order to effect positive change.
The article criticises BLM for turning police brutality into an issue plagued with cross talk and where the ideas the presented (abolish the police etc.) were enormously unpopular. As a bonus we can add corruption and a failure to address even the limited problem they were ostensibly trying to fix.
Yes, the police disproportionately harm black people. There are many reasons for this, one of which is racism. I care about this deeply. But even if the cause were 1000% racism, that wouldn't be an argument against trying to solve the problem in as race-neutral a way as possible. In fact, if it *were* 100% racism (which it obviously isn't), the *smartest* thing to do would be to present it in a way that motivates the broadest cross-section of people in fighting it.
I agree with every word you wrote. Changes in attitude have to precede changes in law and it's only changes in law that preserve what would otherwise be a temporary change in attitude.
Legislating for same-sex marriage didn't make people support it; the law changed when popular sentiment moved far enough.
But you weren't rebutting my point. I was not saying that law will ever precede activism; I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction. The other side is going to have to be pushed against their will, they are never going to take a place at the table and engage honestly. Never.
“I was doubting that people will ever "come together" on this. We are accelerating in the other direction.”
Ah, yeah, that’s a different issue. Yes, sad to say, you’re right. We are accelerating in the other direction. I don’t see an alternative to being one of the voices arguing, as persuasively as possible, to stop and reverse that trajectory.
I (and the many others arguing for the same thing) will either be ignored, and we’ll continue going in that direction, or enough voices will speak up and things will improve.
The good news is that the people arguing for more unity aren’t being ignored. The silent majority really is a majority. The challenge is finding the right words to mobilise them.
I've long been mystified by your disdain for "who gets to decide". There is no absolute democracy anywhere, it is typically representative democracy where voting is above all else about who gets to decide.
Packing the court, a new collection of deciders and Roe v Wade gets canceled. Deciders in some places would make you a criminal for your disdain of they as a personal pronoun. If I was a decider on Medium you'd still have your account that was bringing you income, but I'm not a decider there.
I respect you as an intelligent man so I'm asking you to explain your view on that. I don't want to argue about it, I've already given my thoughts about it here. I would just like to resolve my puzzlement about your view on it.
Simple. It's a dullard's way of trying to make a point when he disagrees but can't say why: point out some potential for subjectivity and then pretend he's made a point when in fact all he's shown is that he's over his head.
Let me flesh this out with an example. I am against concentrated wealth. I don't think anyone should have the kind of money that Bill Gates or Elon Musk have. So I say, " think the tax code should unapologetically set out to limit wealth concentration."
I don't have a number at hand, off the cuff I would say a billion is more than anyone needs.
So some little smarty who used to wear out "envy" and "class warfare" pipes up and boldly questions:
"but *who gets to decide* how much is too much?"
As if the potential arbitrariness of pegging a number invalidates the whole point that wealth is power, and power is supposed to be elected. As if we could never come up with a reasonable figure and adjust it over time.
"Who gets to decide" is not an argument. It's a minor consideration.
Thanks for the kind words but in some places I could already be fined or fired for refusing to use the nonbinary "they." A judge would be unsympathetic about the grammar.
Ah! So it is as it pertains to disingenuous argumentum, rather than a generalized concept where it does matter.
Of course there are cases where it matters, though I can't come up with one for some reason. But the idea is used to end debates, not to further them.
As I get older I find this deflection increasingly irritating.