Comment by HowFarFallen | Hacker News Reader

Comment by HowFarFallen | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

>I have privilege as a White person because I can do all of these things without thinking twice about it … I can go jogging (#AmaudArbery). I can relax in the comfort of my own home (#BothemSean and #AtatianaJefferson). I can ask for help after being in a car crash (#Jonathan Ferrell and #RenishaMcBride). I can have a cellphone (#StephonClark). I can leave a party to get to safety (#JordanEdwards). I can play loud music (#JordanDavis). I can sell CDs (#AltonSterling). I can sleep (#AiyanaJones). I can walk from the corner store (#MikeBrown).

Who really says this?

Michael Brown could've had a regular visit to the store too. Instead, he chose to brazenly steal whatever he wanted and waltzed out despite the owner's protestations, strutted down the middle of the street with his stolen goods, wrestled a pistol from the attending police officer and discharged a shot in the struggle, and then - having made a little distance in his getaway - chose to turn around and charge at the officer even as he demanded cooperation.

Arbery could've had a pleasant jog too. Instead he chose to enter a stranger's house, flee when confronted by concerned neighbours, and very nearly wrestle away his firearm - and we all know how that would've ended - creating a life or death situation for the good Samaritan.

Why, if this is such a terrible phenomenon, must we lie to create martyrs? I don't even disagree with the scourge of brutality, especially having seen a 17 year old White boy shot and killed by police today in a welfare check. But why is it so common in the BLM movement to rally behind violent criminals on the receiving end of justifiable responses? I understand the black incentives for doing so, but why are Whites perpetuating these myths so enthusiastically? Why aren't they rioting for the White victims instead of (or at the very least, as well as) these black thugs?

But why is it so common in the BLM movement to rally behind violent criminals on the receiving end of justifiable responses?

Are you seriously trying to assert that ending someone's life is a justifiable response to them shoplifting or trespassing? No doubt these are crimes, and the people doing them should not have been doing them, but the suggestion that the inevitable outcome is someone dying is completely ridiculous.

People commit these crimes all over the world every day, but they never don't end up getting killed. That only seems to happen in the US.

> they never don't end up getting killed. That only seems to happen in the US

But then is the problem racism or simply police violence, which is both a product and a demand of the whole of American society?

Fortunately in the US, 99.998% of police encounters don't result in a death.

I mean that's just verifiably untrue: https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

Sorry, i skimmed the page but don't see the relevant statistic. They're talking about lifetime risk, not per-encounter risk, no?

Granted, i totally just grabbed the two numbers and divided so it's possible it was a bad source.

I'm sure you're not being disingenuous so I'll politely remind you of the part in each of those events where the deceased attempted to wrestle control of a firearm.

As a foreigner, I am perplexed too. This seems to me a class problem rather than a race problem, and ignoring the white victims and framing it as a race problem only misdirects from the actual issue.

The problem is that the rich rule the US and the poor are left to feed off the scraps, and pitting poor whites against poor blacks only benefits the elite that wants everyone to be too busy fighting each other to notice who's really in charge.

There's a theory that this focus on identity politics is encouraged by elites, as a way of distracting people from class politics. I'm not convinced it's true, in that it's a deliberate strategy, but i imagine they're pretty pleased that it's happening.

Exactly agreed, I don't think this level of cooperation/manipulation is very likely or easy, but it's certainly very convenient for the elite.

The systemic problem is the huge overlap of class (aka being poor) and race (aka being black) in the US. And that, along with general racist views, makes it such unique, and utterly racist, system. Ignoring that overlap means ignoring the root cause, for the US that is. in other countries, things are different.

You've cherry picked two names out of the eleven mentioned in the quote, and in both cases the facts as to what led to the deaths that you call "violent criminals on the receiving end of justifiable responses" are in dispute and you have chosen to present them in a way that is not truthful about what is known.

For example, your characterisation of events leading to the death of Arbery is written to suggest he broke into someone's home, where fact he entered an open construction site. To quote the BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-52623151:

> Around the time of the incident, a number of emergency calls were made, CBS News has reported. In one, a neighbour said a black man was seen at a home under construction. When asked if the man was breaking in, the caller replied "No, it's all open, it's under construction."

> The owner of the home that was under construction told CNN that, while his CCTV captured four short clips of a man that appeared to be Mr Arbery "trespassing" on his properly on 23 February, he had not reported any crime to the police.

> "I don't want it to be put out and misused and misinterpreted for people to think that I had accused Mr Arbery of stealing or robbery, because I never did," he said.

> A lawyer for the homeowner later said its their belief that Mr Arbery had been looking for water. Security footage shows he was not the only person to enter the construction site - children from the neighbourhood were also filmed playing at the site.

> But why is it so common in the BLM movement to rally behind violent criminals on the receiving end of justifiable responses?

Unless there is a uniform penalty for these behaviours of death without trial, these are not in fact 'justifiable responses'.

> violent criminals on the receiving end of justifiable responses?

Though justice be thy plea, consider this: That in the course of justice none of us Should see salvation.

I can only recommend that you listen to the third season of the Buried Truths podcast if you have that opinion of the Ahmaud Arbery case.

For your last paragraph, check out Douglas Murray's Madness of Crowds (best consumed as audiobook imo): https://www.audible.com/pd/The-Madness-of-Crowds-Audiobook/1...

Great analysis of how we got here.

I wonder which startup founder, VC investor or other tech bro doesn’t want his name attached to this...

It's an (american) election year, so that would explain most of the politics and propaganda behind that.

Yes, this selective political game of blame happens every election year. To them, it doesn't matter who is in office, they will still have someone or something to 'blame' for a selective issue.

If it doesn't fit their message, then they will ignore it. Their real message is: 'Some black lives matter to us, but not the ones that disagree with us.'

So much for inclusivity™... /s

Unfortunately it's been going on for a long time.

For example, why was OJ Simpson's verdict met with adulation when everyone knew he was guilty? That's the first thing that popped in my head when I read their last paragraph about lying to ourselves, though I admit I just listened to a podcast where Sam Harris or John McWhorter bring OJ up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MPHUu9sAGKo ("Sam Harris' podcast: The New Religion of Anti_Racism")

> For example, why was OJ Simpson's verdict met with adulation when everyone knew he was guilty?

Uh, maybe because the glove didn't fit? It's one thing to say "everyone knew" he was guilty, but when prosecutors don't even do they're job properly you can't just convict based on what "everyone knows".

Reply on news.ycombinator.com