Clinamenic
Binary & Tweed
Only instead of switching between romantically leading a woman on and taking strolls around copenhagen, he switches between subtlety and transcontinentally triggering strangers online and browsing reuters articles.
Does your intensely forensic analysis control for why black people might have more "encounters with the police" than white people do?This is an impression you've gotten thousands of miles away via news and social media coverage, which is grounded in no personal experience and I imagine, no real statistical investigation.
My understanding is that, controlling for police encounters, the statistics do not show a strong bias where police shoot blacks at higher rates. That higher rates of black victims can be explained primarily the statistics, by rate of encounters with police.
Which isn't to say there isn't structural discrimination in the justice system. But is to say that these kind of hypothetical speculations are ungrounded scientifically.
Does your intensely forensic analysis control for why black people might have more "encounters with the police" than white people do?
Does your intensely forensic analysis control for why black people might have more "encounters with the police" than white people do?
Which isn't to say there isn't structural discrimination in the justice system.
The higher rates of stops, frisks, etc is arguably evidence of structural racism. It just isn't evidence for the intuition that police would gun down any black Rittenhouse in a heartbeat, while regularly letting a white Rittenhouse waltz free. (Which is the usual, widespread/circulated claim that's driving the "racism" discourse on this trial.) Now, from the perspective of a system trying to minimize crime, you can say racial profiling is "fair" because there's a meaningful statistical correlation between race and criminality that gives race some predictive power. Note that, this is just what inference is. Inference just is stereotyping. From the perspective of the individual, OTOH, such a policy means you're getting searched/stopped/put in interactions with police for reasons that have nothing to do with who you are as a person, and which are completely outside your control. Probably both perspectives should be taken into account. E.g. we have widespread gender-based profiling in the justice system. Not clear to me that should change. What's different about race that changes the status? (Open question. I'm sympathetic there is something different, I just can't say what it is.)@suspended, if rates of shootings by police are not evidence for racism in the justice system (assuming that includes policing), then what would you say does constitute evidence for it?
I mean, you must think there is some evidence for it in order to think it exists, I presume.
This is the problem I talked about in the other thread I think. Two major points.statistics will never be able to prove anything
OK, I can see you've put some thought into that response, so I'm not dismissing it - but I think it's instructive, before we start with a "but what about a black Kyle Rittenhouse?" type thought experiment, to consider the sorts of incidents in which a black man has been killed by police following an actual or suspected infraction infinitely less serious than shooting three people and killing two of them. Just in the last few years, and just out of the ones I can think of off the top of my head - and I am very far from being even an amateur scholar of fatal police violence in the USA - this has included shoplifting a handful of cigars, paying for something (perhaps unwittingly) with a counterfeit $20 bill, and even having an 'illegal' air freshener hanging from the rearview mirror in his car.The higher rates of stops, frisks, etc is arguably evidence of structural racism. It just isn't evidence for the intuition that police would gun down any black Rittenhouse in a heartbeat, while regularly letting a white Rittenhouse waltz free. (Which is the usual, widespread/circulated claim that's driving the "racism" discourse on this trial.) Now, from the perspective of a system trying to minimize crime, you can say racial profiling is "fair" because there's a meaningful statistical correlation between race and criminality that gives race some predictive power. Note that, this is just what inference is. Inference just is stereotyping. From the perspective of the individual, OTOH, such a policy means you're getting searched/stopped/put in interactions with police for reasons that have nothing to do with who you are as a person, and which are completely outside your control. Probably both perspectives should be taken into account. E.g. we have widespread gender-based profiling in the justice system. Not clear to me that should change. What's different about race that changes the status? (Open question. I'm sympathetic there is something different, I just can't say what it is.)
And then beyond the stops stuff, I think there have been some reasonable, plausible-sounding findings about sentencing disparities, once non-racial factors have been controlled for. Seems very possible, I could believe it! But I haven't really checked out the relevant literature, so it's not clear to me how well these studies are controlling for more class-related factors, like how a defendant comports themself in a courtroom, how they present themselves. (Mind you, I think it'd be shitty if class factors affect sentencing too—it's just not straightforwardly racist in such a case.)
What you're saying is you have a sense of frequency of events that is based on how often the media circuit surfaces news of it across internationally. You understand how many cycles of human ideology, selection bias etc are involved in the journey from a shooting happening --> local media picking it up --> virality/national news --> your Twitter feed? That when an editor picks a story based on "relevance" he's enacting a cybernetic process, in which events create narrative and narrative "creates" events by curating them out of noise into your Guardian headlines?I think, on balance, that if these kinds of events were happening all the time to white people, we'd hear about them - even I, in little old England, would hear about them.
But that's just my point, really - it's not just the Guardian, is it? I get news shoved in my feed every time I open a browser, and from all sorts of sources, not just liberal ones. Plus the better-funded UK news sources aren't just recycling whatever they can get from CNN, Fox, or the major newspapers or whatever. They have their own correspondents based there.What you're saying is you have a sense of frequency of events that is based on how often the media circuit surfaces news of it across internationally. You understand how many cycles of human ideology, selection bias etc are involved in the journey from a shooting happening --> local media picking it up --> virality/national news --> your Twitter feed? That when an editor picks a story based on "relevance" he's enacting a cybernetic process, in which events create narrative and narrative "creates" events by curating them out of noise into your Guardian headlines?
Start googling around for stories of unarmed white men getting killed by police. I promise you you will find them. They just don't surface to international news. It happens regularly each year. In absolute numbers, as often as unarmed black men according to the statistics. Which no one denies, the contention is that is should happen less often than to white men because blacks are a smaller portion of the population. So your hypothesis here is just laughable.But that's just my point, really - it's not just the Guardian, is it? I get news shoved in my feed every time I open a browser, and from all sorts of sources, not just liberal ones. Plus the better-funded UK news sources aren't just recycling whatever they can get from CNN, Fox, or the major newspapers or whatever. They have their own correspondents based there.
So a white guy in America getting shot (or suffocated etc.) by cops for having his shoelaces untied would certainly be picked up on by UK news sources, I think. It's exactly the sort of thing the more conservative media would absolutely leap on, in fact.
I have to ask, though: with such an extremely dim view of "journalism", and perhaps all media in general, how do you get any information about what's happening in your country or in the world at large? I mean, you are presumably aware that a young man named Kyle Rittenhouse has been on trial for shooting some other men during a protest. Now how did that information arrive in your brain? I know you didn't just extend your antennae and pick up some stray bytes from the cosmic data matrix, because only @luka can do that. So presumably you watched/read/listened to a product put out by one or other of several large media corporations - right? Or maybe some smaller ones, but corporations nonetheless. Now you may have a preference for some of these over certain of the others, based on your opinion of their trustworthiness (among other criteria, perhaps), but that implies that you consider at least some "journalism" not to be totally worthless.Journalism is like, peak middle/upper-middlebrow culture. Like Malcolm Gladwell or some shit. All these very entertaining, tidily packaged narratives that end up failing to replicate when put up to a bare modicum of conceptual or statistical rigor.