[the_af]

> At some point people have to stop blaming whites from hundreds of years ago

Why? And how is blaming "the hysterical reaction of the left" doing that?

It seems all you're doing is simply stopping at the point of analysis you find palatable, which is dishonest.

> [the US got to the current violent situation] by very lenient with violent criminals.

Bullshit. Your opinion lacks any depth or explanatory power. No serious analysis would stop here.

> [cops try to de-escalate]. Suspects refuse to cooperate and results are predictable.

Reality shows otherwise. There's reason there has been increasing backlash against police violence, and it's not "the hysterical left".

> There's nothing radical about peacefully disengaging with people who think your mere existance is a bad thing. BLM on the other hand is mostly an attempt to make crime worse by weakening police forces, which again, would mostly hurt black people.

This doesn't address what I said, ignores the original comment (that Scott Adams had become radicalized, not even the OP dismissed this) and is generally a dishonest comment.

All this shows is that you have right-wing views about policing, but explains nothing and ignores the reality of how we got there.

[OCASMv2]

> Why? And how is blaming "the hysterical reaction of the left" doing that?

Leftists pushing the idea that all good aspects of western culture are white supremacy and must be dismantled would be a factor, yes.

> Bullshit. Your opinion lacks any depth or explanatory power. No serious analysis would stop here.

Crime rates in minority areas prove it.

> Reality shows otherwise. There's reason there has been increasing backlash against police violence, and it's not "the hysterical left".

The increased backlash responds to increased profitability. Just look at how much BLM leaders cash in. Most police shooting victims are white, yet there's not talk about it anywhere.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...

> that Scott Adams had become radicalized

He wasn't. That's just leftist hysteria and willfull character assassination.

[mock-possum]

> Leftists pushing the idea that all good aspects of western culture are white supremacy and must be dismantled

Which good aspects specifically do you have in mind?

[OCASMv2]

The African-American History Museum has a nice summary:

https://imgur.com/a/OS93vKe

[the_af]

That's a Smithsonian museum, not some abode of radical leftism. That display from 2020 has been removed, and it any case it was listing aspects & assumptions of white culture in the US, not necessarily saying they are wrong. Through your ideological lens, you're predisposed to see everything in that list as something "the radical left" (or blacks, whatever) considers evil, but that's incorrect.

If anything, this display erred on the side of attributing too much to "white culture" which isn't a fair assessment of the contributions of other cultures. E.g. scientific thought, rationality, politeness, self-reliance are all good traits attributed exclusively to white culture, which is questionable.

The display didn't state these were things to dismantle; that's just your right-wing mindset assuming things. You're echoing the talking points of MAGA at this point...

[OCASMv2]

You're free to continue to ignore the evidence before your eyes.

[the_af]

Your comment ignored everything I said. I'm not the one in denial, reinterpreting everything through MAGA distortion glasses.

You're a conspiracy theorist accusing others of being hysterical. Good luck with that.

[the_af]

> Leftists pushing the idea that all good aspects of western culture are white supremacy and must be dismantled would be a factor, yes.

Nah, "leftists" (people, really) are reacting to a pre-existing problem. Plus you built a strawman there, nobody said "all good aspects of western culture are white supremacy", unless you consider cop brutality "a good aspect".

> Crime rates in minority areas prove it.

Nah, crime rates in marginalized eras don't prove what you claim, and neither do they justify cop violence.

> The increased backlash responds to increased profitability. Just look at how much BLM leaders cash in.

No. You are just fixated on your favorite boogie man, while decrying cops and racism being singled out by "the radical left". The "BLM leaders" are irrelevant -- this is a decentralized rallying cry against police brutality, not a hierarchical organization -- what matters is the outcry on people who reacted to police brutality. You are grasping at straws anyway, anyone on HN can see that arguing about funding has nothing to do with whether protesting police brutality is a just cause.

> Most police shooting victims are white

Your stats show police shooting victims are NOT primarily white. I think you meant "blacks aren't the majority", but that's not the winning argument you think it is: nobody said cops are exclusively prejudiced against blacks. Also, shooting is not the only way the police exerts violence and discrimination.

Finally, your link supports the fact police brutality is a problem in the US.

> [Scott Adams] wasn't [radicalized]. That's just leftist hysteria and willfull character assassination.

The comment I was replying to argued Adams was radicalized, but blamed the hysterical left. It pays to read the conversation before jumping in.

[OCASMv2]

> unless you consider cop brutality "a good aspect".

No, I was referring to cooperating with law enforcement authorities instead of antagonizing them at every possible chance. How many victims of police shootings could have avoided that fate by simply peacefully cooperating with the officers involved?

> Nah, crime rates in marginalized eras don't prove what you claim, and neither do they justify cop violence.

They do.

> No. You are just fixated on your favorite boogie man, while decrying cops and racism being singled out by "the radical left". The "BLM leaders" are irrelevant -- this is a decentralized rallying cry against police brutality, not a hierarchical organization -- what matters is the outcry on people who reacted to police brutality. You are grasping at straws anyway, anyone on HN can see that arguing about funding has nothing to do with whether protesting police brutality is a just cause.

Not all police shootings are police brutality. In fact, I'd argue most are perfectly justified by suspects refusing to follow orders.

> Your stats show police shooting victims are NOT primarily white. I think you meant "blacks aren't the majority", but that's not the winning argument you think it is: nobody said cops are exclusively prejudiced against blacks. Also, shooting is not the only way the police exerts violence and discrimination.

I prefer to rely on hard data than on paranoid conspiracy theories.

> Finally, your link supports the fact police brutality is a problem in the US.

More palatable to blame the cops than the suspects who needlesly refuse to cooperate.

> The comment I was replying to argued Adams was radicalized, but blamed the hysterical left. It pays to read the conversation before jumping in.

I read the comment. I disagree with the characterization.

[the_af]

> No, I was referring to cooperating with law enforcement authorities instead of antagonizing them at every possible chance.

That's not "a good aspect of Western culture". Non-Western culture also has law enforcement.

"Antagonizing" is the crux of the problem: with racial profiling and excessive policing of minorities, it's the police who's antagonizing. If you put people with guns and a predisposition against minorities in constant contact and friction will them, things will happen.

In any case, "antagonizing" law enforcement doesn't warrant execution or use of deadly force, at least not in a democracy.

> They do.

No, they don't.

> Not all police shootings are police brutality. In fact, I'd argue most are perfectly justified by suspects refusing to follow orders.

The link you provided specifically mentions police brutality, I guess you should have paid closer attention.

"Refusing to follow orders" seldom warrants shooting. Maybe in a dictatorship.

> I prefer to rely on hard data than on paranoid conspiracy theories.

You actually don't. The "hard data" you provided shows white people are NOT the primary victims of police shooting.

Also you're fixated on a conspiracy theory about BLM's leaders yadda yadda, when the reality is that this was a public outcry about police brutality. That's the hard data you ignore because your ideology is fixated on the "radical left" boogiemen.

> More palatable to blame the cops than the suspects who needlesly refuse to cooperate.

Non sequitur. Also, it's what your link states, I guess you should have paid closer attention.

> I read the comment. I disagree with the characterization.

Nah. I don't see your answer to that comment. I think you misread it, much like you misread the stats link you referenced.