‘But black on black crime’ and other responses reveal the speaker’s racism — here’s why
Tags: Narrative, BlackLivesMatter, Racism, Bias, Arguments

More erudite, intelligent, and quite frankly fantastic black writers than me have responded to some of these arguments repeatedly and insistently. But while refutation of these arguments is themselves necessary, as American society goes through its biggest upheaval against police violence in decades, it becomes ever more important to not just address the content of some of the arguments, but address what these arguments say about the people making them, and the environment that makes it look as if these are vaguely legitimate arguments instead of patently absurd ones.

I’m a fan of debate. This goes without saying. But too often, there is the insistence that ‘we’re just arguing’ is value-neutral, and that the content of the arguments does not say anything about the intentions, value choices, and motivations of the speaker.

for link : https://dcds.instructure.com/eportfolios/4238/____2020

https://zenodo.org/communities/dewarelease24-demon-slayer-siip/?page=1&size=20

This is obviously untrue. In any discussion we find some arguments more appealing than others, some more convincing than others. One example of this phenomenon is what is known as confirmation bias — we find the arguments that conform to our own leanings far more powerful, than the opposing ones. This is a common cognitive phenomenon, but the question of why we find certain arguments more appealing, reflects our biases, intentions, and the narrative that we subconsciously want to find more legitimate. We have to acknowledge this. And in the conversation around black lives, and police protests — we see arguments made that sound reasonable, but a moment’s scrutiny reveals gaping holes, and when one wonders ‘but how could you find this argument convincing’ — it leads us to fairly defensible conclusions about the intentions and motivations of the speaker.

The purpose of this response is not to highlight the flaws in those arguments, which have been done adequately. Rather, this is about the implications of the making of these responses, repeatedly, insistently, despite them having been addressed in myriad ways. Debate and discussion simpliciter are always good things. But the quality of the arguments made by supposedly intelligent people reflects the value choices they make in choosing to repeatedly make arguments that in their very substance, and formulation are reflective of the character and values of the people making them, and by implication the social attitudes, beliefs and prejudices that their arguments reveal.

Part I — ‘But Black On Black Crime’ is not a reasonable or good faith response by anyone

‘The biggest killer of black men aged 15–24’ is other black men aged 15–24,’ otherwise known as the ‘black-on-black’ crime’ retort. If you’ve heard it once, you’ve heard this a million times. If you subject yourself to any environment online that is not dedicated to the cause, or really, any political group that is ‘centrist’, ‘rationalist’, ‘classically liberal’, you’d have heard this response. Also popularly known as the ‘black on black crime response’, repeatedly debunked as a myth, shown how it is a misdirection, based on false assumptions, and a wholly inadequate retort dozens of times — yet thousands of men who seem to believe they’ve found a crushingly winning argument bring it up as if it’s the world’s greatest insight.

Why its wrong and painfully revealing of the speaker’s racism: Unless you’ve been living under a rock, or attempt mental gymnastics that would make Simone Biles proud, you’d have to be insane to forget when the slogan ‘black lives matter arose’. As a non-black foreigner whose reception of American news still forms only about 20% of my news intake, it is impossible even for me to forget that the slogan and indeed the movement arose around the specific deaths of Tamir Rice, gathered momentum around the death of Michael Brown and exploded around the deaths of Eric Garner and Philando Castile. To even assert, for a minute, that the slogan generically applies to all lives and issues of black people globally, or even just African Americans, is a horrendously unforgivable leap of logic and denialism. What, do they genuinely believe a general concern around black people’s lives only began around 2017? It is impossible for anyone with an internet connection and a smattering of English to forget how and when this slogan and the surrounding movement arose. Why on earth does this group of people think ‘okay but like crime’ is a reasonable response? Are they collectively trying to prove that they’re too stupid to distinguish between the problem of interpersonal crime (black-on-black crime) and state sponsored violence? Indeed it would seem they’re desperate to prove that they believe their listeners and readers to be that stupid or — willing to swallow obvious lies. Anyone who’s ever graduated high school in most countries in the world should know that the state has the monopoly of force (imperfect and open to argument as that is) in order to deal with and control crime. While there are protests against soaring crime itself if it is seen as a result of state failure, crime itself does not typically lead to protests and outrage against the state — the state is assailed with protests and demands when they are the ones being faulted. What kind of bizarre intellectual collapse does it take, to respond to a movement protesting state sponsored violence with ‘but crime’? Because police, and the state are entrusted with the use of force, naturally misuse of that power is more likely to provoke outrage and protest, as opposed to inter-personal crime — which almost all of us assume is a part of society, and while we fear it, we expect the state to fix it. To even think, when one is making mental decisions to respond to a movement against state sponsored violence with a ‘but look at this’ about interpersonal violence (black-on-black crime)is painfully ridiculous — so ridiculous in fact that the listener can only wonder — “What on earth made you think that was a remotely sensible or relevant response”?

What it says about them — This is not a reasonable or in any way a rational response. Even assuming one didn’t read the news about the murders that first sparked the movement, if you are not actually intellectually hobbled, you’d immediately realize if there are protests against the state it is because the state is being faulted (for something). If you don’t bother then, to look into exactly what action by the state is being opposed, that is either recklessly incompetent or predicts a desire to jump to a conclusion that confirms a bias. What kind of person sees a movement against the government and state and thinks “oh they’re generally talking about all issues affecting black people”? Because… the black community collectively decided that all issues affecting them would be suddenly encapsulated in marches against the police? If a person couldn’t be bothered to do a basic search on when and why the movement arose, but instead belligerently crash into the discourse and say ‘yeah well black-on-black crime’, how is that not in and of itself evidence of a bias that they were rushing to confirm? The idea that people’s choices in the arguments they make is not reflective of their values, bias and intentions is absolute drivel. A vaguely objective, and normally curious approach to #BlackLivesMatter would have directly led them to the information that the slogan and the movement sprang up specifically around police killings of black people, and not regular crime to which ‘black-on-black’ crime could be a response.

Proponents of this insipid and rubbish response often defend themselves as not being motivated by racism, but ‘just arguing’ and accusing their detractors of not being able to handle the truth. Excuse me, but what truth? That they’re making an argument so illogical, so utterly beside the point that we get a sinking feeling at how stupid the citizenry is? It is also fantastically dishonest to even claim that any argument is not a reflection of the speaker’s preferences. The speaker in this instance read about a movement about black lives being important, and among all the possible responses, decided that pointing out interpersonal crime (black-on-black crime) was a valid push-back to the narrative of racism. The speaker has to go through the veritable gamut of responses — of sympathy, curiosity, general non affectation, and decides that pointing out black people engage in crime is the most relevant, and appropriate response to the allegations of racism. As described above, it requires multiple mental somersaults to think this is a sensible response — the making of the mental somersaults is a reflection of the speaker — to dismiss the BLM movement as somehow being fixated on the wrong thing. Except, they started out focusing on police killings. Why make this response, and how hard is it for the rest of us to see through the mental process of the persons making this response to the bubbling racism of the speaker? What else, other than racism explains the unforgivably stupid and irrelevant argument? Who, other than a person emotionally inclined to make out BLM to be an entity not worth listening to thinks ‘I’m going to respond to an argument against police violence with a statistic about interpersonal violence and say yes well the threat to black lives is more from crime committed by black people’? Even if, giving them the benefit of the doubt, they don’t remember or recall the origins of the movement, who, other than a person emotionally and deeply inclined to dismiss BLM’s grievance, doesn’t bother to do basic research about its beginnings but takes the time to look up crime statistics and make that argument? A person who doesn’t want BLM heard or legitimized, that’s who. What else, other than racism and a desire to dismiss general conversations about racism, can lie behind this person’s callous behaviour?

There are good and bad arguments, arguments made in good faith and lack of knowledge, but some arguments are so inherently incoherent, and contradict such basic facts, that it is irresponsible to treat it as a legitimate response. These ‘responses’, when even analysed superficially are so qualitatively bad and in denial of common sense, that even when given the benefit of the doubt, they reveal that these are not reasonable intellectual retorts. Rather than being acceptable as making sense from a different point of view, the horrendous incoherence and denial in these positions is only explicable by the value choices of the speaker and partiality towards certain narratives.

This isn’t to ‘presume’ intentions on the part of those making these arguments — the content and quality of their statements shows that otherwise intelligent people can only be repeating these in supremely bad faith. These people are not overtly racist — but the widespread appeal of these sorts of arguments, and the reflection on the character of the crowd that pedals them, bodes ill for ameliorating racial tensions — anywhere. If we’re serious about combating racism, the speakers and writers of these apparently reasonable arguments should be recognised for what they are, and their underlying value bias acknowledged. Many of these are not innocent or reasonable responses — and in the making of these absurd responses, we see the dark underbelly of anti-blackness — not just from white people but from many other groups as well.

Part II — Pointing to the organization’s current manifesto to justify criticizing different aspects of black struggle

The mind-blowing fallacy of the ‘look at the expansive BLM Manifesto’ comeback.

Now at this point, many of the individuals who flatter themselves that they’re extremely smart with this response that should make most of us with a smattering of common sense roll our eyes heavenwards, crash back in with a Wikipedia quote about Black Lives Matter as an organization, with their mission statement, goals etc as generally focusing on keeping black people alive. I’ve been repeatedly reminded that we are strongest when we truly attempt to understand the opposite side, to not attribute mala fides to them, and to ‘steelman’ their argument by trying to see it from their point of view. I’ve tried doing this, so I can imagine that the surrounding avalanche of information, contradicting and sometimes inconsistent messaging by some BLM leaders, and the widening scope of the movement’s rhetoric could be confusing. It is, after all the natural progression of any social movement — it starts with a single issue and gradually widens as it gains support or as its adherents see links to other issues. If one were to take the mission statement, and other publicly listed goals and principles as representative of Black Lives Matter, does the ‘but did you see black on black crime statistics’ response become more palatable?

I would argue not. Here’s why — Let’s assume you’ve been offline for a few years. You sign back into society, and you hear about Black Lives Matter. If you were to take a few seconds to imagine, why this slogan, it is heartbreakingly, instantly clear that it is a response to a reality perceived as devaluing black lives. If you were a community organizer, when would your mind settle on a slogan as ‘black lives matter’? When you feel the need to insist on what should be obvious and you want to scream ‘black lives matter dammit!’. I’m not attempting to fictionalize the grief, frustration and pain that led to BLM — rather, the immediate response to hearing such a slogan should be to recognise that the mere form of the slogan makes it clear it is an impassioned response to a perceived injustice that seems to regard black lives as less worth. One sees other versions of this plea across the globe — when Dalits in India are lynched and killed for drinking water out of the wrong well, when suffering experienced by a community is not responded to with appropriate gravitas. Even in the mere wording, it is abundantly clear that it is a response to what is seen as insufficient respect for the lives of a demographic. Once again let us place ourselves in the position of a dispassionate, unaffected and uninformed stranger who has generic, common knowledge of the mechanics of human society. Crime, while tragic and limiting, results in a reaction of a plea for help. At a fundamental, basic level, we are all aware that human societies have some amount of crime, and that we want systems in place to stop it (the shape and form of these systems can be debated in a different article). We fear and grieve crime, and demand it be punished properly — in fact the general trend of outpouring of anger and demands for punishment of criminals is because of an expectation that the victims of the crime are respected for their humanity. But we are outraged and demand respect for the humanity of a demographic from the State, when the Sate acts in ways that signal to the citizenry that the demographic’s humanity is easily dismissed (assuming). Even assuming for a second that the speaker treats BLM in the sense of the larger entity fighting racism, it is pitifully clear that the protests are against the State’s treatment of Black people, and black lives. To come across this slogan and to pretend that it was a generic call for valuing of black lives by everyone is both profoundly dishonest or unforgivably lazy — the mark of a person who does not bother to take the 15 seconds of contemplation it requires to understand that it is a plea against the special devaluing of black lives.

The deliberate distortion of political and social slogans like BLM is, in fact, a favoured tactic of people ill-intentioned towards movements. For years, many of you may have seen mocking of the slogan #BelieveWomen started by American feminists. Many thousands of men pretended as if the slogan implies the dismissal of investigations, due process (and in criminal cases) a trial. They sarcastically pretend that the slogan amounts to demanding that all women should be believed without question or doubt, all the time, in all contexts. Consider for eg., the retorts of right leaning persons about how the American left seemed to be backtracking on its commitment to #BelieveWomen with respect to Tara Reade. Remember also that when Senator Elizabeth Warren claimed Senator Sanders had said a woman couldn’t win the presidency, many actors demand that the American left should ‘believe’ Senator Warren blindly, without further proof, as testament of their commitment to #BelieveWomen. More recently however, this excellent article needed to be published, reminded everyone of the origins of the slogan, why it was framed the way it was — and how it different from #BelieveAllWomen — which many of its detractors seemed to be responding to. The two slogans were very different, and a quick search tells us how — yet a group of commentators twisted a slogan meant to convey that women should not be treated as uniquely untrustworthy, and called for them to be treated with general credulity, as a slogan calling for the dismissal of standards of proof, burden of proof, investigations and practically lynching of accused men on a woman’s say so. The slogan of course, called for no such thing. The idea that the slogan amounted to that was and is a strawman that certain interests then pretend to argue against — the fact that they resort to the strawman version is sufficient proof of their values and intentions. So an article reminding everyone of what it actually signified needed to be written. Similarly, a slogan that sprung up around police killings has been mangled and misrepresented and presented as a generic struggle against racism — when it was no such thing.

Part III — It’s really somehow black people’s fault

Attached to the incredible bad faith and apparently confounding reasoning behind this response to BLM is of course, the attachment, particularly by people of other communities (non-white, so they cannot be easily accused of white supremacy) to ‘but what about single black mothers’ and absentee black fathers.

This is promptly followed up by disconnected citations of children of single mothers being more likely to be criminal, without a moment’s scrutiny as to whether a) external and societal factors influence or engender a larger group of single mothers in this demographic, b) the influence of the pointless ‘war on drugs’ and the crackdown on heroin that targeted black men c) the Crime Bill of 1994 and the sprawling of a culture that engendered police corruption and let to the well known facts of incarceration of black men behind bars for minor offenses, all of which BLM the current organization, not the slogan, has a grievance against — , justified or not.

The point is not that these discussions should not be had or that BLM should not be criticized — it is the fact that any discussion about ‘black single mothers’ — this, after the trope of the absentee black father being repeatedly disproven, conveniently misses out widely covered, obvious issues, and factors, perpetuated by a white-dominant society, that has created disadvantaged conditions, and then attempts to dismiss them with eye-rolls and pathetic retorts of ‘well actually’…

These are not reasonable arguments. These are not excusable utterances. It is impossible to be sufficiently informed to quote statistics about black-on-black crime, while at the same time pretending as if the remaining socio-economic and legal conditions forced on the black community in America make the extent of the contribution of the issues they assail, such as single motherhood’ and portend, at any level, that this is an argument put forth by a reasonable person in good faith.