Fact: George Floyd wouldn’t have died if he didn’t resist arrest.
I’m certainly not pro-slavery, and agree people can be racist, but there is certainly something wrong if people can’t openly discuss taboo truths without being slighted as a racist themselves, utterly dismissed, or censored.
1: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings...
Even just scratching the surface of this point, the data you shared fails to include details of whether the victims resisted arrest or not.
There have been dire national consequences of how the public views enforcing the law since Floyd. And claiming racism when a point seems obtuse to you is hardly productive
That's what your stated "taboo truth" amounts too, it's fine for police to kill people as long as you have judged them worthy of death.
Very far from anything to do with slavery.
There are things that are true and impactful and worth talking about, and some of those conversations get shut down because they make people feel uncomfortable. Your statement is not in that group.
There are statements that, while technically true, are misleading. They do not illuminate. They are so _obviously_ cherry-picked from the range of all possible statements that they reveal the bias of the person presenting them. Your statement is in this group.
Personally, I’m fine with people who reveal themselves to be racists to be labelled as racists. I’m fine with this category of statements being utterly dismissed. I’m fine with these statements being “censored”, as in people choosing not to publish them.
Your example hinges on the definition of the word “racist”. There are credible definitions where the answer would be yes or no.
If I had to guess how I’d answer after reading three pages of explanation on this opinion of yours, it would probably be “yes”.
The unwillingness to even consider other opinions and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues.
Why?
> unwillingness to even consider other opinions
What opinions? You labelled something a fact. Do you have an opinion to share? How much of my finite time on Earth do I have to spend on this opinion before I can dismiss it?
> and the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur) is exactly what’s perpetuating our issues.
No. Definitely not. This is just detached from reality. Think of “our issues”. Whatever that list means to you. Society’s problems, our culture’s conundrums. Now, think of the list of things perpetuating those issues. If you put “the abject expansion of what qualifies as racist (and it’s use as slur)” anywhere near the top of that list, you are caught up in a delusion. I would sincerely suggest taking action to reground yourself.
You’re just stubbornly attached to your own beliefs. Most people are like this—they don’t like admitting when they were wrong. In general, the reason ‘why’ (above) is because it could benefit you to find a better conclusion if one exists. Do what you want, but very dangerous to burden society with the same handicap
On your topic of "taboo truths", personally I agree that we ought to be able to discuss things with civility and assuming good faith. It's not always or even often possible these days.
For example, I don’t understand how you expect a civil and good faith discussion by first labeling the opposing viewpoint as ‘pro slavery’ at the onset.
I really don't see it that way - this isn't at all a new phenomenon. What feels different to me is the intensity and pervasiveness of division, but then again that could be attributed to being more generally aware of things thanks to the Internet.
I'm 39 and have lived in America all my life. In my childhood, I dimly recall bitter rows over whatever Regan was doing - my parents lost friends over their opposition to him. In the 90s, Clinton scandals were all people could talk about for a good while. George W, of course, took social division to new heights - or, at least, I was finally old enough to appreciate just how far-ranging the dividing effects of ideology can be.
I remember in my first job in the mid-2000s, my team was already socially-clustered based on political/religious identity - "Libs" weren't invited to some parties, and vice-versa.
Of course, Obama's election really triggered a certain section of society, there's no denying that, but all that is to say that none of this is really new. In my view, our "tribes" broadly descend from pro- vs. anti-slavery camps, and the different geographic targets of migration from different parts of England and Europe. (I highly recommend the book Albion's Seed (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albion%27s_Seed), which explores the influence of regional cultures of 18th-century Britain on American cultures).