Yes, its my own rather limited special group rather than being universal. But I think we don’t think we are especially non-murdery but see it as a natural extension on civilization eradicating free-for-all murder. But I guess on other systems the state merely has a monopoly on murder that it can do at its discretion.
While its true that given signficant poltical will it could be changed it migth not be true that majority of the relevant countriers think its okay/neutral to do. The political process involves compromises and this can be an accepted downside. Also inhibiting dispersion of political ideas either by limiting media or removing opposing political stances means the choice is not that cognitive. In a way by doing such things the actors admit that its worthwhile to bother doing it meaning they don’t dare face the “fair fight” where the people have all the options available and are informed about all the choices. So when the process is rigged its outcome isn’t as strong an argument to show what the people want.
Maybe its the question of what are the relevant crime statistics. Having heard and read about such a black person committing a serious violence is more likely to get death-sentence while a white gets life in prison. Compared to a general population there are disproportionally more black people doing crimes. However if you controlled for socioeconomical status a lto of it could be that blacks are majority in poor areas. But even then its common to hear stories where police are more active in regards to black people. They also tend to use more serious measures against them. A black person doesn’t need to be armed for a cop to start fearing for his life and discharging weapons and tasers.
There is even the joke of “Well white people can’t use the N word but atleast we can use phrases like ‘thanks, for the warning officer’”. There is reason to suspect that there are a lot of “false positives” of black people being processed by the legal system where a lighter process could have sufficed. Still it gives an order of magnitude that the prospensity to convict blacks for murder and such is weaker than overall prospensity to charge blacks for crimes.
Yes, its my own rather limited special group rather than being universal.
So your special group looks down on all the other groups.
While its true that given signficant poltical will it could be changed it migth not be true that majority of the relevant countriers think its okay/neutral to do. The political process involves compromises and this can be an accepted downside. Also inhibiting dispersion of political ideas either by limiting media or removing opposing political stances means the choice is not that cognitive. In a way by doing such things the actors admit that its worthwhile to bother doing it meaning they don’t dare face the “fair fight” where the people have all the options available and are informed about all the choices. So when the process is rigged its outcome isn’t as strong an argument to show what the people want.
So what’s your position on your groups laws against “hate speech”?
However if you controlled for socioeconomical status a lto of it could be that blacks are majority in poor areas.
How is the relevant to the point?
But even then its common to hear stories where police are more active in regards to black people.
Yes, that’s because black people are more likely to commit crimes and high-black areas tend to be high crime areas.
A black person doesn’t need to be armed for a cop to start fearing for his life and discharging weapons and tasers.
The same is true for a white person. You may be biased because “cop shoots unarmed black” type stories tend to be overplayed in the media, and key details like “the unarmed black was high on marijuana/speed and was going for the cop’s gun” tend to be omitted from the stories.
Yes, its my own rather limited special group rather than being universal. But I think we don’t think we are especially non-murdery but see it as a natural extension on civilization eradicating free-for-all murder. But I guess on other systems the state merely has a monopoly on murder that it can do at its discretion.
While its true that given signficant poltical will it could be changed it migth not be true that majority of the relevant countriers think its okay/neutral to do. The political process involves compromises and this can be an accepted downside. Also inhibiting dispersion of political ideas either by limiting media or removing opposing political stances means the choice is not that cognitive. In a way by doing such things the actors admit that its worthwhile to bother doing it meaning they don’t dare face the “fair fight” where the people have all the options available and are informed about all the choices. So when the process is rigged its outcome isn’t as strong an argument to show what the people want.
Maybe its the question of what are the relevant crime statistics. Having heard and read about such a black person committing a serious violence is more likely to get death-sentence while a white gets life in prison. Compared to a general population there are disproportionally more black people doing crimes. However if you controlled for socioeconomical status a lto of it could be that blacks are majority in poor areas. But even then its common to hear stories where police are more active in regards to black people. They also tend to use more serious measures against them. A black person doesn’t need to be armed for a cop to start fearing for his life and discharging weapons and tasers.
There is even the joke of “Well white people can’t use the N word but atleast we can use phrases like ‘thanks, for the warning officer’”. There is reason to suspect that there are a lot of “false positives” of black people being processed by the legal system where a lighter process could have sufficed. Still it gives an order of magnitude that the prospensity to convict blacks for murder and such is weaker than overall prospensity to charge blacks for crimes.
So your special group looks down on all the other groups.
So what’s your position on your groups laws against “hate speech”?
How is the relevant to the point?
Yes, that’s because black people are more likely to commit crimes and high-black areas tend to be high crime areas.
The same is true for a white person. You may be biased because “cop shoots unarmed black” type stories tend to be overplayed in the media, and key details like “the unarmed black was high on marijuana/speed and was going for the cop’s gun” tend to be omitted from the stories.