Multiple part answer, starting with the post:
The post is problematic because it denies that a problem exists (racial disperity in policing). If a problem does not exist there can be no solution, which to many people would seem to be advocating for continued police killings of POC.
Part 2, implication:
By asserting that disperity in police outcomes doesn't exist after "accounting for variables" he is asserting intentionally or not that people of color are more likely to "deserve" these outcomes. While also stating that there isn't a systemic problem in the country it must follow that fundamentally POC should be more aggressively policed. This is the racist and logical conclusion sitting just below his argument.
The argument that police are treating POC fairly when accounting for variables is not inherently racist. Besides being supported by statistics, the conclusion is what we would expect to see based on structural inequality. POC don't commit more crimes per capita because of their skin color or some other intrinsic characteristic; POC commit more crimes per capita because racist policies resulted in POC populations being concentrated in urban areas with bad schools and poor economies. As a result they don't have the same opportunities and support most white people enjoy, which increases crime rates. Both the higher crime rate and population density means more contact with police and more opportunity for things to go wrong, but it's the environment which creates the disparity, not, as far as studies have shown, police behaving unfairly within the environment.
So in conclusion is this "enough", are the sum total of many posts like this "enough"? Who cares, in the end people on the internet will yell about people being racist. You only need to decide "Is this someone whose beliefs I support and whom I want to give money to?" If the answer is no, you can tell other people why that's the case, avoid buying his books, avoid conferences he's being paid to speak at, etc. If the answer is yes then you can do the opposite.
Pt3. 🦆
The language used in this post re: left wing media conspiracy is the same language used by people who are explicitly racist. By repeatedly using the same language as people who are racist outside observers have decided, "he probably agrees with them on OTHER things." Taking the same side as the racists do in an argument doesn't help that association, even if there's a claim that his reason for taking that side is not racism.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
I don't think that this is enough to call him "racist"..... Or am I missing something? I really want to understand
Multiple part answer, starting with the post:
The post is problematic because it denies that a problem exists (racial disperity in policing). If a problem does not exist there can be no solution, which to many people would seem to be advocating for continued police killings of POC.
Part 2, implication:
By asserting that disperity in police outcomes doesn't exist after "accounting for variables" he is asserting intentionally or not that people of color are more likely to "deserve" these outcomes. While also stating that there isn't a systemic problem in the country it must follow that fundamentally POC should be more aggressively policed. This is the racist and logical conclusion sitting just below his argument.
The argument that police are treating POC fairly when accounting for variables is not inherently racist. Besides being supported by statistics, the conclusion is what we would expect to see based on structural inequality. POC don't commit more crimes per capita because of their skin color or some other intrinsic characteristic; POC commit more crimes per capita because racist policies resulted in POC populations being concentrated in urban areas with bad schools and poor economies. As a result they don't have the same opportunities and support most white people enjoy, which increases crime rates. Both the higher crime rate and population density means more contact with police and more opportunity for things to go wrong, but it's the environment which creates the disparity, not, as far as studies have shown, police behaving unfairly within the environment.
So in conclusion is this "enough", are the sum total of many posts like this "enough"? Who cares, in the end people on the internet will yell about people being racist. You only need to decide "Is this someone whose beliefs I support and whom I want to give money to?" If the answer is no, you can tell other people why that's the case, avoid buying his books, avoid conferences he's being paid to speak at, etc. If the answer is yes then you can do the opposite.
Pt3. 🦆
The language used in this post re: left wing media conspiracy is the same language used by people who are explicitly racist. By repeatedly using the same language as people who are racist outside observers have decided, "he probably agrees with them on OTHER things." Taking the same side as the racists do in an argument doesn't help that association, even if there's a claim that his reason for taking that side is not racism.