#___ingwhileblack

[Sour Masher]

To continue the conversation in what I hope will be a productive way, what do folks think of the fact that fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, of all races, is trending down since 2015. Is the national attention on this having a positive effect? Was Michael Brown's case, and the attention it got, a tipping point? Is there something else in play? Has that fact that this number is falling gotten enough media attention? Is it a sign of permanent positive changes or just a sign of increased sensitivity by police that will go away if the protests go away?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.f723a20537fb

BTW, for those who have not seen the evidence that race certainly plays a part on this issue, the above article does a good job of making it clear that it does, based on the evidence.

[B-Fly]

Very well informed opinion. Hard to disagree with any of that.

Do you think that situation should be offset with a "fuck the police" rhetoric, and an accompanying disregard for their well-being, calling their fear of violent situations they encounter daily as simply "paranoia"?

Look, it's obviously not my personality or debate style. At the same time, I think it's good to be open to hearing and understanding people's lived experience, frustration and anger around these issues. I think it's particularly helpful for those of us who are white and male to be good and respectful listeners when we have an opportunity to hear the lived experience and perspectives of people of color/women on issues of race and sex. Unfortunately, while RotoJunkie is politically diverse, we're not really very diverse when it comes to race or sex, so a guy like Teenwolf who is married to a person of color is sometimes the closest we're able to get to hearing that perspective here. Beyond that, I'd say read The Root, articles and comments, on #___ingwhileblack incidents and policing incidents, with as little defensiveness as you can muster. Try to put yourself in their shoes and try to understand. That doesn't mean that white men aren't entitled to speak or reason or reflect on issues of racism or sexism or police misconduct. I think we need to engage. I just think it's super important to recognize our blind spots and listen.

[Ken]

Something I find interesting, which isn't a direct response to your question, but something I do find related--why do we all (and I put myself in the "all" category) seem to be drawn to responding to the most inflammatory and divisive perspectives in these threads, rather than debate with folks who have different perspectives, but who express them thoughtfully and less divisively? For instance, I posted some ideas about police training similar to what B-Fly posted, and it didn't gain any traction. But when someone, often TW (who I often agree with on content, but very often disagree with on delivery and attitude to opposing viewpoints) posts something more outrageously articulated, it gets many more responses.

I'm responding to your post to ask this, because, if I recall correctly, I think it is was you that rightly and best pointed out this phenomena--that we tend to focus on the extremes of our disagreement in these "hot topic" threads. But I do think it would be more productive if the debates also happened more in the middle, where we share some common ground, and may be able to come to a consensus on ways to move forward. All that said, again, I do get why one would want to respond to a statement so easily identified as wrong. it is easy to win when engaging someone who is clearly wrong. But if most agree that a position is clearly wrong, what do we all gain by engaging in that debate? And again, I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

Good stuff here.

I think the most thoughtful opinions tend to be towards the middle of any argument. Any time you find that you have no common ground, you're probably on the edge and need to rethink your position (I know I do personally at times).

But those discussions in the middle, being less divisive, also have less disagreement, and gain less traction. I think there is utility in attempting to push those on the far sides back towards the middle, but perhaps that is just naivete talking.

At the core it's probably a sad truth that we like to argue more than we like to discuss.

For the record, I agree with B-Fly's post about the range of personalities in our law enforcement, the need for better vetting and training. And I also agree that in many places and in many ways, police have an incredibly stressful and dangerous job, and the dangers they face cannot be ignored in these conversations. In fact, it is because of those stresses and dangers that I think we need to find solutions to ensure the best, most capable, and more fair people are in these positions, and we need to provide training and oversight that both ensures their safety as they do their job, and also ensures they interact with the public in better ways that lessens the cases of discrimination, fearfulness, and abuse by authority that are obviously a problem.

Again, this is just full of truth, I'm not sure what to say in response other than I agree. Hence the lack of arguments on the topic.

If we want better police, is the starting point increasing pay? Just throwing that out there.

[Teenwolf]

Okay, let me set this up. The police protect entrenched corruption. Therefore, one "bad apple" spoils the bunch, because they aren't willing to fight for the greater good, only self-interest. That bad apple infects the bad apples in close proximity, and eventually, all the apples are rotten.

My local example. City Council was concerned about the level of racism, so they set out to produce a video that included interviews and dialog with native people relaying their experience living in the city. It was less than an hour, but an extremely eye opening look at the problem. All public servants were meant to watch the video, so that in dealing with the public they could exhibit more compassion for the citizenry. Guess how these honorable grown men reacted to being told they had to watch this video? These entitled PIGS, shouted at the presenter until she was forced to leave. They were literally too sensitive to criticism to watch a damn video!

I could go on and on about police corruption and how it disgusts me. My statement could be more accurate if changed to "Fuck the Police State", which relies heavily on racism to determine criminality. So long as they're unwilling to hold their own accountable (in a system set up to encourage unaccountability), then yeah, the whole damn system is corrupt, and by extension, so are all officers. I dont doubt that there are good police officers with good intentions. If they're working within a corrupt system, it hardly matters.

[Sour Masher]

At the core it's probably a sad truth that we like to argue more than we like to discuss.

If we want better police, is the starting point increasing pay? Just throwing that out there.

I think you are right on both of these points. On the police pay thing, I feel both police and teachers should be paid, and vetted, and trained, more effectively. But yeah, if you want better people in any job, making it more attractive to more qualified candidates is a good place to start. That seems like something both sides could agree on. Why isn't that happening? Is it just that neither side is pushing better pay for crucial jobs in making our society better and safer (I think teachers do this in a different way that police, but both are crucial jobs)?

[In the Corn]

Okay, let me set this up. The police protect entrenched corruption. Therefore, one "bad apple" spoils the bunch, because they aren't willing to fight for the greater good, only self-interest. That bad apple infects the bad apples in close proximity, and eventually, all the apples are rotten.

My local example. City Council was concerned about the level of racism, so they set out to produce a video that included interviews and dialog with native people relaying their experience living in the city. It was less than an hour, but an extremely eye opening look at the problem. All public servants were meant to watch the video, so that in dealing with the public they could exhibit more compassion for the citizenry. Guess how these honorable grown men reacted to being told they had to watch this video? These entitled PIGS, shouted at the presenter until she was forced to leave. They were literally too sensitive to criticism to watch a damn video!

I could go on and on about police corruption and how it disgusts me. My statement could be more accurate if changed to "Fuck the Police State", which relies heavily on racism to determine criminality. So long as they're unwilling to hold their own accountable (in a system set up to encourage unaccountability), then yeah, the whole damn system is corrupt, and by extension, so are all officers. I dont doubt that there are good police officers with good intentions. If they're working within a corrupt system, it hardly matters.

So using the words PIGS for the police is plain inflammatory. Your argument would be stronger if you left your clear hatred of peace officers out of the communication.

Can you point me to a YouTube video of this training session, because I just struggle to think that every one of those officers was yelling from the rafters.

Are there bad apples, yup, but let's weed them out as B-Fly, Sour Masher and Ken have suggested.

[B-Fly]

I think you are right on both of these points. On the police pay thing, I feel both police and teachers should be paid, and vetted, and trained, more effectively. But yeah, if you want better people in any job, making it more attractive to more qualified candidates is a good place to start. That seems like something both sides could agree on. Why isn't that happening? Is it just that neither side is pushing better pay for crucial jobs in making our society better and safer (I think teachers do this in a different way that police, but both are crucial jobs)?

It's that teacher and police salaries more than any other critical professions directly hit our pocketbook through our local taxes, so we have a self-interested perspective in keeping their pay as low as possible. We need to consciously compel ourselves to overcome that, though, for the greater good.

[Ken]

To continue the conversation in what I hope will be a productive way, what do folks think of the fact that fatal shootings of unarmed citizens, of all races, is trending down since 2015. Is the national attention on this having a positive effect? Was Michael Brown's case, and the attention it got, a tipping point? Is there something else in play? Has that fact that this number is falling gotten enough media attention? Is it a sign of permanent positive changes or just a sign of increased sensitivity by police that will go away if the protests go away?

https://www.washingtonpost.com/inves...=.f723a20537fb

BTW, for those who have not seen the evidence that race certainly plays a part on this issue, the above article does a good job of making it clear that it does, based on the evidence.

It seems like both the public and the police force are more acutely aware of the risks and dangers that come up in these situations now. Media attention towards the problems certainly played a role in that, which is a good thing.

Whether it is short term or permanent it difficult to tell, I don't think we'll know until we get more data on the trends in coming years.

[B-Fly]

It seems like both the public and the police force are more acutely aware of the risks and dangers that come up in these situations now. Media attention towards the problems certainly played a role in that, which is a good thing.

Whether it is short term or permanent it difficult to tell, I don't think we'll know until we get more data on the trends in coming years.

I hope it's a long-term trend. I think training (particularly around de-escalation), proliferation of body cameras, and proliferation of cell phone videos is helping everyone be more aware and maybe a bit better behaved.

[Teenwolf]

It seems like both the public and the police force are more acutely aware of the risks and dangers that come up in these situations now. Media attention towards the problems certainly played a role in that, which is a good thing.

Whether it is short term or permanent it difficult to tell, I don't think we'll know until we get more data on the trends in coming years.

What does it say about the state of police corruption when every district that institutes body cameras sees a decrease in police brutality?

The entire conversation starts and ends with increasing accountability. Legal consequences for wrongdoing, adding body cams and ensuring that if they're turned off or otherwise tampered with while officers are active on duty, those officers face suspensions or demotions, or they're found in violation of public safety laws or something. Also, being able to call the cops on the douchbag off duty officers who take advantage of their untouchability. The cop who hosts giant hot tub parties into the late hours at his place across from my dads house has been doing it so long that now when the cops show up, you hear the teenagers saying "my dads a cop". Decades now, he's been hearing the police ignore this guy, so police protection from misdemeanors needs to end because it erodes public trust. The cops who get pulled over driving impaired, and the arresting officer drives them home... these all make a huge impact on public trust. These all factor into my view of distrust towards police.

[DMT]

Look, it's obviously not my personality or debate style. At the same time, I think it's good to be open to hearing and understanding people's lived experience, frustration and anger around these issues. I think it's particularly helpful for those of us who are white and male to be good and respectful listeners when we have an opportunity to hear the lived experience and perspectives of people of color/women on issues of race and sex. Unfortunately, while RotoJunkie is politically diverse, we're not really very diverse when it comes to race or sex, so a guy like Teenwolf who is married to a person of color is sometimes the closest we're able to get to hearing that perspective here. Beyond that, I'd say read The Root, articles and comments, on #___ingwhileblack incidents and policing incidents, with as little defensiveness as you can muster. Try to put yourself in their shoes and try to understand. That doesn't mean that white men aren't entitled to speak or reason or reflect on issues of racism or sexism or police misconduct. I think we need to engage. I just think it's super important to recognize our blind spots and listen.

I would add reading White Fragility to this list.

[Gregg]

Something I find interesting, which isn't a direct response to your question, but something I do find related--why do we all (and I put myself in the "all" category) seem to be drawn to responding to the most inflammatory and divisive perspectives in these threads, rather than debate with folks who have different perspectives, but who express them thoughtfully and less divisively? For instance, I posted some ideas about police training similar to what B-Fly posted, and it didn't gain any traction. But when someone, often TW (who I often agree with on content, but very often disagree with on delivery and attitude to opposing viewpoints) posts something more outrageously articulated, it gets many more responses.

I'm responding to your post to ask this, because, if I recall correctly, I think it is was you that rightly and best pointed out this phenomena--that we tend to focus on the extremes of our disagreement in these "hot topic" threads. But I do think it would be more productive if the debates also happened more in the middle, where we share some common ground, and may be able to come to a consensus on ways to move forward. All that said, again, I do get why one would want to respond to a statement so easily identified as wrong. it is easy to win when engaging someone who is clearly wrong. But if most agree that a position is clearly wrong, what do we all gain by engaging in that debate? And again, I'm as guilty of this as anyone.

For the record, I agree with B-Fly's post about the range of personalities in our law enforcement, the need for better vetting and training. And I also agree that in many places and in many ways, police have an incredibly stressful and dangerous job, and the dangers they face cannot be ignored in these conversations. In fact, it is because of those stresses and dangers that I think we need to find solutions to ensure the best, most capable, and more fair people are in these positions, and we need to provide training and oversight that both ensures their safety as they do their job, and also ensures they interact with the public in better ways that lessens the cases of discrimination, fearfulness, and abuse by authority that are obviously a problem.

I do not agree that the debates have to be more in the middle. They need to be more civil.

Many years ago B-Fly and I had some pretty interesting debates. We never called each other names or swore in the body of our posts.

If we can't be civil in here what chance to we have out there?

[Gregg]

What does it say about the state of police corruption when every district that institutes body cameras sees a decrease in police brutality?

The entire conversation starts and ends with increasing accountability. Legal consequences for wrongdoing, adding body cams and ensuring that if they're turned off or otherwise tampered with while officers are active on duty, those officers face suspensions or demotions, or they're found in violation of public safety laws or something. Also, being able to call the cops on the douchbag off duty officers who take advantage of their untouchability. The cop who hosts giant hot tub parties into the late hours at his place across from my dads house has been doing it so long that now when the cops show up, you hear the teenagers saying "my dads a cop". Decades now, he's been hearing the police ignore this guy, so police protection from misdemeanors needs to end because it erodes public trust. The cops who get pulled over driving impaired, and the arresting officer drives them home... these all make a huge impact on public trust. These all factor into my view of distrust towards police.

Many years ago (maybe 40) my Bosses brother responded to a simple domestic call. He knocked on the door. The door opened and he was met with the blast of a double barreled shotgun. He was killed instantly.

Using your standards/examples is it ok for my old boss to be a bigot?

How is your justification different? How is it the same?

[Teenwolf]

Many years ago (maybe 40) my Bosses brother responded to a simple domestic call. He knocked on the door. The door opened and he was met with the blast of a double barreled shotgun. He was killed instantly.

Using your standards/examples is it ok for my old boss to be a bigot?

How is your justification different? How is it the same?

I'm genuinely confused by the question. Can you re-phrase? Thanks.

[Teenwolf]

I do not agree that the debates have to be more in the middle. They need to be more civil.

Many years ago B-Fly and I had some pretty interesting debates. We never called each other names or swore in the body of our posts.

If we can't be civil in here what chance to we have out there?

I want to apologize for any name calling I've engaged in... I usually send a PM if things get super heated in here, but I want to hold myself accountable in much the same way I wish police would.

I appreciate you taking back your statement about the likelihood of being beaten for being in an interracial marriage in Chicago. I'll try and extend the same level of civility, and apologize for the moments I falter. Cheers.