We All Know What Would Have Happened

Human beings crave simplicity. So it’s hardly surprising that when faced with complex, multi-layered problems, some people crave a simple, all-encompassing boogeyman to blame. In the case of pretty much any “race-related” issue (and many issues that have nothing to do with race), that boogeyman is white supremacy.

In my article, What If White Supremacy Isn’t The Problem?, I pointed out that “white supremacy” is a comically inaccurate lens through which to view the Rittenhouse case. And worst of all, it obscures several other obvious issues that might avoid similar tragedies in future.

Howard left—no exaggeration—at least 14 increasingly unhinged comments arguing that white supremacy was the best explanation for a white 17-year-old shooting three white men. Some were in direct response to the article, some were in response to other people’s replies, and then there’s the conversation you’re about to read, where he replied to my comment to a reader named Annette.

---

Annette:

Still wondering if a black teen with a gun would have been given the same self-defense acquittal. Will wonder if it's a forgone conclusion that they will be convicted under the same justice system in exact same turn of events.

---

Steve QJ:

Still wondering if a black teen with a gun would have been given the same self-defense acquittal.

Yep, hopefully we’ll have to wonder about his forever because hopefully no black teen will find themselves in this situation. But while I hope the result would be the same (or that better laws would be put in place so that kids don’t end up having to kill people in self-defence), it has nothing to do with the Rittenhouse case. Again, the question of whether a black kid is treated fairly under the law is of central importance. I’m not diminishing that point at all. But it’s completely separate to the question of whether white kids should be thrown in jail when they haven’t broken the law.

---

Howard:

A more relevant question is ___ would a Black teen walking through the streets (right past cops) with a military-style assault weapon STILL BE ALIVE??? WE KNOW THE ANSWER!!!

---

Steve QJ:

WE KNOW THE ANSWER!!!

Yes! Actually, we do. But it's not what you think it is. I swear, the biggest problem we face today is the absolute certainty with which people are wrong.

---

Linked in my response is a story about the New Black Panthers standing face-to-face with police officers outside the courtroom where the Ahmaud Arbery case was being tried. Many of them holding…you guessed it, “military-style assault weapons”. Yet despite paying close attention to the Arbery trial, I didn’t see any reports about them doing this. I only learned about it later through Twitter.

I’ve pointed to this problem numerous times recently, but the information we consume really does lock us off into alternate versions of reality. Avoiding these bubbles requires a conscious effort to draw on a variety of sources and perspectives and pull them together into a more complete picture. Howard doesn’t seem particularly interested in making that effort.

---

Howard:

I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IF WE KNOW THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: Would a Black teen walking through the streets (right past cops) with a military-style assault weapon STILL BE ALIVE, AND IF (BASED ON THE LONG, CRYSTAL CLEAR HISTORICAL RECORD --- THE ANSWER IS "not what [I] think it is, WHICH DEFINITELY ___ AGAIN BASED ON THE LONG, LONG, LONG CRYSTAL -CLEAR HISTORICAL RECORD IS WAY MORE THAN LIKELY ___ NO --- THEN DO TELL PLEASE. You have to back it up with some LOGIC though. It's NOT just a matter of because you say so.

---

Steve QJ:

It's NOT just a matter of because you say so.

Dude, first of all, this is exactly what you've been doing throughout this entire unhinged exchange. You've just been asserting things with zero evidence, saying “we all know what would have happened,” when you don’t, and abusing the CAPS LOCK key as if that somehow makes your argument more compelling.

Second, there's a link, right there in the reply, which shows you what I'm talking about. Just click it. It's not difficult.

---

This habitual cynicism around race relations is born out of two problems. 

First, there’s the simple fact that there’s a long, violent track record of state-sanctioned injustice against black people. The Civil Rights Era, and beyond, is littered with examples of racialised police brutality and blatant miscarriages of justice. It will take time and work for those wounds to heal.

But for the majority who didn’t live through those times, most of whom have never had a negative police interaction, the media has stepped in to bridge the gap. As I noted recently, thanks to a constant supply of race-baiting in the news, 11% of Americans (that’s around 28 million people) believed that at least 10,000 unarmed black people were killed by police in 2019 when the actual figure was 13. 

Availability bias is no joke.

There are many race related problems that need to be addressed in the legal system. I’m the very last person who would deny this. But to solve those complex problems, we need honest, unbiased discourse. We need less mindless cynicism. Most importantly, we need more nuanced answers to these complex questions than “white supremacy”.

And in Howard’s case, perhaps a little less time typing in all-caps…