Public Discourse on Race and Policing

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@evograd

I’ll say that the goal isn’t simply to find solutions for the societal problems that disproportionately affect the black population, it’s also to recognise the actions that led to those problems in the first place. It just so happens that a lot of the problems are the results of an explicitly racist past

I agree entirely with you and Thoughtful that racism in the past is was real and is a necessary part of explaining how things came to be the way they are. I also agree entirely that there is still racism today. We can and must recognize the reality of racism, past and present if there is to be any solution to problems rooted in racism. I take this as so obvious that it should not need stating. The point of my remarks was not to deny the existence of racism, or to deny the value of studying history with an awareness of the reality of racial prejudice, but to protest a certain manner of drawing conclusions from numbers, and on a certain emotional atmosphere attitude which makes it hard to discuss numbers (or any facts) without raising accusations of racism (or sexism, or other things). Joshua asked why people find racism difficult to discuss. I said that one factor – not the only factor, but certainly one – is the reality that anything one says, no matter how dispassionate, fair, moderate, sensitive, etc. one tries to be, is liable to be seized upon and labelled as springing from conscious or unconscious racism.

This applies also to discussion of “gender issues,” of course, and to other things.

@thoughtful

it is impossible to know the actual crime rate,

I disagree with “impossible.” In some cases it may be difficult. It’s not always impossible. In any case, I was not pretending to include undetected or unreported crimes. It is well known that much crime goes either undetected or unreported. (Many things are stolen without those thefts ever being reported to the police, for example, and therefore no one is ever charged.) I was talking about cases where crimes have been reported, and where the process of charging suspects, holding trials, allowing appeals, etc. has been put into motion. At the end of such a process, repeated thousands of times over a number of years in a given jurisdiction, It is possible to know, in many cases, which groups tend to commit more of the various crimes that are reported. The knowledge is always approximate, because detectives and juries and judges can make mistakes, and sometimes innocent people are found guilty and sometimes guilty people are found innocent, but overall it is not impossible to discover broad patterns, where they are pronounced enough. So, for example, even if only 30% of all shoplifting is reported to the police, if, in the reported cases, when all is said and done, X percent of all convicted shoplifters turn out to be of a certain color, or age group, or sex, or religion, etc., that is a fact which should be allowed to be publicly stated without incurring charges of racism, sexism, etc.

Question: If we were talking about crimes that typically involve middle-class white people, e.g., tax evasion, embezzlement, buying political influence, and I made a factual claim that, say, 70% of those found guilty of those crimes were white, would you be arguing that “it’s impossible to know the actual crime rate” and therefore that my claim about the predominant whiteness of those committing such crimes should be simply ignored, as utterly unreliable and indicative of no significant social reality?

[sfmatheson]

Does anyone know whether strawmen reproduce sexually (like human men) or asexually (like the broomsticks in Fantasia)?

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

In this conversation?

What were the furry things in star trek? Tribbles? How did they reproduce?

[davecarlson]

@swamidass

What were the furry things in star trek? Tribbles? How did they reproduce?

I think it was by exposure to water. Or was that the Mogwai?

[Tim]

@swamidass

What were the furry things in star trek? Tribbles? How did they reproduce?

McCoy concludes that tribbles use over 50% of their metabolism for reproduction and that they are born pregnant.

– Tribble - Wikipedia

[swamidass (S. Joshua Swamidass)]

Uncanny, isn’t it?

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Eddie

Question: If we were talking about crimes that typically involve middle-class white people, e.g., tax evasion, embezzlement, buying political influence, and I made a factual claim that, say, 70% of those found guilty of those crimes were white, would you be arguing that “it’s impossible to know the actual crime rate”

Yes. I’m quite certain we do not know it for these crimes as well.

@Eddie

therefore that my claim about the predominant whiteness of those committing such crimes should be simply ignored, as utterly unreliable and indicative of no significant social reality?

That was not my argument.

You wrote:

@Eddie

Now, suppose someone says that since the population (of this hypothetical city), is half white and half black, this disproportionate figure (75% black arrests vs. only 25% white arrests) proves that there is “systemic racism” in the police force. Let’s analyze this carefully, and see if it does

So then you went on to explain how one might analyze this charge of systemic racism in the police department.

@Eddie

Now, suppose someone were to argue that it’s reasonable that 75% of the people arrested for said crimes should be black, given that 75% of the people committing those crimes are black. I think the response to this argument would be predictable. A number of culturally influential voices would shout that this argument is “racist.” But is it? If it’s based purely on objective numbers – and for the sake of the example, we are assuming the numbers are correct for the hypothetical city – then it’s not an inherently racist argument.

Your assumption is that someone might call this response racism. I tried to point out that the response itself doesn’t follow considering we can’t know actual crime rate and you’re not considering what would be real historical context in cases like these. In your post, I mostly saw you agree with the fact that we can’t know the actual crime rate even though you still dodged it in some of your examples. Could someone think an insensitive, over-simplified response to a charge that there is systemic racism in the police is racist? Sure, they might, if they see racism as common and forgiveable.

My general emphasis was that we as Christians should listen and be more concerned about our own hidden sin rather than being charged with sin that we’re innocent of, as we’re not too good at noticing our own sins. So yes, I agree that these conversations can be difficult because in our culture people do like to vilify others. But I’d suggest maybe we as Christians should be the first not to do this and instead regard others as better than ourselves. Then these conversations shouldn’t be hard for us because there’s nothing to fear, only things to learn.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

thoughtful Valerie:

I agree with you that Christians should be concerned about their own sins, and ready to confess them. But we seem to be giving two very different answers to Joshua’s question:

Your answer seems to be that the reason so many people find race a difficult issue to talk about is that they deep down know that either they themselves personally, or their societies acting collectively, act in racist ways (whether always consciously or not), and have trouble admitting this (because very few people are comfortable criticizing themselves).

My answer is quite different. I don’t deny the existence of the sort of people you are talking about: people who either personally harbor racist attitudes or people who have “looked the other way” when race-based inequality has occurred in their societies. And I do think it’s good for people and individuals to examine their own attitudes, whether racist or sexist or any other. But that is not my focus here. My focus is on a different phenomenon, i.e., the cases where charges of racist attitudes are not warranted, but people are afraid to lay out the facts that would (in their minds) challenge the claim of racism, because they know that any denial of the current political correctness will raise further charges of racism – against them in particular, for speaking their minds.

“Right-minded” people these days are supposed to be constantly confessing how racist, sexist, homophobic, etc., they are, or used to be, or, even if they don’t finger themselves, they are supposed to be constantly indicting their societies for being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. And if some people don’t happen to agree that these charges of racism etc. are always warranted, they can expect that any expression of their disagreement will be taken as evidence that they are “in denial” of something that the intelligentsia has already accepted as unshakable truth. In other words, disagreement will not lead to a Socratic search for the truth of the matter, but simply to more charges of racism, sexism, etc., against the person voicing the disagreement. So people tend to clam up, unless they are extremists.

So the result is that we get extremists on one end who are still still pretty racist, sexist, etc., and open about it, and extremists on the other end, preaching that all of Western civilization from the get-go has been pretty much racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. (and largely still is), while the moderate middle, who think that the truth may be more complex than either of these positions, that some charges of “isms” are warranted but that other charges are not, tends to stifle itself, censor itself, because it knows that even a qualified, partial disagreement with the politically correct self-righteousness of the intelligentsia will demonize the person offering the disagreement.

So we have two very different emphases here. You are more concerned with the dangers of racism itself. I think that’s an important concern, but I’m more concerned with a growing tendency toward the homogenization of thought and feeling in modern society, and the corresponding self-imposed restraints upon the expression of belief. The particular issue doesn’t matter; it’s the trend toward self-censorship that concerns me.

[thoughtful (Valerie (non-scientist))]

@Eddie

Your answer seems to be that the reason so many people find race a difficult issue to talk about is that they deep down know that either they themselves personally,

No I think most people think they are good people.

@Eddie

their societies acting collectively, act in racist ways (whether always consciously or not), and have trouble admitting this (because very few people are comfortable criticizing themselves).

Yes, I think people have trouble criticizing themselves and their societies. Because sin is pervasive I think racism is too and people don’t want to admit that because they tie all kinds of baggage to it or worry about what it means for themselves.

@Eddie

My focus is on a different phenomenon, i.e., the cases where charges of racist attitudes are not warranted, but people are afraid to lay out the facts that would (in their minds) challenge the claim of racism, because they know that any denial of the current political correctness will raise further charges of racism – against them in particular, for speaking their minds.

Yeah, I just don’t see personally that this phenomenon exists. For one, I’m married to someone with autism. Two, I’m not afraid to share my opinion. Also, have you seen social media? My bigger concern is that in our society people aren’t listening, instead we have over-reactions to over-reactions and try to stifle free speech because we prefer to listen to our own echo chambers.

Have you ever self-censored?

@Eddie

You are more concerned with the dangers of racism itself.

Yes, and sin generally. If there are thousands of people out on the streets we should realize that there is a problem in society. People do not feel heard.

@Eddie

a growing tendency toward the homogenization of thought and feeling in modern society, and the corresponding self-imposed restraints upon the expression of belief. The particular issue doesn’t matter; it’s the trend toward self-censorship that concerns me

Yeah I think we have the opposite problem - fragmentation of society where we do not care to listen to other side. I just don’t know anyone that self-censors except not to get in a shouting match with others that feel differently that don’t want to listen.

I just think that those who genuinely care about making change in the country know that shouting someone down isn’t going to make change in society; it’s actually convincing others to think differently. There’s wisdom in being patient and seeing what sort of person you’re having a conversation with.

[Eddie (Edward Robinson)]

@thoughtful

Yeah, I just don’t see personally that this phenomenon exists.

Well, I don’t know how you can’t see it, because it’s pervasive, and scores of books have been written about it, the latest one being Live Not by Lies by the Christian author Rod Dreher.

@thoughtful

and try to stifle free speech because we prefer to listen to our own echo chambers.

A pretty good description of a lot of what goes on in the “arts” side of academia, especially, but also generally at universities where speakers are disinvited, speech codes are enforced, etc.

@thoughtful

Have you ever self-censored?

I tend not to, and for that personality trait of mine, I have paid dearly, in terms of jobs, career, and income. (I’m scholar by training in the philosophy/religion area.) My “colleagues” – people who went through grad school with me – did much better than I did, when they either agreed with the reigning left-liberal views prominent in the arts section of the academy, or at least stifled their disagreements and gave the impression of going along with current politically correct views. One of them frankly told me that my directness was penalizing me, career-wise, because, while many other scholars he knew actually privately agreed with many of my views, they wouldn’t want to be associated with me when I voiced them. (I.e., they were self-censoring, concerned about appearing politically correct within the academic world.)

@thoughtful

If there are thousands of people out on the streets we should realize that there is a problem in society.

Yes there are problems in society. And the way to address them is direct action aimed at the causes of the problems, not self-righteous posturing about what nobly anti-racist or anti-sexist people we are. For example, if we really want to make it possible for minority students to advance in society, we should demand that elected representatives create a system of interest-free student loans, subsidized by the federal government, for all poor students, of whatever color, which would not be required to be repaid – not even a penny – until after the student has graduated and obtained a good job that earns over X thousand dollars a year. This would allow the poorest of minority students, if they had the academic talent to succeed in higher education, to go study anywhere without fear of accumulating a crippling debt that they and their families could never repay. And we could demand the firing of all the people working for state education departments and teachers’ colleges who for 50 years have been preaching against systematically teaching grammar and spelling in school, and their replacement by educators who would restore the mastery of English (written, read, and spoken) to a central place in pre-university education, because mastery of the English language was one of the traditional means by which new immigrants and members of minorities could progress economically and socially. And those are just two of thousands of things that could be done to actually make things better for minorities. Preening ourselves about how much more progressive our racial views are than our grandparents’ view is just empty self-congratulation. Action is better than pious politically correct sermons.

[the above section edited for clarity]

@thoughtful

fragmentation of society

Oh, yes, American society is very fragmented – I’m far from contesting that! The homogenization I’m talking about is in the views promulgated in institutions of higher education, and by the mainstream media (not alternate media such as the internet, but the New York Times, the PBS, most of the major news-entertainment networks [except one]). There is a homogenization, along politically correct lines, being taught and promulgated by the intelligentsia. And when anyone resists that homogenization, they are labelled as racist, anti-science, sexist, homophobic, fascist, etc. The American intelligentsia is more homogeneous than it ever was before, and that’s not a good thing.

Ironically, if there were more real diversity of thought among the intelligentsia, there would be less polarization of society overall. It’s precisely because the thought of the intelligentsia has become monolithic and in spirit totalitarian (totalitarian on the leftist side) that a populist reaction against learning, science, universities, etc., has sprung up, and so America is divided between unpleasant extremes like Donald Trump’s supporters on one side and politically correct leftist ideologues on the other. If there were more genuine diversity of thought in our universities, a diversity reflected in faculty hirings (so that the proportion of professors on the university faculties corresponded roughly to the social/political leanings of the actual population), there would not be polarization between uneducated know-nothings and educated people; there would be a healthy public debate on all issues between educated people of different opinions. And where there is open public debate, not driven by right or left ideology, but by an interest in solving concrete social problems, there is hope of improving the situation regarding racism, and many other social problems.

The subject of the homogenization of thought really demands a separate discussion, so I will exit this one now. If anyone wants to start of a thread on the topic, I may (or may not) choose to participate in it, depending on time constraints and the tone of the discussion.