That’s really the point of this. When the #BLM-types talks stats, it’s almost always raw numbers. I had a long discussion last week with a BLM supporter. All he would say is that blacks were killed by cops at a disproportionate rate compared to the population. But I could never get him to look at why.
By your own statement, the topic includes BLM, blacks killed by cops, and the rate relative to population. These topics should be fair game.
The why was largely irrelevant. So if all we did was look at these raw numbers, it would make it look like the cops arrested looters and rioters at a disproportionate rate, which would support the systemic racism argument. And I think they know that the numbers don’t tell the whole story.
Your statement here shows that without the "why," one arrives at the undesired outcome that systemic racism is supported by the raw data. Your implication is that the "why" is relevant and helps us to understand and interpret the raw data.
And my anecdotal evidence is that this thread has gotten quite a few views, but the participation by those on the left has been minimal, and the responses have not actually addressed the OP. There’s just nothing to spin.
It may be that your point was too ambiguous to respond to because it was obfuscated and the reader was supposed to "guess" what it was. A more effective strategy in communication would be to do the following:
1. Tell us what you are going to tell us (bullet point style)
2. Tell us in full glorious detail
3. Tell us what you told us (in summary style)
When pressed on the point of the OP, you said:
The point is that the percentage of each ethnic group arrested (again, if everyone who looted or rioted was actually arrested) would not match up with the ethnic makeup of our country. Yet when stats of who gets killed by cops is presented, the argument is that blacks are disproportionately killed compared to whites. They think it should be equal to the ethnic makeup of our nation and because it’s not, it shows ethnic bias against blacks by cops. But here we have slew of riots and looting all across the country. If the BLM supporters are correct, then the arrestees percentages should match the ethnic makeup of the nation.
A fair point. You say, for example, that if blacks make up 13% of the population, but were they involved in say 80% of the looting and rioting,
why is this not indicative of collective black criminality, but when blacks make up 13% of the population, but are involved in 30% police shootings,
why is this indicative of collective (the collective of "the system") or systemic racism.
The answer is simple --
they are not being consistent. But the answer begs the question;
why are they not being consistent? This shows that, while your point may be salient, it is not an effective argument. In fact, even sound, effective arguments are not an effective argument, because you haven't answered the real "why" to your own question -- why aren't they being consistent.
They aren't being consistent because they are being emotionally manipulated. They aren't being consistent or logical because they are 'out of their minds.' I mean out of their minds in a technical sense. Psychologically, when your emotions well up, they overwhelm your logic centers and prevent you from thinking rationally. Women, who have many times the number of connections between the left and right hemispheres of the brain than men do, and who use both hemispheres of their brains simultaneously, can overcome this deficiency more easily than men who are almost entirely incapable of thinking both logically and emotionally at the same time.
In my experience in speaking with my friends of color who are steeped in leftist thinking, it is nearly impossible to get them to see 'facts' or think logically when they are 'feeling' so deeply right now. The left has convinced them that their collective distinctions are more important than their spiritual ones... that their cultural identity is superior or takes precedence over their Christian identity. They tell them that an affront on one black person by a white person is an affront upon them personally, and they should feel all the feels as if it happened to them. They dump the collective guilt, shame, and sorrow of generations upon each until they are so out of their mind emotionally, they don't care about truth.
In fact, the left has made a concerted effort to focus on feelings over facts, and to bring about a "post modern" or "post truth" culture.
This is why people like Candace Owens is of paramount importance right now. The key to winning the current argument is women. They can tolerate a lot more emotion mixed with logic than the men can. Any emotion at all, and men are done... they no longer think logically. But Candace Owens argues like a woman. She argues facts emotionally. That's what women of color need right now... emotion that is consistent with a position. They don't need to be cottled... they need to see we're jsut as ticked off as they are about racism, but we've got a better solution. Sometimes that comes with negative emotions directed at the person you are trying to convince ... this is antithetical to the way men would argue with one another, but is exactly how women argue with one another. In fact, women see emotionless argument as disingenuous. They don't understand men can't do both emotion and logic at the same time... because their logic is informed by their emotion (we call it intuition). They can't imagine thinking logically without emotion, so they think we must be crazy (or lying) to separate the two.
To come over the the light side, they will have to first release their bitterness, hatred of whites, and unforgiveness. They will have to be unburdened of their emotional baggage. Since they are operating on emotion, the men won't see this... but the women may.
When my wife gets upset, a 3 step plan helps her release her emotions:
1. Apologize
An apology to a woman is not an admission of guilt (as it is for men), but is an emotional signal that you have begun to empathize and understand what she is feeling. It says to her, your heart is soft and accepting of her. For example, little Johnny falls and skins his knee. She rushes over and wipes his tears and says "I'm sorry Johnny." She doesn't mean "i know I pushed you over" ... she means "I know how that feels."
2. Empathize.
Women spiderweb and covey senseless series of random stories, each describing an aspect of her emotional state so that you can put yourself in her 'emotional shoes' and understand where she is at. No man in his right mind could follow that convoluted web, so the only 'correct' response to her stories is "wow... I can see why you feel that way." Attempt to understand she's unburdening her emotions... even if it feels like she's attacking you, this is her letting that emotional vomit and darkness out. If you argue with her at this point, you're telling her she didn't feel that way... well she did feel that way, right or wrong... so just shut up and take it. Just nod and say "You're right... I'm sorry... I can see why you felt that way."
3. Reassure
She ultimately needs love more than respect (most men are the opposite). So step 3 is to replace the negative emotions with reassurance of love. "you're right... I'm sorry... I can see why you felt unloved. I want you know that nothing could be further from the truth... I love you more than anything." Since her emotions inform her logic, this 'gift' (a gift is not something earned or deserved) of grace lets her replace the touchstone of emotions in understanding your behavior from "he doesn't love me, that's why he's doing this" to a context of "he loves me" when she re-processes whatever upset her in that context. Once she re-processes she can release it and move on. If a woman "gets historical" or recalls everything wrong you've ever done it's because she cannot process emotion and logic separately... if she never released the emotions, she never forgot the event. As soon as you help her release the emotion, she'll forget the event.
While this process works with close friends or people you wish to maintain real relationships with, it doesn't translate to convincing women in mass. For that you may need the "woman vs woman" tactic of arguing. Each of you conveys in rage and emotion how the other has hurt them often seeming like an out of control argument and once they both have released all their anger and when it's all spent, one will offer an apology, they they both start "understanding" one other through who can apologize the most. Then they go back to what they were previously doing like nothing happened, but both feeling heard and more connected to the other.
This is where someone like Candace Owens sits... she's fiery and can articulate in righteous anger the case for the hatred, victim thinking, and the pure racism of leftism having been the real culprit to the suffering of black people. Once people can work out that anger and let go of it, and start thinking rationally again, they will be open to truth and logic.
Of course we also have the ability for supernatural healing of those emotional wounds. If I were a betting man, that's where I'd put all my money.
