zlacker

I really dislike labeling any recognition of an issue as "cheap".

It was not that long ago that any positive recognition of even gay people existing in modern media outside of farce, recognition by corporations was seen as a HUGE step forward as far as making people or concerns SEEN.

Maybe some CEO's out there are all Snidely Whiplash and putting out all their messaging for free PR, but I'm not going to assume that and I think the recognition is of value.

>>duxup+(OP)
I understand the position, but nowadays Twitter is full of #BlackLivesMatter posts, pride flags can be seen commonly, all while, to bring the two most currently visible things that haven't changed, the sex/race pay gaps are still there, and Black folk are still much more likely to die during police interventions.

I guess I'm glad that the recognition and posts from CEOs is there, but posting rainbow flags and "Black Lives Matter" on Twitter has simply become fashionable now. It's possible to do that and do nothing else in order to announce a success and go, "hey, we support minorities" while ignoring problems that have people mispaid, misjudged, locked up for statistically longer, or just plain outright killed.

That's the elephant in the room I've mentioned, and unless these Twitter statistics and CEO or corporate recognition you mention translate into daily reality of these minority groups, they're not of much actual and practical use. They're not the goal, they're the means.

EDIT: in other words, if one of your Black friends gets shot "by accident" during a random police intervention - oh goodness, it's really sad, Alexa play some jazz music. But hey, #BlackLivesMatter is trending in social media, that must means that things are good for the Black folk, right?

/s

EDIT2: The word "cheap" is there because such a stunt is very far from being "expensive". It costs little to nothing, it can be done without other actions or at minimal costs, it does not require changes of management or company course or internal rules. It is, therefore, by definition, cheap.

>>phoe-k+e2
"... and Black folk are still much more likely to die during police interventions."

Care to link to a source?

>>Foxhea+P5
https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

From Significance, right at the top: "(...) Black women and men and American Indian and Alaska Native women and men are significantly more likely than white women and men to be killed by police. Latino men are also more likely to be killed by police than are white men."

>>Foxhea+P5
I try to do my best to assume good faith, but sometimes comments like this make it really hard.

In any case, here's two links. One's from Drexel University, the other is a meta-composition of resources by an organization connected to the Kennedy School at Harvard. Educate yourself.

[1] https://drexel.edu/now/archive/2016/December/Black-Men-3-tim...

[2] https://journalistsresource.org/studies/government/criminal-...

>>phoe-k+e2
I don't buy into the theory that "things haven't changed" and thus discounting visibility.

Protests happened in the past too? Do we discount that?

It's all cynicism and divisiveness these days about how someone isn't doing enough, even among folks who share values ... in favor of I don't know what standard ...

>>Foxhea+P5
Yeah, I'm pretty sure the stats say the opposite is true, but it really depends who's using the statistics to paint _their_ picture.

In this study run by Harvard professor Roland Fryer, it was found that African-Americans are 20% less likely to be shot and proportionally more likely to see use-of-force against them.

https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399

I didn't find anything unbiased in my quick search on "likelihood of death during interaction."

>>duxup+Ia
OK, that's correct; I might not have expressed myself clearly. Slightly edited my post up there. Thanks.

I did not mean to imply that the visibility of these issues hasn't changed; it's quite obvious that these issues are much closer to the surface of everyday discourse than they were earlier.

The visibility alone does nil, though, when it comes to everyday practical effects. The mere fact that this issue is visible did not change the death counts. Death statistics during police interventions can be considered one such standard. It's a good first step that needs to be followed by further steps.

>>phoe-k+R7
The fact is that police shootings of unarmed African-Americans are still only 0.1% of all African-Americans killed. There are studies that find that no racial differences in lethal uses of force: https://www.nber.org/papers/w22399.pdf

>>qchris+ka
I don't know if it's one of the studies you linked to, but I read a study a week ago that showed that black men were 2.5 times more likely to be killed by a cop, but 2.1 more likely to kill a cop (compared to whites).

>>qchris+ka
The reason why this is contentious is because it relies on how you are defining 'a police intervention.' Very few people I see debating this issue dispute that blacks are killed at 2.5x the right whites are by the police. What they dispute is that this disparity exists because of police officer bias, and they point to differing crime and geographic factors that cause the disparity. In that case, blacks and whites might be shot at the same right within the context of a given police interaction, but what that specific context is and the frequency of that context between black and white populations differs.

The 2.5x number isn't really disputed, it is the reason for it & the policy that is proposed because of it that is contentious.