A lot of people are just really, really angry at this moment in time due to the long history of injustices and numerous examples in the past few days.

Nuance is real hard to do under these circumstances.

It's not so hard if the media didn't cherry pick examples for the purpose of enraging Americans. There's probably a lot to be legitimately upset about, but blacks are killed by police less frequently than victim-reported crime statistics predict. If the media gave proportional attention to white victims like Tony Timpa or Daniel Shaver, it wouldn't feel so much like police are targeting black citizens. Maybe we would be having a different conversation--"police are too brutal in general, and while they aren't targeting minorities in their fatal offenses, perhaps there is a racial disparity for lesser forms of brutality, etc". But that's a terrible headline what with its nuance and truthfulness--I would never hack it as a journalist.

I mean, media sensationalism aside, honest question from outside the US: they had decades to change something and just about nothing happened, is a nuanced conversation about this realistic?

Plus, if they wanted a nuanced conversation it would help if they didn't shoot at and abuse media representatives. One journo I follow tracks unprovoked attacks on clearly identifiable journalists, days ago when that was at about 5 incidents I might have understood the call for nuance but it's now at over 200.

Some of those are white, if that helps the odd call for nuance and both are shown in the media I tend to consume. I don't feel distribution of fatalities is a great argument. The absolute number of officer involved shootings in the US is just ridiculous for a first world country, supporting those currently visibly affected shouldn't be too hard then, it would help others as well.

> they had decades to change something and just about nothing happened, is a nuanced conversation about this realistic?

This is simply because it hasn't been a priority. It's good that this is drawing attention to the issue (assuming there aren't more important issues that aren't receiving attention as a consequence--I'm withholding judgment), but it's bad insofar as it's being portrayed as a race issue when there is apparently no racial component in police killings. I think the good outweighs the bad, but we could have it both ways.

> Plus, if they wanted a nuanced conversation it would help if they didn't shoot at and abuse media representatives.

I care very little about whether the police want more nuance or not. Americans deserve a nuanced debate, better data about police violence, a media apparatus that isn't overtly and deliberately optimizing for strife and division, etc.

> I don't feel distribution of fatalities is a great argument. The absolute number of officer involved shootings in the US is just ridiculous for a first world country, supporting those currently visibly affected shouldn't be too hard then, it would help others as well.

It sounds like you don't understand the argument :). It's not "we shouldn't do anything about police brutality because it doesn't have a strong racial component"--virtually everyone agrees that our rates of police violence are far too high (however, that doesn't mean everyone agrees that it's the most important problem). The debate (well, to the extent that this is a debate--it's highly taboo to try to understand and remedy these problems) is about the extent to which this is a racial issue--this is important because (1) it's important to our ongoing national dialogue (again, not much of a dialogue due to taboo) about race and political ideologies and (2) it determines how we go about fixing the police violence issue (if it's not a function of bias then anti-bias training won't help).

Thanks for the explanation, you're right, seems like I misread that part of your suggestion.

Yeah but it'd be even easier to just not kill so many black people for what often appears to be very little reason. The whole thing would solve itself.

If a few police started stepping on babies and killing them for sport, making sure that all the other victims of police got 'equal-time' isn't going to be winner.

woops there goes the nuance again :D

I don't get it. Do you believe that by oversimplifying the conversation you're going to actually solve problems? Do you think it's helpful? Or is the problem less worthy than venting your frustrations (and in the latter case, are the frustrations legitimate or simply a product of the aforementioned media misinformation)?

This conversation isn't going to solve the problem (but that is a cop-out).

I think the metaphor though hyperbolic was a bit germane: I too have a lot of problems with media coverage in general. But the reason why it's covered a lot more is because it's often super egregious. So it's oversimplifying to not consider the impact to the community (especially given the long historical context of racial oppression).

My frustrations are legitimate, as I'm sure are yours.

Calling it 'media misinformation' is begging the question.

> But the reason why it's covered a lot more is because it's often super egregious.

Daniel Shaver had no criminal history, he was unarmed in his own hotel room on his hands and knees begging for his life when a police officer shot him five times.

Tim Timpa was pinned to the ground with at least one officer kneeling on his back while he struggled to breath, begging police officers to get off of him, saying they were going to kill him. He begged more than 30 times over the course of 14 minutes. The police officers joked about killing him even after he was unconscious and possibly even after he had died.

Justine Damond was a 40 year old Australian-American woman who called the police to report a possible sexual assault in the alley near her home. She was unarmed and barefoot as she approached the police after they swept the alley in their squad car when they shot her in the chest.

I don't see how these killings are less egregious than those that the media do report on. Moreover, there are also patently fraudulent media reports of racism, such as the Covington Catholic affair that are designed to get the nation in a race frenzy even if it means sending an angry mob after innocent children. I don't think "concern for the community" is motivating the media. Minority communities' anxiety is the result of--not the cause for--the media's fear mongering.

> Minority communities' anxiety is the result of--not the cause for--the media's fear mongering.

I would politely exhort you to do more research on the subject and meet members of the communities involved.

I've always been amazed at how when the black community mentions something to do with race, it's always seen as if we are making up some kind of elaborate fiction solely for slandering the United States.

> I've always been amazed at how when the black community mentions something to do with race, it's always seen as if we are making up some kind of elaborate fiction solely for slandering the United States.

That wasn't my claim, and you know it. I'm happy to be wrong, I'm just trying to make sense of the contrast between the data and public opinion. I'm genuinely very sorry for any emotional distress this debate causes and I know that the distress it's very one-sided, but I don't know how we are going to make social progress apart from real dialogue (both across political lines as well as racial lines). Why malign people who are trying to understand and help?

This stuff is highly charged. Doing it over text messages just makes things harder.

I appreciate you are doing it good faith, but 400 years of blood makes for murky waters.

I understand and agree. Thanks for your patience and understanding.

I'm always doing research on this subject, including speaking with members of these communities. I agree that it's important. There's also a lot of nuance that my comment glossed over, for brevity.

EDIT: In fact, my desire for better dialog and my ongoing research are both motivated by a desire (for me personally and for our society more broadly) to better understand and fix the problem.

So you are going to use absolute numbers vs. per capita when comparing killings by police? And I love the way that you explain non-white communities being targeted as "feelings" and not a historical constant as long as the US has existed.

My numbers were population adjusted (per-capita), and there's no dichotomy between "black communities have historically been and perhaps still are targeted" and "the media is amplifying the perception of the degree to which they are targeted". Thanks for pushing for me to be more clear. I really do appreciate it.