2 NYPD officers executed in response for Brown and Garner

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Good we can agree that Hannity is a clown. He's actually much less of a clown on his radio show but for some reason turns it up for TV.

Clowns are good, no? Cowboys used to be good, until G.W. got elected. Then cowboy became bad. If clown is bad, then you're insulting Hannity. Insulting is good, no?

This whole story isn't really about Brown and Garner. It's about a much broader perception that black men are judged and treated with a negative bias. The spotlight on recent events has just snowballed and people are demanding action.

"Perception" is the key word. Demanding action on perception rather than facts is a form of putting the horse before the cart. Taken to violent extremes, it can be a form of functional psychosis. Milder forms, massive protest and shouting, is not as serious, just silly and disruptive. But they can trigger violent responses in those who are functionally psychotic. So it behooves those with civil power not to fan the flame of perception.

The guy was also clearly crazy.

The key difference which might make that relevant to the "whole story" is whether he was functionally or organically psychotic. If it was an organic, physical, a malfunction in his circuitry, then it would essentially have nothing to do with the whole story except in that he was given the trigger by words and actions around him to express his psychotic rage. If it was functional, then the cause of his mental disorder would be a misperception of his relation to society probably informed, again, by the words and actions around him. If he reacted not out of misperception, but logically from perceptions that fit the facts, then he wouldn't be crazy.

I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

If one doesn't look into the factual basis for what appears to be patterns, then one can create a nonfactual narrative which would not only lead to false conclusions, but stimulate already functionally psychotic tendencies, as well as outbursts of organic psychosis. If one only considers and responds to what"appears" to be disproportionate by raw number alone, and disregards the actual causes for the killings, then one can be led to false conclusions . . . and to silliness, social disruptions, and to more killings, psychotic or otherwise.

I also think the process of oversight in these events is so heavily biased towards the police that it gives the appearance the system isn't fair. Granted, the police should be given the benefit of doubt, but the indictment process could likely be improved.

Social processes are inherently biased toward society. It is the nature of social processes to protect and make cohesive the societal structure. Police are part of the oversight and enforcement of the social process. They are commanded by society to confront those who commit anti-social acts. That "appearance" or fact of bias cannot be eliminated. If you want to suggest how the process should be improved, that would be interesting to hear. I suspect that what's more important than process here, is not a systemic bias, but personal biases. If you can figure out how to, in short time, eliminate personal biases, go for it.

Either the system is biased against black men or people just seem to think so...either way the outrage is real. A big problem is a lack of good national data...this would be a great place to start.

"Real" outrage based on false premises is the big problem. The "system" of justice devised in this country is one of the least biased in the world. Individual misperceptions and biases which can coalesce into various group or crowd mentalities are a problem that no "system" of justice can eliminate. The system can only prosecute the justice due to those who manifest their "perceptions" by socially destructive action.

And we have massive national data which, if read correctly, could explain, at least to rational folks, what the raw numbers really mean. Piling more national data on top of the tomes of info pumped out annually by the Federal government would not only cost more money but would give even more fuel to those who choose to twist data to fit their perceptions.

And as for those "words" you keep mentioning. How about the ones claiming the Mayor is nearly complicit in this crime? How much damage are they doing?

The question is, do the words fit the facts.

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch View Post
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. I didn't mean in general, but specifically the events in question? Did the unwanted elements just happen to show up? Or was there purpose in their presence. Were the majority of marchers saying "what do we want, dead cops" saying that by spontaneous accident or on purpose as planned. Who was the unwanted element in such a crowd? People who opposed what was being chanted? Yeah, I can imagine if a bunch of hard core racists were marching and singing racial epithets, spontaneously mind you, and some peaceful little guy got in the middle of it pleading for tolerance, the racists might spontaneously beat the crap out of him. But I think the racists would not consider the beating just some spontaneous event, but rather a justified retaliation against a deliberate provocation. However possible it could be that some one would accidentally insert himself into a major demonstration which is already filled with reactionary emotion, and then accidentally say or do something to further provoke the demonstrators, however possible that might be, I find it hard to believe in these events. My suspicion, however wrong it may be, is that whatever violence occurred was not spontaneous of the moment. But that it was done, not in the unconscious heat of the moment, but on purpose..

Originally Posted by spence

Weren't there over 25 thousand people marching in NYC? Your example while offensive is in the dozens.

I am not able to see the connection of your response to my post.

It's being spun by some media as if to claim there's a militant uprising welling against the police.

I admit I haven't been paying attention to the media spin.

Isn't that every bit and perhaps more the incitement you're arguing against?

Didn't realize I was arguing against incitement. I thought I was stating my doubts as to the spontaneity of crowd reactions.

In regard, though, to media incitement, I agree that the media like to provoke and draw out for expanded coverage time--provoke for profit. On the other hand, when they DO report objectively, or some semblance of that, there's the problem of viewer twist. As we have been demonstrating in these posts, perceptions based on bias rather than facts is a big problem.

Too bad we are such a flawed species. Wouldn't it be better if we were as regimented as the other species on the planet? That would make our "system" and "process" so much more manageable. Maybe the federal government should gather and publish lots of data on media provocation and viewer misperception. The data, then, could tell us how we are supposed to act.

We would then be a totally peaceful society. It would probably even eradicate the need for torture.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not changing the subject, I just think it's pretty silly to claim political correctness had muted criticism of Obama when he's been subjected to the most racially motivated attacks I've ever seen.

Disregarding and not responding to my main point (your extreme characterization that "nobody" would insult Obama rather than, as I said, less would do so) in order to focus on a reason for that point is changing the subject. And replacing the word "insult" with "political correctness" and "racially motivated attacks" is also changing the subject. "Insults" have a much wider scope than your peeves about political correctness or racial attacks, neither of which necessarily involve insults. And you, again, make a switch--from less ("muted") criticism to the "most" racially motivated attacks you've ever seen. Criticism can involve so much more than racial attacks. Actually, a racial attack would be more of an irrational rant than a criticism. Actually, most of the criticism of Obama that I've ever seen involved his policies, not his race. In fact, though I'm sure there must be some, I don't remember any criticisms of him due to his being black.

You have this maddening habit of morphing from what is said into whatever ax you wish to grind. That you "perceive" that Obama is subject to the most racially motivated attacks you've "ever seen" is too subjective for me to respond. If you want to factually quantify that statement and flesh it out to what you consider a racial "attack" that would make a discussion possible. Otherwise, its just your opinion which may be provocative but not interesting. I recall a previous thread where you thought you were listing racial attacks when nothing on your list was actually racial. And when you could not verify that they were, you referred to them as "code." That's too convenient and unconvincing.

As for the most insulted? I'm sure history has it's moments but certainly within my lifetime.

Your lifetime and your "perception." The first is too short to be relevant, and the last is too subjective to be meaningful for anybody but you . . . or those who want to be told what you say.

[scottw]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Your lifetime and your "perception." The first is too short to be relevant, and the last is too subjective to be meaningful for anybody but you . . . or those who want to be told what you say.

brilliant.............

[scottw]

"Double standards are seductive. If you’ve been demonized unfairly, it is only human to turn the tables at the first opportunity. Giving in to that temptation, however, leads to madness."
http://www.nationalreview.com/articl...jonah-goldberg


funny isn't it...after a while the guy that actually pulled the trigger barely gets mentioned.....

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

The guy was also clearly crazy.


I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this? I agree that blacks are disproportionately killed by cops, the numbers make that obvious. You say, with great honesty, that cops aren't just looking to kill black people. So you think there's some biased part of "the system" that leads to this. Can you specify what that is?

In my opinion, it's caused by a current black culture where (1) the nuclear family has almost gone extinct, (2) rejecting a lifestyle that encourages decidion-making that helps one to avoid poverty, and (3) embracing a lifestyle that encourages the kind of self-destructive decision-making that leads to poverty and hopelessness.

In my opinion, black culture has been lead by the hand to get to this point, by liberal policies which eliminate work ethic, a sense of responsibility, a sense of self-determination, and replacing that with addiction to welfare and victimhood. I say this because blacks who reject the typical black culture and make those good decisions, seem to to well. And whites who make th esame self-destricive decisions, do not do well.

So I don't see it as being about race. People who make the right decisions, regardless of race, do well in this country. People who make terrible decisions, regardless of race, struggle in this country. We all know what the productive decisions are, but for some reason that escapes me, the left is unwilling to tell blacks to change their values and decision-making. You'd rather give them just enough welfare to avoid death, but not nearly enough to get ahead, pat them on th ehead, and say "there, there".

[detbuch]

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post:
I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Reply by Jim in CT:
Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this?

Jim, I think Spence just likes the world "systemic." I don't think that most of the times he uses the word there is actually a "system" to which he is referring. Aside from the redundant nature of the phrase in this case, instead of referring to a "systemic pattern" he could have just said "pattern" as in "a pattern of racial assassinations." Or he could have dropped the word "pattern" and simply said "a system of racial assassinations." But either simplification would be more easily verifiable. If it were an actual system of assassinations, that would be something you could point to and describe. As such, it could readily be prosecuted and rooted out of existence. A system would be intentionally and specifically designed. A pattern of group behavior, however, can occur, more or less, as Spence might like to say, spontaneously. Rather than being intentionally designed, it can just "appear" to happen. So, I think, it was not necessary for Spence to insert the words "systemic" or "system" into his assertion of what there "appears" to be.

I wonder if Spence, being a social and political progressive, unconsciously speaks from the "perspective" that it is systems rather than individuals by which or by whom we must order our lives. That, ultimately, individuals are either too powerless, as in the masses, or too powerful, as in the wealthy, to rely on as the purpose for a social order. So, for a progressive, rather than system being a product of consent by sovereign individuals, it is the regulator of individuals who must act by its consent or dictate. System responsibility, rather than personal responsibility, is either the solution or the fault. So by mingling the loosely similar words into a concoction of an appearance, he manages to convey an intangible problem that cannot be laid at the feet of individual biases, but must be inherent in some "systemic" malfunction

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Quote:
Originally Posted by spence View Post:
I don't think there's a "systemic pattern of racial assassinations" by the police. I do think there appears to be patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. The cops aren't out looking for people to shoot.

Reply by Jim in CT:
Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this?

Jim, I think Spence just likes the world "systemic." I don't think that most of the times he uses the word there is actually a "system" to which he is referring. Aside from the redundant nature of the phrase in this case, instead of referring to a "systemic pattern" he could have just said "pattern" as in "a pattern of racial assassinations." Or he could have dropped the word "pattern" and simply said "a system of racial assassinations." But either simplification would be more easily verifiable. If it were an actual system of assassinations, that would be something you could point to and describe. As such, it could readily be prosecuted and rooted out of existence. A system would be intentionally and specifically designed. A pattern of group behavior, however, can occur, more or less, as Spence might like to say, spontaneously. Rather than being intentionally designed, it can just "appear" to happen. So, I think, it was not necessary for Spence to insert the words "systemic" or "system" into his assertion of what there "appears" to be.

I wonder if Spence, being a social and political progressive, unconsciously speaks from the "perspective" that it is systems rather than individuals by which or by whom we must order our lives. That, ultimately, individuals are either too powerless, as in the masses, or too powerful, as in the wealthy, to rely on as the purpose for a social order. So, for a progressive, rather than system being a product of consent by sovereign individuals, it is the regulator of individuals who must act by its consent or dictate. System responsibility, rather than personal responsibility, is either the solution or the fault. So by mingling the loosely similar words into a concoction of an appearance, he manages to convey an intangible problem that cannot be laid at the feet of individual biases, but must be inherent in some "systemic" malfunction

As usual, awesome points. But I'd love to know what he means by "patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. " I asked him a few times to expand on that, and he didn't, which is likely more revealing than anything he coud have posted. His silence on the topic is deafening.

This is getting to the point where recently, riots are breaking out were there seems to be evidence in one case that the deceased pointed a gun at the cop, and most recently, a man was actually firing a gun into a crowd, was killed by a cop, and the crowd, instead of thaking the cop, turned on him because he was wite and the dead criminal was black. Pure genius on the part o fthe cowd that th ecop was trying to protect.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

As usual, awesome points. But I'd love to know what he means by "patterns of bias within the system that leads disproportionally to more killing of unarmed black men. " I asked him a few times to expand on that, and he didn't, which is likely more revealing than anything he coud have posted. His silence on the topic is deafening.

His silence merely adds to the mystique of nebulous patterns within unnamed systems. It is the "seemingly" plausible assertion that something actually exists, even if there is no rational concrete evidence for it. It is exactly the kind of rhetoric demagogues use to influence the masses to threaten the social order for a change, which upon examination, is more destructive to society than the supposed "problem" it purports to solve.

This is getting to the point where recently, riots are breaking out were there seems to be evidence in one case that the deceased pointed a gun at the cop, and most recently, a man was actually firing a gun into a crowd, was killed by a cop, and the crowd, instead of thaking the cop, turned on him because he was wite and the dead criminal was black. Pure genius on the part o fthe cowd that th ecop was trying to protect.

I know that those who consider themselves "liberal" (whatever they mean by that) poo-poo the notion that the "left" resorts to Alinsky's Rules for Radicals techniques . . . but if it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then its a . . .

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Spence, in all seriousness, can you expand on this? I agree that blacks are disproportionately killed by cops, the numbers make that obvious. You say, with great honesty, that cops aren't just looking to kill black people. So you think there's some biased part of "the system" that leads to this. Can you specify what that is?

In my opinion, it's caused by a current black culture where (1) the nuclear family has almost gone extinct, (2) rejecting a lifestyle that encourages decidion-making that helps one to avoid poverty, and (3) embracing a lifestyle that encourages the kind of self-destructive decision-making that leads to poverty and hopelessness.

In my opinion, black culture has been lead by the hand to get to this point, by liberal policies which eliminate work ethic, a sense of responsibility, a sense of self-determination, and replacing that with addiction to welfare and victimhood. I say this because blacks who reject the typical black culture and make those good decisions, seem to to well. And whites who make th esame self-destricive decisions, do not do well.

So I don't see it as being about race. People who make the right decisions, regardless of race, do well in this country. People who make terrible decisions, regardless of race, struggle in this country. We all know what the productive decisions are, but for some reason that escapes me, the left is unwilling to tell blacks to change their values and decision-making. You'd rather give them just enough welfare to avoid death, but not nearly enough to get ahead, pat them on th ehead, and say "there, there".

The "equality" arguments are not new, but they constantly require a new infusion of the old arguments or else the "perception" that things are not "fair" or "equal" becomes the "reality" which can be the fuel for transfers of power to those who wish to "fundamentally transform" a society. Here's another article from Dr. Sowell that supports what you say, and refreshes an old argument:

http://www.gopusa.com/commentary/201.../?subscriber=1