Apples and Oranges, Defund the Police Edition

June 14, 2020 12:55 PM

Many times I'm in discussion about BLM and DTP. How do I effectively address an argument that immediately turns to (what I see as disingenuous) black-on-black violence when talking about BLM and DTP?

I DO NOT want to impose on POC to answer this, but all thoughts are welcome. I'm cis/het/white.

posted by j_curiouser to Society & Culture (19 answers total)

A good thread from Eve Ewing: "People say 'why do you only care when police kill people but not when black people kill each other.' Most of those people are trolls but in case anyone has this question in good faith I’ll humor you and address it quickly."
posted by spaet at 1:12 PM on June 14, 2020 [8 favorites]

I think they way to effectively address it is to find the research that shows which is worse and cite it.

As an aside, what makes you doubt the genuineness of the person / people with whom you're discussing this? I recently listened to The Making Sense Podcast, Ep. 207 Pulling Back From the Brink, where Sam makes this exact "black-on-black violence is worse" argument and while I don't agree with a lot of what he said on this podcast, I have no doubt that he and others that take similar positions are completely serious about it.
posted by jeffmilner at 1:18 PM on June 14, 2020 [2 favorites]

Response by poster: what makes you doubt the genuineness of the person / people with whom you're discussing this?
It feels like intentional avoidance. talking about DFP, state violence, ubiquitous brutality is only somewhat related to community violence. The key being unaccountable state actors.
posted by j_curiouser at 1:46 PM on June 14, 2020 [4 favorites]

From Michael Harriot, on the Root and with more charts and graphs on Twitter
posted by meaty shoe puppet at 1:49 PM on June 14, 2020 [3 favorites]

Here's some research: The Police and Public Discourse on “Black-on-Black” Violence (Anthony A. Braga and Rod K. Brunson, New Perspectives in Policing Bulletin, May 2015)

[at 7] Another diagnostic approach is to examine the community-level underpinnings of racial disparities in violent crime to identify the neighborhood characteristics that lead to high rates of violence (Sampson and Wilson, 1985). Empirical evidence suggests that the capacity of neighborhood residents to achieve a common set of goals and exert control over youth and public spaces, termed “collective efficacy,” protects against serious violence (Sampson, Raudenbush and Earls, 1997). The presence of community-based organizations, which draw membership from individuals within and outside specific neighborhoods, predicts collective efficacy and collective civic action (Sampson, 2012). Concentrated disadvantage in urban neighborhoods, which are often populated by black residents, undermines local collective efficacy and gravely limits the ability of residents to address serious violent crime problems (Sampson and Wilson, 1985). As a result, urban homicides, largely committed with guns and perpetrated by and against young black men, tend to concentrate in disadvantaged black neighborhoods.

[...] [at 12] As we noted earlier, commentators routinely refer to eruptions of violence in minority, disadvantaged neighborhoods as the black-on-­black violence problem. We acknowledge that this designation is undeniably statistically accurate, given that most interpersonal violence involves victims and offenders of the same race. However, this higher-level statistical view can blind us to the details of the specific problems and dynamics that drive these statistics. Seldom are crimes involving whites described as white-on-white violence. Use of this vernacular to describe blacks’ victimization of other blacks has several important consequences. First, a singular focus on a rudimentary race-based dyad characterizing black offending and victimization has the potential to devalue black life while overshadowing the importance of harmful social conditions, such as concentrated neighborhood disadvantage and low collective efficacy (Sampson, 2012) that collectively produce crime. [...]

[at 13] Inaccurate descriptions and poor analysis of crime problems can lead to inappropriate and ineffective police responses to recurring incidents. [...] [at 16] Police executives, politicians and political commentators need to refrain from using overly simplistic descriptions — such as “black-on-black” violence — when describing outbreaks of serious criminal violence in black neighborhoods.

There is more in the article that specifically describes the racism implied in arguments that ignore the systemic and institutionalized racism that BLM and DTP seek to address. See Also: In America, Black deaths are not a flaw in the system. They are the system (Derrick Johnson, Guardian Opinion, Jun. 3, 2020) for a detailed overview.
posted by katra at 1:53 PM on June 14, 2020 [3 favorites]

We didn’t stop funding cancer research when the coronavirus hit. You can work on more than one thing at once.

But personally, I’d prefer to work on this one, since the police theoretically work for me. At the very least, I pay their salaries. I should have a say in what they do.
posted by kevinbelt at 1:59 PM on June 14, 2020 [4 favorites]

I would simply reply, "What about white-on-white violence? I mean, white people commit far more violent crimes, but for some reason the police don't seem to be killing them at anywhere near the same proportional rates. So maybe that question misses the point?"
posted by slkinsey at 2:19 PM on June 14, 2020 [11 favorites]

In addition, this might be a start: Stop using ‘black-on-black’ crime to deflect away from police brutality
posted by Ahmad Khani at 2:20 PM on June 14, 2020 [7 favorites]

As an aside, what makes you doubt the genuineness of the person / people with whom you're discussing this?

Because it's a racist, white supremacist strawman?
posted by Ahmad Khani at 2:21 PM on June 14, 2020 [21 favorites]

Honestly, when I hear this argument from any white person who I don't know personally and thus might be able to judge whether there is actual ignorance that might be remedied, I just tell them that we all know that they don't actually care about black people and they can stop pretending that they do. In 85% of cases, it's a bad-faith argument and doesn't deserve a serious answer.
posted by praemunire at 2:54 PM on June 14, 2020 [11 favorites]

One reason there's a lot of black-on-black violence is that police do a terrible job in poor communities. This study has a lot of interesting data, but this bit stands out: in Boston in 2000–2013, 80% of white murders led to an arrest (or the death of the murderer); for Blacks it was 36%.

70% of the homicides were gang-related or drug-related. Which should lead to more questions: why are drugs illegal, why are guns ubiquitious, why are schools and other opportunities underfunded there? It's not coincidence that these policies are promoted by the same people who want an aggressive, minority-hostile police force.

Finally, it's easy to count victims and offenders by race, but not very useful. Violent gangs spring up in poor and ignored neighborhoods of any color. It's highly problematic to consider it an issue of race at all— except for the systemic racism that keeps those areas poor.
posted by zompist at 3:59 PM on June 14, 2020 [2 favorites]

I have started asking people:

"How does saying that make you feel?"

"Does saying that make you feel good about yourself?"

"Does the idea that you could be wrong about that make you uncomfortable?"

"What might it mean for you if you're wrong about that?"

"When you say stuff like that, what do you think it says about you?"

If I know/like them, they sometimes stop and think.

If I know/don't know/don't like them, they start to squirm and choke on their replies.
posted by Kitchen Witch at 6:55 PM on June 14, 2020 [9 favorites]

Following up zompist‘s point, Ghettoside was a very successful true-crime book that goes long on bad policing managing to both over- and under- police its citizens. It’s probably more dependent on following good detectives than it needs to be, but I remember it as a complete indictment of the system and most of LAPD.

Sometimes I’ve gotten somewhere by arguing that since descendants of the Scottish Borderers could become peaceful, anyone can. This depends on not-invulnerable romanticism about the Steel Bonnets.

But jj’s.mama’s point is the best one so now I’m just sticking to that.
posted by clew at 8:06 PM on June 14, 2020 [1 favorite]

Strong second on Ghettoside. It persuasively argues that when police do nothing to solve and prosecute murder and serious assaults, why wouldn't people make their own justice and refuse to cooperate with police? This isn't new: it's the same dynamic that drove feuds a la the Hatfields and McCoys -- the legal system wasn't interested so the self help violence never stopped. It has zip to do with what color the people who can't get justice are. Plus these days communities of color are aggressively policed/harassed by officers seeking a drug or gun arrest. In short, this is another example of blaming people for the racist treatment they receive from police. For racists, all racism is somehow the victims' fault.
posted by bearwife at 9:54 PM on June 14, 2020 [1 favorite]

Cities are spending money on police instead of on social services. They hire police who don’t live in the community rather than social workers who do. Funding libraries, health clinics, schools, housing and even parks is lower than it could be because of the bloated police budgets. Whoever can help with the imposed poverty that is at the root of the problem isn’t being funded, because we are paying police instead.

Even if your interlocutor actually does care about the murder rate within black communities, having a violent police department that manifestly does not care about the lives of the community they serve is not the way to reduce that rate.

For the undereducated, make sure they know about the history of redlining. Black poverty in northern cities isn’t random, it was systematically inflicted by a racist system. Make sure they know about Tulsa, and the other times white people destroyed what black people had built. We should use our tax dollars to fight the poverty and the continually racist system that caused it and perpetuates it, not the people at the wrong end of that oppression.
posted by nat at 1:51 AM on June 15, 2020 [2 favorites]

If they want to talk about black on black violence and not white on white violence, then I would definitely wonder about their intentions. Its a nonsensical argument - the US is a hyper-segregated country, most people live near and interact with people of the same race, of course violence between people tends to align based on race.
posted by RajahKing at 5:40 AM on June 15, 2020 [2 favorites]

This question is an excellent example of whataboutism. The video from Trevor Noah in response to the murder of George Floyd has been linked to on MF before but it is worth linking to again (YouTube). At one point Noah talks about that specific question, explains why it is dumb, and then adds something heartbreaking about (NOT a transcript, just my recollection) how society has taught Black people just how little value their lives have. That white people bring up this issue on Facebook, Twitter, TV, and on podcasts does not make it good-faith question. It is anything but.
posted by Bella Donna at 6:51 AM on June 15, 2020 [1 favorite]

Agree with them totally that black on black violence definitely proves that policing in those communities isn't working, and proves that the police need to be defunded and a different model used to protect people in communities where there is a lot of violence. "Precisely! The cops are useless in black communities! They not only don't reduce crime but their presence there is raising it!" You too are deeply concerned with black on black violence and indeed any and all violence in our communities. This is a good time to bring up how black people have had such bad experiences that they won't call the cops themselves, and if you want to, try and redirect the conversation into how so many white people now won't call the cops when there is a black person involved and how many white people also get harassed by cops when found in the company of black people.

Anyone arguing black on black crime has been getting their information from media that begins with the concept "scary violence" and continues on to "what is cause?" and finishes with "inherent nature of black people". That's all they know about the situation and while they are almost certainly willfully ignorant they may merely be being defensive because they are afraid of being blamed and attacked. Often pleading black on black crime is a way of saying, "Look, I'm not even there! I didn't do it!" If you deflect the subtext away from black = violent without directly contradicting anything they have been taught and do not in any way imply that they are wrong, malicious, culpable or stupid you may get converts. Probably not many but 1 or 2 % counts.

Remember how Black Lives Matter gets blocked by All Lives Matter? It's not a contradiction, it's a dilution that extends the concept and the purpose of the statement until you are way off topic. Use that same technique on Black on Black Crime and make this about white people. "Yeah! And now there is a opioid addiction and crime problem happening in all white neighborhoods too! We're All at Risk! Policing is broken!"

If they say But Our Police Need to Protect Themselves, the correct response is, "They do! And since the current policing model is setting up the situation where cops are now being hated and put at risk, we need to change the current model! I tell you, when my Dad was a boy the cops in New York only carried truncheons. They didn't even need guns. They kept order then. But now they have tanks and drones and tear gas cannons and bullet proof vests and they've lost control completely. We need to bring our police force back to the good old * cough mythological cough * days and disarm everybody! Starting with the cops, of course."

If you move fast you will disarm them enough that they will not be able to sort out which parts they disagree with and which part they have been dragged along on. Ending up in a conversation where they argue that there is no white opioid abuse problem and you shaking your head sadly at them is a win. You're in the first days of a discussion that usually takes a decade or so to get people on board with the angels and the people you are debating with are the ones who are only starting the conversation, so be patient and don't aim for enthusiastic agreement to all your talking points, especially not in the first six months. Similarly don't get upset when you hear their talking points. You know they are misinformed and their arguments are tissue paper, so your object is to demolish them without causing the person you are talking to to retrench defensively. You want to create a convert, not a White Supremacist suicide bomber. You don't need to get them to agree that the police urgently need to be defunded in order to protect black people. You've made an ally if you get them to agree that the police urgently need to be defunded to protect people, period.

Black on black crime is a fact - I am sure at least one black person in the States has punched another black person in the nose - so don't deny it. Make it mean something completely different than your debate opponent expects. You don't want to annoy them or trounce them, you want them to feel like they sound stupid but you are still taking them seriously. "Maybe you're not expressing yourself quite the way you mean. I think I get the jist of what you're saying..." and then rephrase it as one of your own points.

This is not arguing in good faith, of course. You're using devious techniques to twist their meaning. But it's not unfair and it's not a game. You're planting seeds of doubt that might save lives. It's less harmful than not speaking up and akin to using a judo move in a physical fight.



I'm white, gender fluid, on the spectrum, Canadian and live in a province with a .6% population of black people, so while I am involved in these debates, the actual lives and experiences of black people are pretty much only theoretical to me. Moderators: Please delete my comment if anything I wrote was hurtful or inappropriate.
posted by Jane the Brown at 8:25 AM on June 15, 2020

The only way to really know your feelings and the stance on the issue is to have it in the best times in our country of non violent racial harmony. Barring the sensory deprivation and dream world of that unrealistic utopia you will never see those times. Neither will we. Or our kids or their African Gray Macaws who can live a hundred years. I digress. The point is anytime there is a no solution problem the least involved jump on the necks, no pun intended, of the fighters and make it a war they cant win. If the Police lose funding it would rarely come to harm any who dont live in crime ridden areas. And police dont "protect and serve" in low income primarily black neighborhoods as much as on tv. That's a fact. Call your police department with no known number and give the same crime details from the suburbs and the housing projects. See which crime gets the report and which one finds more crimes.
posted by The_imp_inimpossible at 6:28 PM on June 24, 2020