"But what about black on black crime??"

Politics and religion
21

To a degree, I agree. I have no problem treating as serious the opinions of various sites, despite what I may feel about their editorial direction. Despite the occasionally tone deaf* and explicit faoviring of wealthy interests I treat arguments from the Wall Street Journal seriously. Now I will frequently find issue with their arguments, but they are not wholly without merit either.

Same could be said for persons. Despite my personal feelings on William Kristol or Charles Krauthammer, and let it not be said they are favorable, their arguments are worth taking seriously. Deconstructed and argued against in earnest, not simply dismissed.

But should one treat with seriousness Breitbart? Should the rantings of Alex Jones be treated with anything but contempt? I’d argue no. Their actions and words have demonstrated that theirs are not worth serious consideration, that they are unhinged worthy of the manifold scorn they earn. I would dismiss outright any article from them, not even engaging with it. Outright a priori dismissal of their positions and arguments is, in my estimation, a proper response.

Not all sources are created equal. Some are worthy of outright dismissal.

*see their graphic on taxes for the ACA

22

I would argue that their arguments are so laughable as to be argued against on their obvious lack of merit, with only a trivial amount of effort. So even the most terrible arguments still cannot be discounted purely based upon their source.

Discounting any argument based on its source is a logical fallacy, no matter who that source is.

Now, of course, I could understand that the repeated nature of poor arguments coming from a source may make you not bother looking to that source for information. However, if someone here is to quote their argument or suggest that it makes some point, then it’s probably worth at least addressing whatever that person believed was being made as an argument.

23

Again, if you think I just dismissed it because it’s a conservative source, then you didn’t read my entire post or any other of my posts in this thread.

The reason why I pointed it out is because this:

[quote=“Tman, post:13, topic:120471”]
I think they are trying to avoid a narrative.
[/quote] is so obviously wrong.

Stating those facts without trying to provide any context or analysis is a narrative. They’re using those numbers in an explicit overt attempt to spread their Conservative narrative of “black people are dangerous and you should be afraid of them and the police are justified in using force against unarmed black men”

Vox obviously has their own narrative too - most of their writers are unabashed liberals. But at least they thoroughly explain their positions and back up their positions with hard data provided by the FBI and other legitimate sources to provide some amount of context and analysis.

There is no equivalence between the two:

  • An overtly conservative web site presenting scary numbers without context to enable their readers’ confirmation bias to work in overdrive
  • A web site which tends to be liberal trying to explain and provide context for numbers which are indeed depressing. And they do so in order to try to find solutions to those problems, and also assuage lizard brain fears by explaining why scary-sounding numbers probably shouldn’t actually be scary to you
24

Nonsense, that’s the narrative you’d like conservatives to have. The actual conservative narrative on this that I’ve observed is basically twofold:

a) police shootings aren’t especially racially biased, because if you take into account the higher likelihood of dangerous encounters with blacks given the relatively higher black violent crime rate per population, the figures are either about what you’d expect or slightly under, and

b) if the phrase “Black Lives Matter” is to be taken seriously, then black on black crime is a far more important cause of black deaths than what police do - i.e. the point being that BLM is just a hypocritical front for the hard Left agitators that’s turning lots of well-meaning, concerned people into useful idiots.

25

A black man explains far better what I was trying to say in this thread - that it’s not about the existence of or the accuracy of those numbers, it’s about the fact that those numbers are being used at all:

[quote]There were a few instances when Trump referenced specific problems
facing Black and Latino communities with statistics. It felt… off.

I don’t want to discuss whether the numbers were right or wrong
themselves. I want to talk abt when politicians use numbers like them.

We always hear politicians speak of minority groups with figures, numbers,
stats. This happens on BOTH sides of the aisle.

But ask yourself, **when was the last time you heard a politicians talk **
**about WHITE people, with numbers & facts & figures in the same **
way.

**Imagine a politicians talking abt heroin addiction n white communities **
w/ numbers, or mass shooting committed by whites (men) w/ numbers?

Not saying that it doesn’t happen, but I AM saying that we r much more
likely 2 hear politicians talk abt minorities w/stats, than whites

What’s that about? What message does it send? What does framing like that accomplish?

Well, let me tell u how I felt hearing those numbers about black crime,
poverty, lack of education, from the RNC floor last night.

I felt like it gave anyone in that room the license to think I, as a Black man, was on the WRONG side of all those statistics.

When we tie entire groups of people to statistics, all the time, we urge
ppl to link ALL of those in that group to PROBLEMS, constantly

Throwing around a single # with an entire minority strips away ALL the
mitigating factors: income, education, segregation, I COULD GO ON

And it gives ppl who want to think the WORST of a person because of who
they are the ability to say, “Well, if X % of ur group is bad…”

"How do I know you’re not the X?"

So the next time ANY politician, on ANY side of the aisle tries to
reduce an entire group of people to a number, ask yourself a few ???s

Because even if the NUMBERS are totally right, the framing may very well be toxic as hell.[/quote]

26

Sam Sanders is why I listen to the NPR Politics podcast.

27

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/07/22/video-austin-police-body-slam-black-teacher-tell-her-blacks-have-violent-tendencies/

The investigation comes after the emergence of police video footage showing not only the June 2015 arrest but also a scene afterward, when another white officer told the teacher that cops are wary of blacks because of their “violent tendencies” and “intimidating” appearance.

“Ninety-nine percent of the time … it is the black community that is being violent,” the officer tells her. “That’s why a lot of white people are afraid. And I don’t blame them.

(My editorial comments removed.)

28

This was interesting and entertaining. I certainly don’t share all his sentiments.