zlacker

>>dtagam+(OP)
There are lots and lots of mishaps in many professions, sometimes with deadly consequences. The United States is a country of 330 million people. Suppose an event is so unlikely it only has 1 in a billion chance of happening--it will happen once ever 4 days on average!

Medical errors, for example, are estimated to cause as many as 250,000 deaths per year [1].

There are millions and millions of daily interactions between police and civilians every year. Sadly, there will be some mistakes, some of which will be caught on camera.

It's important to be aware that what the media can be random, and media coverage is not always correlated with how important or prevalent a problem is.

[1] Johns Hopkins: https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/news/media/releases/study_su...

>>marcel+Oq
There are lots and lots of mishaps in many professions, sometimes with deadly consequences. The United States is a country of 330 million people. Suppose an event is so unlikely it only has 1 in a billion chance of happening--it will happen once ever 4 days on average!

I think the issue people are rioting about is that it's not a 1 in a billion chance for everyone. It's more like 1 in a quintillion for a rich white person, and 1 in a million for a person of color. That inequality stems from systemic racism in the police force. What you're saying is that it would be less of a problem if the deaths were evenly distributed across the population. That may be true, but I don't think many people would suggest it as a viable solution to the problem.

>>onion2+vA
This cannot be backed up by data. When I travel with a black friend in Europe, I actually get checked occasionally. That never happens when traveling alone. There seem to be issues with profiling here but I don't believe a diagnosis like systemic racism is in any way justified beyond populism.

>>raxxor+GD
There seem to be issues with profiling here but I don't believe a diagnosis like systemic racism...

Profiling is an aspect of systemic racism.

>>onion2+NG
I profoundly disagree with that definition. Racism needs animosity and distrust doesn't qualify as that. You can make a case that this is the accepted academic nomenclature but I would add that the reasoning behind it is not very sophisticated. I would argue that it could even elevate racial tensions if applied to practical problems. Even beyond factoring in the common scholar diagnosing racism in everything.

>>raxxor+RH
Racism needs animosity and distrust doesn't qualify as that.

Systemic racism doesn't need animosity for it to happen. Systemic racism is a term for how a system discriminates against race - that might be something like defining how much to spend on schools based on the taxable income of residents. That's not "racist" in the sense that someone deliberately decided to give people of color get less resources, but the outcome of the decision is that people of color get less resources. That is systemic racism. There doesn't need to be any racist intent on the part of any individuals in that system for it to happen (though there often is.)

>>onion2+UK
Then why draw the line on race? That just leads to divide and conquer between the poorest of a nation. Because

> that might be something like defining how much to spend on schools based on the taxable income of residents.

is purely economic discrimination. Frankly, I think the recent redefinition is lacking.