Einstein: The Negro Question (1946) • Hacker News Board

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#211

Post by aswanson » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 12:59 AM UTC

5F36B5F62640 wrote: post #202

king_jester wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. Other testimony indicates that Wilson may have instigated conflict when making the stop. > Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation. This is not at all…

> Wilson shot Brown when we was a significant distance from the car (100+ feet) Distance from the car is not relevant. Distance from Wilson is what is relevant. All shots were fired when Wilson was near Brown. There were two shots fired at or near the car (shown by two spent casings near the car), and there is blood there showing Brown was hit. Hence Wilson was near Brown when these shots were fired. The remaining 10…

I presented no disputed testimony...I stuck with things that are strongly supported by the physical evidence.

Yes you did. hits an officer in the face and tries to take the officer's gun That is Wilson testimony. Not an objective fact. ...and then turns and runs toward the officer.. This also is not an objective fact. You disputed this yourself in stating that Browns velocity could not be determined. It just as plausible that he was tired, shot, and giving up. Your cognitive biases are giving Wilson the benefit of the doubt. Your statements are not pure "fact".

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#212

Post by smsm42 » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:01 AM UTC

pedrosorio wrote: post #208

smsm42 wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Please see the edit - I did not mean "complexion" as color, but as "physical appearance". Looks like I used the word which has different meanings one of which is completely wrong for my point.

Is English your native language? I also interpreted your "complexion" as build/constitution because the word for "complexion" in my native language is "compleição" and can be translated as complexion/build/constitution.

Indeed, English is not my native language, and in my native language the same word means exactly as in Portuguese - build/constitution/physical appearance. It looks like English one also has this meaning, but the "skin color" meaning seems to be most frequent, which I did not realize. I probably would if I thought about it specifically, and usually I am aware of the words which mean different things in different languages, but in this case looks like it slipped my attention and completely derailed the discussion. May it be a lesson for me to be more attentive.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#213

Post by tsax » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:01 AM UTC

vixen99 wrote: post #41

33223332323 wrote: post #27

> The ancient Greeks also had slaves. They were not Negroes but white men who had been taken captive in war. There could be no talk of racial differences. As Slavic I find this inaccurate and bit offensive :-)

A bit offensive? Why?

Lol how do you think 'slavs' got their name? Have you looked at the Arab and Ottoman slave trade?

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#214

Post by kaitai » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:06 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #203

kaitai wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you serious? The color of your complexion is the same as being "armed" to cause serious physical harm? Really look at that and think about it: a pale John Boehner turns into a lethal John Boehner just by adding a bit of spray tan. I put on too much bronzer and suddenly I'm a killer (perhaps a killer clown). My multiracial husband is more physically harmful after mowing the lawn in the summer, maybe even more "let…

Please see the edit - I did not mean "complexion" as color, but as "physical appearance". Looks like I used the word which has different meanings one of which is completely wrong for my point.

Thank you for your clarification. We may still disagree on some things, but at least not on something so foolish!

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#215

Post by dragonwriter » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:08 AM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #190

king_jester wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> and he attacked the police officer and tried to take the officer's gun This is disputed by witness testimony: same say this happened, others say it didn't. Other testimony indicates that Wilson may have instigated conflict when making the stop. > Looking at Brown, we see a man who did something really stupid, and suffered pretty much the same outcome that we'd expect for anyone in that situation. This is not at all…

You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets.…

Just as a note on communication:

I think it would really help if

(1) You would correct "Brown" to "Brown's" -- it is possessive, and as written its not clear if you omitted the possessive or if you mistakenly capitalized "brown", the color, and

(2) You would be even more explicit with what feature you were referring to and said "build" rather than "physical appearance" (which -- especially with the issue with "Brown" -- could still quite easily, without the extended explanation at the end of your post, be viewed as a veiled comment about race.)

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#216

Post by sillysaurus3 » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:12 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #207

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not an execution when you attack a police officer. The word "execution" has been brought into the debate solely to rile people up and make them forget that fact. Let's put it this way. Now, I'm not saying this version of events happened. I'm saying, please bear with me and seriously consider the question: You're a cop. You have a gun and nothing else. Someone has just leaned through the window of your cruise…

Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill. The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your…

The officer was equipped with a P229 Sig Sauer, which loads with either 9mm or .40S&W rounds. I've been unable to find whether the autopsy indicated 9mm or .40 rounds, but if it's 9mm, it's most certainly not true that a single round would stop someone who's charging towards you and is flooded with more adrenaline than they've ever experienced in their life. This phenomenon has been documented time and time again, as counterintuitive as it sounds.

In fatal stabbing incidents, people often comment about how they had no clue how bad the stab really was. That's because adrenaline disables your normal systems which tell your brain that anything is wrong.

Officers aren't trained for Hollywood-style precision shots to the leg. They are trained never to point their guns at anything they're not willing to kill, and if you are forced into a situation where you must use your weapon, to aim for center of mass and continue shooting until the threat is neutralized.

If we disagree with officer training policy, we should try to change it. But we can't go back now and say they shouldn't have followed their training.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#217

Post by smsm42 » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:12 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #215

smsm42 wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You understand pretty much any testimony can be - and usually is - "disputed" and it doesn't mean it is wrong? "Disputed" just means somebody said "no, it is not so". Anybody can say that - just as anybody could have said they saw the police officer shooting Brown in the back, despite the autopsy finding no trace of that. Some did. That doesn't mean the officer actually shot Brown in the back with vanishing bullets.…

Just as a note on communication: I think it would really help if (1) You would correct "Brown" to "Brown's" -- it is possessive, and as written its not clear if you omitted the possessive or if you mistakenly capitalized "brown", the color, and (2) You would be even more explicit with what feature you were referring to and said "build" rather than "physical appearance" (which -- especially with the issue with "Brown"…

Thanks, corrected as suggested. I suspect my unfortunate slip has derailed the discussion anyway, but in case there's still hope I have made the edits.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#218

Post by brianhempel » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:21 AM UTC

trhway wrote: post #207

sillysaurus3 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not an execution when you attack a police officer. The word "execution" has been brought into the debate solely to rile people up and make them forget that fact. Let's put it this way. Now, I'm not saying this version of events happened. I'm saying, please bear with me and seriously consider the question: You're a cop. You have a gun and nothing else. Someone has just leaned through the window of your cruise…

Even if it was so, one shot would do it, may be only wounding. Yet he had the right to kill, he used it like others. Shooting multiple times or chock holding to make sure that target is dead is execution . They could have shot Garner in leg, instead they used the right to kill. The killings at will are part of the Dominant Force law enforcement framework. In short - instilling fear as anything can happen to you, your…

Police are trained only to shoot to kill because pulling the trigger needs to be a big event. If you think that "shoot to wound" is an option, then of course you're going to pull the trigger more often. You'll become more comfortable shooting people and, presumably, you'll also end up killing people more often.

Other reasons for "shoot to kill" relate to effectiveness: in the energy of the situation if you aim to wound you may either kill by accident, or not hit at all.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#219

Post by mariodiana » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:22 AM UTC

huxley wrote: post #67

mariodiana wrote: post #4

The thing I like is the reference to Aristotle. Today, there are some people who are too quick to brand anyone who disagrees with their enlightened views as a "moron" or worse. There's no winning hearts and minds that way. It's better to gently point out the mistakes of those who are otherwise worthy of respect, in the hopes that this will spur others towards self-reflection, than to castigate and put people on the d…

I don't think Einstein was being that nice, he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias. Aristotle proposed in Book 1 of Politics that certain human beings were natural slaves, as different from the free citizens of Athens as human beings were from beasts. He argued that barbarians deserved enslavement because they lacked souls. Back in 1550, Aristotle was ma…

Einstein wrote: "It is clear that [Aristotle] was enmeshed in a traditional prejudice from which, despite his extraordinary intellect, he could not free himself." And your comment on that is that "he was essentially saying that intelligence and education were not guarantees against bigotry and bias." I don't see how any of that conflicts with what I've said.

It's human nature -- even for people who realize they're no Einstein or Aristotle -- to believe that they know what they're talking about; and it's also human nature to get defensive, since their self-image is often wrapped up in their outlook. If you invoke Aristotle, you give a person an "out." You allow a person the freedom to examine his beliefs while shielding his fragile self-image from coming apart. He can conclude, "I was wrong, but that's okay. Even Aristotle was wrong."

Aristotle and Einstein aside, what I'm getting at is this "Fox News vs MSNBC" divide that we have in this country is not doing any of us any good. We can either appeal to people's sympathies, or brand people as self-satisfied, socially irresponsible, head-in-the-sand enablers of the status quo. I think the first is the better strategy. I also think the tone of Einstein's letter is much, much nearer the first than the second.

Re: Einstein: The Negro Question (1946)

#220

Post by jqm » Sun, Dec 14, 2014, 1:32 AM UTC

5F36B5F62640 wrote: post #178

schimmy_changa wrote: post #49

If this moves you, follow Einstein's logic to today's world and join in the struggle. There are marches today, consider this your invitation! SF: https://www.facebook.com/events/675598982556580/ Oakland: https://www.facebook.com/events/858052834217501/ NYC: https://www.facebook.com/events/959630214065046/ Boston: https://www.facebook.com/events/1559794327598726/ (and I'm sure there's one near where you live as well)

Garner, from what we know, seems to be a man who did nothing seriously wrong during his encounter with the police. It is quite disturbing that this encounter resulted in his death. It's not even clear that he should have been having an encounter with the police in the first place. We can look at Garner, and see that a great injustice happened to him. Compare to Brown. The police had a very good reason to stop him (wa…

While I generally agree that Brown was responsible, Wilson did do something wrong. He pulled up squealing tires and yelled for Brown to get the F* out of the street.

This type of verbal hostility is probably what got Wilson attacked in the first place. He set the fight button off. Not saying Brown was right.. he wasn't right, and he was stupid. Once he let his temper get the better of him, his shooting was all but inevitable.

But I think this is what people are protesting against as much as anything. Not shootings necessarily, but the general dickish, hostile attitude of police. Especially against certain groups.