CharonY

Nope, you do not seem to get the systemic part of it. What you claim is quite a difference to what I said. Specifically the system creates folks with warrior mentalities and especially following they repeated and adversarial exposure to certain groups, it becomes more and more common, it will affect behaviour. Add to that peer pressure (and other factors, there is plenty of lit out there, if one is interested) and the result is that certain folks (say suburban WASPs) are treated quite differently from Afro-Americans. It does not mean that everyone going through the system will become like this, but it does mean that these traits will be overemphasized. And that is why increasing the number of minorities in the police force only had a moderate effect. I should add that is some areas especially community oriented policing and by hiring (minority) locals, there have been positive effects to this systemic issue. And again, it is a failure of assuming that the system is created because of the attitude of the actors- a systemic issue is based on the system itself. It can include hiring practices but it also includes rules, regulations, training, creating a certain atmosphere and so on. An individual exposed to a given system is then consequently more likely to behave a certain way. If a system is corrupt, for example and/or lacks accountability, folks are probably more likely to behave like they are not accountable. If it hits a certain threshold then even folks against it may be pressured into joining in. Can you see the difference now? To make another example, let's say following school curriculum a generation of students learn that Leopold II has civilized the Congo and thereby glorify colonialism. Then, if they go out and think that Leopold's actions were just and that black folks needed to be civilized, do you think the issue is with the student or with the school system? Do you think removing students or teachers would do anything without changing the curriculum? The rest of your post just elaborates on the failure to spot that difference and verges way into strawman county. As such I do not see a good reason to engage with that part.

This kind of implies that screening for racist officers is at the root of the problem. However again, it is not. The US policing system is set up to protect the status quo and has traditionally taken an adversarial stance towards group that were perceived a threat. It has created a warrior mentality where things can get deadly rather fast. Coupling this with low accountability, lower level of training and a systemic disdain for certain groups just creates a breeding ground for deadly encounters. Of course it is a fertile ground for white supremacists, (some anti-gang units like the Lynwood Vikings were actually neo-Nazis) it is not that these guys causes all the needless deaths. In most European countries drunk brawls with the police do not end in deaths, though in perhaps more importantly, most police would not escalate the situation to that point, either.

The origins are not the issue with the sole police officer. If it was the solution would be trivial and enacted decades ago. The issue is the system, which requires reform. The individual is symptom, not the cause.

It should be noted that the drug is a steroid, which are used to manage inflammation and are not antivirals.

Vilifying folks that are victims of a system is a common tactic to invalidate experiences especially of poor folks. It is the cheapest way to use moral outrage to create an us vs them stance in order to wipe away legal or moral standards. It has been used to justify holding folks in blacksites, it is being used to explain deaths during police encounters which should not and in other countries would not have ended up deadly. It is as if only perfect human beings should be protected by the law, which is of course a ridiculous stance.

It also requires a significant lack of empathy, as it also requires ignoring someone who is begging for their life.

Not sure what you mean. Obviously coronaviruses or respiratory virus diseases in general are not something fundamentally new. There is a lot of data from the SARS and MERS outbreaks specifically so many studies are able to compare and contrast new findings with what is already known. One of the things that are not certain yet are which pre-existing conditions are truly mechanistically linked to worse outcomes. A naive model would simply look at outcomes and then look at the variables that are most strongly associated with negative outcomes. But then it is not clear whether it is a factor of the virus specifically (e.g. a molecular interaction) or just a general situation that make treatments more difficult. For example, there are reports that ventilators could more frequently result in lung injury in obese patients. So while the virus might now interact directly with factors related to obesity, obese patients may have worse outcomes when they need to be ventilated. Diabetic patients generally have issues with the immune system. High glucose levels often result in inflammatory responses (adipocytes and macrophages start producing pro-inflammatory molecules). One effect is further reduction of pancreatic cells due to the inflammation, but the other is that it could make cytokine storms more easily to happen. That again is not unique to COVID-19, but something that is known from influenza.

This is a new one. The once referenced earlier are already in or past Phase I trials, respectively.

As mentioned before there is legislation in play to increase police accountability see text here. But to the broader point of funding: the fact that the US spends much more on policing rather than on social programs compared to other economically advanced nations but has worse outcomes in terms of criminality points to an issue with funding priorities. Policing is basically the reactive band-aid for a range of social issues, but does little for prevention these issues to crop up. More importantly, it also leads to mission creep, where police now also have to take on roles which are better fulfilled by health care providers or social workers. The basic idea is then, to increase funding to fight the root of the issue plaguing the US rather than further investing into a system that intrinsically is not working. I think there are different schools of thoughts at play here. One that sees that the roots of crime are social in nature and require deeper adjustments of structural issues. The other is more focused on combating symptoms. Most literature indicate that social measures as a whole are more effective to create large-scale changes and while a balance needs to be found, it at least appears that the US is performing less well than their counterparts.

That is more of a fundamental perhaps even philosophical question. Does HIV kill you by destroying your immune system or is it the inability to handle infections that kill you. Is a virus killing you or just the way your body deals with the infection. The dangerous thing is from that viewpoint folks assume that without (known) underlying conditions folks are safe. That, however is not the case. Younger folks usually have less complications, but we do not know the reasons. There are otherwise healthy young folks who end up in ICUs, but the rate is far lower.

! Moderator Note Off-topic discussion on statues have been split into an existing thread

It is only one of the strategies and even that is more involved than you make it out to be. Take a look here https://populardemocracy.org/sites/default/files/Freedom To Thrive%2C Higher Res Version.pdf Essentially it is a redistribution of municipal funds as an alternative to overpolicing.

There are quite a few. Booker and Harris have prepared a bill for example. And a number of organizations have put in proposals as well. There is a lot to read up. Most measures aim to in increase police liability for their actions, some call for diversion of police funding and divert it to community benefits and meadures (I.e. reducing militarization of police). Another thing is that seems to be lost on some. Black folks suffer from the lowest threshold when it comes to police brutality. If rules are in place guaranteeing their safety, then by default other groups will be protected as well.

I doubt anyone can predict something with certainty. But there is a good chance that these protests will need to become more organized. They have an unprecedented support throughout the population in part by just heinous the cause was. But there will also be fatigue, especially among white folks (black folks do not have much choice in that matter). At the same time, the fact that about everyone has a recorder in their pockets reduces the likelihood that these events will be ignored. But I suspect that there will be at least local change in some areas, though perhaps not a systematic one and not everywhere.

The precise date is uncertain as slaves had no birth certificates as they were obviously considered property. He apparently was listed on a bill of sales in 1859 with his father, though. https://www.tricountytimes.com/opinion/20190207/curious-case-of-sylvester-magee

In that we are in agreement. I think what I felt was missing is that while tribalism or equivalent may be at the heart of racism, history has shaped it into something more systemic, which is at the root of current problems. I also believe that this transcends mere biological responses. The racial assumptions that all of us carry is something that we learn and it is not just a simple reflex. And often it is intentional. If all you learn about Africa is a short passage on subsistence farming somewhere you might be forgiven that you think that Africans still leave in dirt huts with no sanitation. But it is just very ignorant. If you hear whitewashed stories as a Belgian student that it is their ancestor who brought civilization to Congo, it might also colour their attitudes toward black folks without ever seeing one. I.e. racism does not start with seeing that someone is different (i.e. as an extension of a biological reflex). It is a lengthy learning process, which makes unlearning it even harder.

There are several issue with breaking it down to in and out-group recognition. Specifically, groups were defined along different lines, even if they may had racial undertones. But the nature is very different from modern racism. There, for example you will find to have groups (usually enemies) associated with certain negative physical traits. An example the depiction of the Irish during British colonization in the 12th century. However, there was significant less clear delineations in terms of race, ethnicity vs cultural and regional aspects. There is quite some description what the impact of this type of protoracism has (and whether it existed at all) but it is not until the modernity where we have a clear delineation along racial line. And what is even more important and which is missing in your model is that the hierarchical categorization perhaps since Linnaeus (there is some disagreement whether it was really hierarchical but it clearly is at least the precursor of these schools of thoughts). It is only then that we associate systematically certain skin tones with things like temperament and moral character. And it is from there where "white" become synonymous with the norm with which the rest is being measured against. Modern racism is not just a matter of the others. It is about the quality of a given group, if it was there would be a symmetry in prevalent views. It is almost universally accepted that white is not a negative attribute in itself. For many it at least represents power, and to various degree also civilization or ultimately an elite. There is no standing stereotype of whites being dumber or more animal-like in virtual any culture. As such these racial constructs have become so overbearing that it has utterly supplanted the in and outgroup model that you associate with tribalism once race becomes the delineating factor.

Yes, good point. Honestly it is too often the same debunked arguments all over, I wonder whether there is a repository similar to talkorigins, but for racism.

I would differentiate tribalism from racism quite bit. The latter is old, but the latter is a product of the enlightenment where groups were drawn up based on perceived naturalistic features. This notion has spread, through colonialism and other events throughout the world and has become quite persistent. While they can overlap to a certain degree, they are not quite the same.

In order not to appear to be arguing in bad faith, I would ask you to read up on the ongoing and systematic marginalization of black folks in the US. If you have never heard of Jim Crow laws or redlining or any of the measures , it just means that you lack critical knowledge to express informed opinion. What is worse is that same lack of knowledge also leads you to formulate a specific form of historical negationism that is commonly used by white supremacist groups. I.e. that a) it wasn't that bad and they were actually well treated b) that it was ended by the grace of white folks that it was ended. The overall undertone suggests that black folks lack their own agency and their actions have to be seen and directed by their betters. It is not their right to be free, but they were allowed to be free. They were treated right that is why they did not rebel (which is wrong as Swansont pointed out). This, of course is still assuming that the argument was not made in bad faith to begin with. One thing to add is that systemic racism can be baked into historic mechanisms that do not appear to be racial. For example laws that punish certain actions that are more associated with certain groups than others. Or overpolicing certain actions more than others. Even if demographics shift, these mechanisms may not be removed as often they are not considered to be racial, despite having effects along racial borders. Typically, only some level research reveal these inequalities. But sometimes they are also actively enhanced. The historic way to view these inequalities in terms of socioeconomic and health outcomes (African Americans die at triple the rate from COVID-19 than white folks) was to view it as something wrong with the community. Folks were not making right(tm) choices, or they were just culturally off and every now and then there is also the genetic argument. Only recently folks realized (well, actually black folks knew that much longer, as well as folks that bothered to look, but I mean here the overall academic view) has shifted to look at the circumstances and mechanisms leading to these disparities, and it became apparent that laws, rules and as well as simple bias have resulted folks from accumulating generational wealth obtaining worse jobs, create more stress and other issues. I.e. the race-blind research that has been conducted so far did not take specifics of certain groups into account and academia was largely blind to these issues, highlighting generally things from the viewpoint of the majority of a given cohort (which were dominantly white). In fact, research with overrepresentation of black participants were sometimes rejected as being not representative enough. And again, it is a happy illusion that things are fine in Europe. Things are less violent in Europe, for sure, but by pretending that there is no racial inequality there, folks are breeding resentment among visible minorities after a few generations. Often there are small things in the line of "where are you really from" but it can go well beyond them (since ~2010 or so there is actually more research on that matter also in Poland, for example ).

Unlikely, those two groups also suffer disproportionately. "Oriental" is complicated (and suspicious) for a whole bunch of reasons. And the strongest rebuke to this argument is perhaps the fact that Native American and Hispanic groups have joined into the BLM banner. It does seem that predominantly white folks see that as an issue. Possible, but as I mentioned, stacking is a tactic often used against folks with less means (such as black folks). And the worry was that it would be pleaded down to manslaughter (instead of murder in the third). In this case the DA may actually have a decent chance due to the length it took to kill his victim even after he was pleading for his life.

Just read that the DA upgraded the charge to include 2nd degree murder.

I don't disagree.

That is the issue. For a long time in the US (but also elsewhere) racial crime and economic statistics have been used to support the notion that something is wrong with certain folks leading to harsher criminal persecution and further economic disadvantages. There is at least a certain academic sense that this narrative is not only wrong, but also immensely hurtful. I.e. worth outcome is now (again, academically) not seen as a property of a certain project but rather a prompt to look at the context as to why the outcomes are worse. And this is important work. On the other hand, it will not stop certain folks (including politicians and lawmakers) to weaponize that data, though.

I missed the comment, but I have read that the charges laid (third degree murder and second degree manslaughter) may actually have made the situation worse. Many black folks feel that the strategy behind those charges (finding the safest charges that may stick) is in crass contrast to what is often the strategy leveraged against poor and black folks (throwing the book at them to see what sticks, then force them to plead out).