Calling All Liberal Race Baiters

[SteveKlinko]

Good links.

[Immanuel Can]

You aren't even recommending this much.

I'm recommending we don't put any serious problem in the hands of people who don't know what's causing the problem. And I'm recommending we rule out any stupid and superficial explanations, such as "It's just racism," because nobody's interests are served by foolish people getting the problem wrong, and then us letting them destroy a lot of stuff in a vain attempt to cater to their wrong assessment of the perceived problem.

I'm recommending we don't destroy our police force when they're doing their job. I'm recommending we don't brand all cops inept or racist without some actual evidence that they generally are. I'm advocating we don't encourage stupid terror of the police in our young people, or demonize those tasked with the difficult job of controlling crime -- unless we actually know that the problem is a) general, b) racist, and c) remediable by the proposed means...all of which is much more than you have offered so far.

I think that for the general good, that's actually much more, and much better, than what you appear to be advocating. You seem to be all for messing where you admit you have no understanding at all.

[commonsense]

You aren't even recommending this much.

I'm recommending we don't put any serious problem in the hands of people who don't know what's causing the problem. And I'm recommending we rule out any stupid and superficial explanations, such as "It's just racism," because nobody's interests are served by foolish people getting the problem wrong, and then us letting them destroy a lot of stuff in a vain attempt to cater to their wrong assessment of the perceived problem.

I'm recommending we don't destroy our police force when they're doing their job. I'm recommending we don't brand all cops inept or racist without some actual evidence that they generally are. I'm advocating we don't encourage stupid terror of the police in our young people, or demonize those tasked with the difficult job of controlling crime -- unless we actually know that the problem is a) general, b) racist, and c) remediable by the proposed means...all of which is much more than you have offered so far.

I think that for the general good, that's actually much more, and much better, than what you appear to be advocating. You seem to be all for messing where you admit you have no understanding at all.

I notice that what you are recommending is a lot of nothing. To wit the number of recommendations that are don’ts. You may have some thoughts there, but you undermine them by referencing recommendations. You recommend that we do nothing, which is a non-recommendation. Small wonder you are charged with recommending not even that much.

[Immanuel Can]

I notice that what you are recommending is a lot of nothing.

"A lot of nothing?"

You mean that I don't recommend jumping to the stupid, unwarranted and counter-statistical assumption that all our cops are racist and in need of retraining? Indeed so.

I also recommend we don't teach our young men to live in fear, we don't teach our people to burn our cities, we don't teach folks that the whole country is racist. I recommend we don't do one thing that is irrational, driven by fear and envy, or contrary to facts.

It's those who recommend we "do something" but don't know what the heck they're doing that are the real threat to society.

[SteveKlinko]

I notice that what you are recommending is a lot of nothing.

"A lot of nothing?"

You mean that I don't recommend jumping to the stupid, unwarranted and counter-statistical assumption that all our cops are racist and in need of retraining? Indeed so.

I also recommend we don't teach our young men to live in fear, we don't teach our people to burn our cities, we don't teach folks that the whole country is racist. I recommend we don't do one thing that is irrational, driven by fear and envy, or contrary to facts.

It's those who recommend we "do something" but don't know what the heck they're doing that are the real threat to society.

Exactly.

[Skepdick]

I'm recommending we don't put any serious problem in the hands of people who don't know what's causing the problem.

I see. So now you admit that there is a problem to be solved? That's progress...

As recently as few posts back you were pretty cock-sure that there's nothing to be done.

And I'm recommending we rule out any stupid and superficial explanations, such as "It's just racism," because nobody's interests are served by foolish people getting the problem wrong, and then us letting them destroy a lot of stuff in a vain attempt to cater to their wrong assessment of the perceived problem.

So now it's a perceived problem?

It doesn't matter whether you label the problem as "racism" or "trigger happiness" - any reduction in the use of lethal force is a solution to the unnamed problem.

I'm recommending we don't destroy our police force when they're doing their job. I'm recommending we don't brand all cops inept or racist without some actual evidence that they generally are.

Nobody is playing the branding/blame/witch-hunt game but you. We (as a society) are in the problem-solving game.

I'm advocating we don't encourage stupid terror of the police in our young people, or demonize those tasked with the difficult job of controlling crime

Again, nobody is demonising anybody. The notion of blameless postmortems must be foreign to you.

There is a problem. It requires a solution. Nobody is at fault, but we are all responsible for the necessary change.

Unless you insist that no change is necessary.

-- unless we actually know that the problem is a) general, b) racist, and c) remediable by the proposed means...all of which is much more than you have offered so far.

But you DO know that there is a problem, otherwise you wouldn't recognise that there is a problem.

I think that for the general good, that's actually much more, and much better, than what you appear to be advocating. You seem to be all for messing where you admit you have no understanding at all.

You are greatly confused. Are you familiar with the distinction between accountability and responsibility? I don't need understanding - the people responsible for solving the problem require understanding.

I recognise that there is a problem (as do you).
It follows that the problem should be solved, and the first step towards solving a problem is understanding it.

No understanding is necessary if there is no problem to be solved.

[Skepdick]

It's those who recommend we "do something" but don't know what the heck they're doing that are the real threat to society.

Understanding and solving problems is a threat to society?

Only a dumb fucking Philosopher could make such a stupid argument!

[commonsense]

I notice that what you are recommending is a lot of nothing.

"A lot of nothing?"

You mean that I don't recommend jumping to the stupid, unwarranted and counter-statistical assumption that all our cops are racist and in need of retraining? Indeed so.

I also recommend we don't teach our young men to live in fear, we don't teach our people to burn our cities, we don't teach folks that the whole country is racist. I recommend we don't do one thing that is irrational, driven by fear and envy, or contrary to facts.

It's those who recommend we "do something" but don't know what the heck they're doing that are the real threat to society.

Exactly.

Yes, exactly.

But wait! There’s more!

Or there should be more but you just did it again. You only said what not to do.

I get it. You’ve made the point that doing nothing is actually better than doing some things.

But the question is: is there anything else that would be better than nothing?

Perhaps you can’t add anything to what you’ve already said. Perhaps there isn’t anything that’s better than nothing.

If that is the case, then the problem must be non-existent or acceptable or intractable.

Perhaps you, IC, would argue for one of those instances if you cannot advance at least a partial solution?

[Immanuel Can]

But the question is: is there anything else that would be better than nothing?

Plausibly. That could be true. And when we know what it is, we ought to do it. But at the moment, we don't know it is.

To know that, we'd have to be able to say accurately what the problem is, as well as get the diagnosis correct of what's causing it.

Those are two pieces of information the Leftist "reform advocates" are not providing to us. They admit their declared feelings of "racism" being around are contradicted by the data; and they admit that they have no idea of what the cause of that would even be. Yet they want to tell us that we should defund the police, confess our systemic racism, teach our young people fear and entitlement, hand over government to the socialists, eat the rich, burn the shopkeepers out, and so on.

Sometimes doing nothing IS better than the "something" that's being proposed. And that's certainly true in this case, since the people who are advocating radical change are clearly lunatics or ideologues: and who, in their right mind, wants to give control to those people?

What I would advocate is doing something that reflects the data, rather than doing something directly contrary to it.

What is "the problem," if there even is one? What has caused it? What does the data say? What makes rational sense in view of the former questions? Those are all things we absolutely ought to ask before we even THINK of instituting changes.

And with that, no sensible person, no person interested in the actual welfare of others and society at large, can possibly disagree. The ones who will still disagree are those with an ideological agenda, since they are in nowise interested in the truth, or in getting reforms right; they're just interested in seizing the lead or the initiative, or if possible, control of the whole political situation.

[Skepdick]

To know that, we'd have to be able to say accurately what the problem is

How accurately?

as well as get the diagnosis correct of what's causing it.

Why can't we do a symptomatic treatment so long?

Sometimes doing nothing IS better than the "something" that's being proposed.

Nothing is being proposed other than to look deeper into the problem.

And that's certainly true in this case, since the people who are advocating radical change

Nobody is advocating any "radical" change. Non-radical change would suffice if it works.

are clearly lunatics or ideologues: and who, in their right mind, wants to give control to those people?

Nobody is asking for control.

If you fix the problem yourself, nobody other than you needs control.

Do you need any more hay for your strawman?

[commonsense]

Yes, to all that you posted above, IC.

So it sounds like the problem is non-existent or difficult or implacable, but not acceptable if proved real.

I’m afraid I have nothing more to add at this time. How about you?

[Skepdick]

So it sounds like the problem is non-existent or difficult or implacable, but not acceptable if proved real.

What sort of beliefs/psychology must a human posess in order to attempt to "prove real" a "problem that is non-existent"?

The whole notion of "proving there is a problem" is incoherent nonsense.

Problems require no proof, they only require recognition.
Solutions require proof-of-efficacy towards acceptably addressing the problem.

[Immanuel Can]

So it sounds like the problem is non-existent or difficult or implacable, but not acceptable if proved real.

Not necessarily difficult. Not necessarily implacable. It might turn out to be relatively easy-to-solve and tractable. At the same time, we haven't yet established that any "problem" is even real.

But IF we knew there was a problem, and IF we have reason to think we can solve it, then it's not a hard step to conclude that we ought to do something about it.

Maybe we could begin merely with this: what IS "the {perceived] problem"? Who's perceiving it, and what do they think they perceive?

[Skepdick]

Maybe we could begin merely with this: what IS "the {perceived] problem"? Who's perceiving it, and what do they think they perceive?

It's really really difficult to examine the perceptions of dead people.

[Immanuel Can]

It's really really difficult to examine the perceptions of dead people.

Who is dead?