> On the right, you have people who storm the US fucking Capitol building while they are confirming the next POTUS.

Could you directly address that time back in June when armed BLM protestors stormed Capitol Hill in Seattle and kicked out all the police for a month?[0] Why does that event get a pass in the context of this conversation?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitol_Hill_Autonomous_Zone

It's not the most important government building in the entire nation. Don't be stupid, this is not at all comparable.

Why should we consider it a tragedy that people were occupying this building? I certainly don't see any reason to, just like I didn't see any reason to consider the occupation of the two police stations (and destruction of one) a tragedy.

The symbolism is what's important. This building, the largest and tallest and most ornate of all the government buildings in DC, is the beating heart of the US government. To take it over is to strike at the very heart of the government, and to have one branch taken over by instigation by the other branch, it is horrific. Because the consequences are a collapse of this society. With no functioning US Government, the United States cease to be united. It's an existential symbol, and that's why terrorists attempted to target it on 9/11 and why terrorists targeted it this week.

CHAZ was awful, a complete failure for everyone involved. Police escalated during protests, then when it got too hot, they pulled a LA Riots style retreat. Protesters became violent and undercut the moral fiber of their message, going from patriots to criminals very quickly.

My understanding was the police decided to withdraw from the area due to the intensity. It looks like the Seattle people rejected law enforcement, but weren't trying to overthrow the government.

Not all violence is equal. Overthrowing the US federal government because you didn't win is very different than CHAZ. Both can be disgusting while acknowledging that FEDERAL INSURRECTION AND ATTACKING DEMOCRACY IS WORSE THAN CHAZ.

I was in agreement with you until the final paragraph in which you basically attempt to rationalize why protestors breaking into the congress building are somehow much worse than the protestor behavior during CHAZ. A bunch of protestors kicking police out of your city block for a month is an affront to democracy every bit as much as protestors disrupting a congressional meeting for a few hours. In a democracy we obey laws and protest peacefully if we don't like something. Breaking down rule of law is never acceptable.

The reason they are different was in original intent, and what outside factors influenced the transition. They both turned into shitshows. The DC shitshow was 100% the fault of the people present and the strongman authoritarians who incited them. The CHAZ shitshow must be blamed on a number of actors, including the protesters, police who were present, etc.

Aren't white people more likely to die by police? (seriously asking, I remember this data point but it's not in front of me).

Not quite. More white people die by far in total, but as a percentage of the demographic more non-white people die.

This is largely attributed to systemic racism, but also to poverty.

> This is largely attributed to systemic racism

Citation needed

I didn't say it was 100% because of systemic racism, just largely attributed to systemic racism. If you need a citation for that, just look at BLM movement in 2020.

I mean citation needed from the people attributing this to systemic racism.

I’m willing to believe them, frankly, if there’s any data or responsible analysis to back it up.

There are thousands of sociology and history faculty around the country who study this for a living, publishing hundreds of peer reviewed books on the topic annually in top university presses. The research has been ongoing and clear for decades.

This is a bit like saying "citation needed" for "the mitochondria is the workhorse of the cell". You just sort of gesture broadly at literally an entire field that studies this stuff.

It takes almost no effort to look up some faculty member at your alma mater who studies crime, race, and policing, look up one of their books, and check it out.

One bit of feedback - your response comes off as a little aggressive. Even though I agree with you, I felt a little defensive when I read your comment. Maybe something like "this is pretty well studied, with lots of publications. Here's an overview that I think is particularly good and representative of the consensus. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-cap..."

This is a good resource. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-cap...

Nate silver is the laughing stock of that entire community, including many of who repeatedly beat his predictions over and over and over. Anything that clown puts out is a joke.

This is... not true? I listen to some of his podcasts, and he seems to be pretty grounded in his approach. Do you have a specific criticism of his process?

(Also, this article was not written by him. That kind of diminishes your point, unless you argue that all authors on 538 deserve your disdain by association?)

It's literally on his website, and yes it's true (about him, no idea about the other people on his site). There's a lot of drama and such in that entire space, and I've spent many months following it all and listening to many different viewpoints from different people in that space. Each election/primaries cycle it's the same story over and over, Nate silver is cringingly wrong, states the opposite of truth as fact. On the other hand, you have other groups of people/companies who are like an order of magnitude quantifiably/verifiably more accurate, and they all make jokes about his "predictions." Basically he made a baseball algorithm, sold out, and now uses his influence to do what he's paid to do, support an agenda, just like CNN/Fox and other super biased news sources.

Yes I've wanted to say this, that in legal terms systemic racism can't be proven, but I've already kicked the bee hive enough. PS not saying racism isn't real, only that it's not as clear of an issue as everyone acts like it is.

Ask yourself honestly. If BLM or an Islamic American group had done the same thing yesterday. How many deaths would there have been? I'm guessing we'd be counting in percentages not fingers...something like 75% dead, 25% captured/in prison.

For doing the SAME thing in the SAME location.

I know, it's hard to prove, here say, but you know it's true. Snipers would've been out in force. Cops were high fiving and letting these people in. National Guard was told to stand down. Police were taking selfies with confederates holding flags in the People's building.

This was a desecration of democracy and the rule of law in America. Everyone responsible needs at least 20 years in prison. No exceptions. Trying to disrupt our republic should have some consequences, no?

It is not a clear issue, because it involves very subtle but crucial changes in attitudes from authorities to people of different categories.

However, from my understanding, the research all seems to be pretty directionally consistent - minorities in the US receive worse treatment from the justice system. Here's a good overview of why the statistics might be under-reporting the size of the impact: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-cap...

I see, thanks for explaining.

There may be more white people killed by police (in sheer volume) but that’s not the same as white people being more likely to die by police.

I think a black person is about 2x as likely to die in an encounter with the police. I'm not sure if that's normalized for the type of encounter.

Also, there are more white people than black people. So? Black people are something like 5x more likely to be arrested in a traffic stop. It's not the same at all.

Here's some data analysis that addresses your general concerns, by digging in to the data. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-statistics-dont-cap...