Philosophy Now Forum

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:33 am Who is dead?

Do you want a list or would George Floyd suffice?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:33 am Who is dead?

Do you want a list or would George Floyd suffice?

Looks like you don't even know you are Race Baiting when you say things like that. In that one statement you have reminded Black people in general to feel worse about the Police, and you have reminded and added to the preexisting fear that young Blacks have about the Police. People Race Bait the George Floyd issue all the time. In fact they have turned Floyd into a Saint with giant murals depicting him with Angel Wings and renaming streets after him. The guy served many years in jail. The guy was a simple Criminal. Nothing more.

SteveKlinko wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:43 pm Looks like you don't even know you are Race Baiting when you say things like that. In that one statement you have reminded Black people in general to feel worse about the Police, and you have reminded and added to the preexisting fear that young Blacks have about the Police. People Race Bait the George Floyd issue all the time. In fact they have turned Floyd into a Saint with giant murals depicting him with Angel Wings and renaming streets after him. The guy served many years in jail. The guy was a simple Criminal. Nothing more.

Ohhhhhhh, Is THAT what you mean?

I would've called it "Speaking out against extrajudicial killing"
I also would've called it "Recognizing that even ex-convicts have a right to life"

The Police derives its mandate from the consent of the governed.
Never have the governed rescinded their own right to life; or consented to extrajudicial killing!

I guess in SteveKlinko's Orwellian doublespeak I am "Race Baiting".

I am, whatever you say I am; if I wasn't then why would you say I am? --Eminem

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:33 am Who is dead?

Do you want a list or would George Floyd suffice?

Problem: no one has the faintest proof that "racism" was involved in the GF incident at all. Bad procedure? Sure. But what's the evidence that racism is implicated even one tiny bit?

There were three black persons in the car. Two were entirely unmolested. One was arrested, but he was a massive, lunatic bouncer, a criminal who had held a knife to a pregnant woman, who was now stoned out of his brain on fentanyl, completely incoherent and resisting arrest. And if you watched the film from the cops' cameras, as I have, you know that's the truth.

What's the evidence that if GF had been white, things would have gone any differently?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 3:22 pm

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 10:22 am

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 2:33 am Who is dead?

Do you want a list or would George Floyd suffice?

Problem: no one has the faintest proof that "racism" was involved in the GF incident at all. Bad procedure? Sure. But what's the evidence that racism is implicated even one tiny bit?

There were three black persons in the car. Two were entirely unmolested. One was arrested, but he was a massive, lunatic bouncer, a criminal who had held a knife to a pregnant woman, who was now stoned out of his brain on fentanyl, completely incoherent and resisting arrest. And if you watched the film from the cops' cameras, as I have, you know that's the truth.

What's the evidence that if GF had been white, things would have gone any differently?

So if it's not racially motivated, then George Floyd isn't dead?

You are so deep in apologetics, you are actually "Race Baiting".

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 3:27 pm So if it's not racially motivated, then George Floyd isn't dead?

No. We know for sure he had already taken a lethal dose of fentanyl. We know he was already going into respiratory arrest. And we know he was handled roughly for resisting arrest, and that the officers in question did not detect his medical situation until it was too late. That combo would have been enough to kill anybody, white or black. So there is no indicator in any of that, that white or black made the slightest difference.

Let me explain justice to you. In the country where I live, a man is innocent until proven guilty, not automatically guilty when accused of racism. That's why the prosecution always goes first, and the defence attorney does not even have to speak until after the prosecution has presented its case. If there's no grounds for accusation, the accusation is always dismissed immediately. You aren't allowed to condemn a person on an unsubstantiated allegation. Ever.

That puts the burden of proof squarely on the person who makes the allegation, the prosecution. That would be you.

What's your evidence there was any racism at all involved in the death of George Floyd?

the surest way to minimize bad cops is to strip away immunities

in 'murica, cops, on average, have a year of training before they hit the streets...and, throughout their careers, and as they rise in the ranks, they have on-goin' training: so more training and education won't solve the problem of bad cops

prejudices can't be trained or educated away, and bigotry is hard to quantify...most folks are bigoted; it either dominates them or it doesn't...if purity of perspective is gonna be a requisite for any endeavor, no one gets to do squat

no, the solution is simple, and sidesteps all the well-intended but useless strategies to nullify racism or train around bigotry: if all are held to the same standard, if all face the exact same set of consequences when they do wrong, then most of the perceived problems go away

joe cop can be as bigoted as he likes, but -- if he offs a black man becuz of that prejudice -- then he's prison-bound

no insulation or buffer ought be afforded him

the agenda-driven will still kvetch, of course: but they'll have to dig deeper to justify that kvetchin'

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:07 pm Let me explain justice to you. In the country where I live, a man is innocent until proven guilty, not automatically guilty when accused of racism.

Do you want more hay for your argument?

Try this website: https://allhay.com/

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:07 pm That's why the prosecution always goes first, and the defence attorney does not even have to speak until after the prosecution has presented its case. If there's no grounds for accusation, the accusation is always dismissed immediately. You aren't allowed to condemn a person on an unsubstantiated allegation. Ever.

That puts the burden of proof squarely on the person who makes the allegation, the prosecution. That would be you.

What's your evidence there was any racism at all involved in the death of George Floyd?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Fri Oct 23, 2020 7:10 pm Nobody is playing the branding/blame/witch-hunt game but you. We (as a society) are in the problem-solving game.

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.

You don't solve systemic problems my scapegoating individuals.
You solve systemic problems by addressing the design/structural problems in the system.

Deviance is a symptom not a cause.

Multiple police officers stood around watching a protocol violation for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

henry quirk wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:08 pm ...most folks are bigoted...

It depends what one means. If all we're saying is that everybody jumps to unwarranted conclusions about people at first sight, it's probably true. We all form opinions sometimes based on superficial impressions. That's just a survival skill, because we often need to know whether a person is going to be a friend or a threat. So even a scowl can give us the wrong impression. That's life.

But the problem with "racism" accusations is that they ask us to judge another person's heart. After all, "racism" is an attitude. It may or may not issue in any action. The actions, we can judge; the attitudes, we never know unless the person in question tells us.

So do you fear me because I'm black, or because I scowl and wear gang colours? The former is racism, the latter is nothing of the kind. You would fear me if I were Hispanic, scowling and wearing gang colours, or white, scowling and wearing gang colours. And you would have reason to fear me, in all cases.

We can't criminalize attitudes. We can only criminalize actions. But those actions that are criminalized as "racist" must also be shown to be motivated by "racism." If the cops who arrested GF were only acting in fear of losing control of a large, hostile and uncooperative man, in anxiety concerning their superiors, over having botched an arrest, out of haste born of concern that the onlookers would soon intervene, or even out of a desire to get home for dinner, then the reasons they did what they did had nothing to do with racial malice.

Racial malice needs proof.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:31 pm You don't solve systemic problems my scapegoating individuals.

Then stop scapegoating the police.

You solve systemic problems by addressing the design/structural problems in the system.

Prove that this was a "systemic" problem.

Multiple police officers stood around watching a protocol violation for 8 minutes and 46 seconds.

Sorry...I must have missed your proof of racism. Where was it?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:43 pm It depends what one means. If all we're saying is that everybody jumps to unwarranted conclusions about people at first sight, it's probably true. We all form opinions sometimes based on superficial impressions. That's just a survival skill, because we often need to know whether a person is going to be a friend or a threat. So even a scowl can give us the wrong impression. That's life.

Yeah. Given that (statistically) the greatest threat to your individual well-being is medical conditions and not other humans - that's called a subconscious bias.

Your "survival skills" are not well calibrated to the society you find yourself in.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:47 pm ...that's called a subconscious bias.

No. It's often conscious, and it's a basic of survival. We all naturally have to make assessments of what threats and opportunities are around us, and we all do it all the time.

And...where was that evidence of GF racism? You forgot to add it.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:44 pm Then stop scapegoating the police.

You seem to be scrambling from pillar to post.

First you were playing a Night in Shining Armour to defend the police officers' rights, now you are defending The Police! But it's just a public institution - it has no rights.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:44 pm Prove that this was a "systemic" problem.

Sure. By process of elimination.

1. It's a problem.
2. No specific/individual/isolated factor is at fault (unless you want to do a U-turn here?)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systemic_problem

A systemic problem is a problem due to issues inherent in the overall system,[1][2] rather than due to a specific, individual, isolated factor.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:44 pm Sorry...I must have missed your proof of racism. Where was it?

You are still Race Baiting?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:51 pm No. It's often conscious, and it's a basic of survival.

It WAS the basis of survival. A few thousand years ago.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:51 pm We all naturally have to make assessments of what threats and opportunities are around us, and we all do it all the time.

We HAD to make such assessments. A few thousand years ago.

The behaviour is no longer proportionate to the threat in 2020.

It requires unlearning.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:51 pm And...where was that evidence of GF racism? You forgot to add it.

Why are you still Race Baiting instead of focusing on the problem?

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:59 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Sat Oct 24, 2020 4:44 pm Prove that this was a "systemic" problem.

Sure. By process of elimination.

1. It's a problem.

You don't know that. All you know is that a man died, and that he was already OD'd on fentanyl. That's what you know.

2. No specific/individual/isolated factor is at fault (unless you want to do a U-turn here?)

So no "racism" then? You've given up looking for any evidence...because you know darn well you've got none. Zero, zip, nada.

Classic.