Let's pretend it doesn't exist.

[Gob]

Try being the only Brit in an office full of Aussies when the Ashes are on!

[BoSoxGal]

I was taught 'sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.' I'm not saying name calling is OK; but to go all wobbly because someone mentions a word which was once used hatefully seems a little precious to me.

Was once used hatefully?! Do you have any idea how out of touch you sound? How white privileged? Is your head buried in the fucking sand?!

Growing up black in America means seeing people who look like you being murdered by the police on a regular basis, and most of them getting away with it. The word NIGGER is still used hatefully ALL THE FUCKING TIME by a great many of the great many racists who populate this country and have been emboldened in recent years by unapologetic racists in our political leadership positions and by the very many white moderates who have their heads buried in the fucking sand or are too apathetic to speak up.

By the way, nobody’s posted about this but here is the recent article detailing a review of police killings over the last few decades which establishes that there have been many more civilians killed by police than previously understood. And we still have no meaningful police reform, no George Floyd Act, no nothing really to stop the racist motherfuckers in the ranks of our police from using their badges to murder people of color with impunity. We aren’t even counting these killings accurately.

For fucks sake, none of this is in the past.

Killings by police are undercounted by more than half, new study says

More than half of police killings in the United States over the past 40 years have been mislabeled, according to a new study, leading to a stark undercount of deaths at the hands of officers and a lopsided perception of what experts say is a public health crisis.

Researchers from the University of Washington found that from 1980 to 2019, more than 55 percent of 31,000 deaths attributed to police violence were assigned other causes in official federal death data. Black men are killed by police at disproportionately high rates, and their deaths are mislabeled at higher rates than for any other race, according to the study, which was published Thursday in the Lancet, a peer-reviewed medical journal.

The study underscores a grim reality: Despite years of scrutiny, criticism, protests and calls for reform, no government agency tracks how often law enforcement officers in America kill people. Since 2015, The Washington Post has been counting how often on-duty police shoot and kill people. But there is no comprehensive federal attempt to keep track of these deaths or other uses of force by law enforcement, including chokeholds and nonfatal shootings. One of the study’s authors called the deaths poorly catalogued and preventable, and an expert said the lack of meaningful tracking of these deaths underscores the deep-rootedness of systemic racism.

High-profile police killings over the past several years, such as that of George Floyd in May 2020, have led to nationwide calls for police reform and an examination of why Black men are disproportionately killed during police encounters. But until now, this study’s authors say, the true scope of police killings has been largely unknown.

Police and a medical examiner initially attributed Floyd’s death to drug use and underlying conditions, despite bystander video showing former police officer Derek Chauvin kneeling on Floyd’s neck and back for more than nine minutes. Chauvin was found guilty of murder and manslaughter in April.

The study compared decades of data from the National Vital Statistics System, which tracks births and deaths, to three databases that track police violence: Fatal Encounters, Mapping Police Violence and the Guardian’s The Counted. The databases sift through news reports and public records for instances of people killed during police encounters.

Mohsen Naghavi, the study’s senior author, told The Post that it is critical to look beyond the incomplete data provided by government agencies.

“Here the role of the media is very important,” he said. “If we didn’t have the media, we wouldn’t have open-source data.”

Noting the striking discrepancy between the study’s findings and the government’s data, the authors called for public health officials and researchers to “swiftly adopt open-source data-collection initiatives to provide accurate estimates and advocate for policy change to address this long-neglected public health crisis.”

Researchers identified places where misclassification of deaths often occurred, noting that medical examiners or coroners — who must fill out the cause of death when there is suspicion of foul play, including police violence — can be embedded in or work for police departments.

If the medical examiner, coroner or other certifier fails to indicate police involvement in the cause of death on the death certificate, the incident could be misclassified.

The study underscores how deeply enmeshed systemic racism is in different aspects of life — including health, said Edwin G. Lindo, assistant dean for social and health justice at the University of Washington School of Medicine.

“We have to really sit back and say, ‘What does this mean?’” the critical race theory scholar told The Post. “In my mind there is a deep-seated undercurrent of systemic racism to the point that a medical examiner doesn’t have to declare that they’re racist. The practices are already showing, and the racism is occurring, not just during the encounter itself, but even after the individual has passed away.

“There’s still acts of racism trying to hide the murder or the killing that occurred,” he said.

The study’s authors said forensic pathologists should be independent from law enforcement to avoid incorrectly identifying the cause of death due to outside pressures. They also said the experts should be offered whistleblower protections so they can fully investigate police violence.

“We need the government and policymakers to fix this conflict of interest because violence is a public health crisis,” Naghavi said.

Researchers found Black people were 3½ times more likely than White people to be killed by police, and Latinos and Native Americans also faced higher rates of fatal violence at the hands of law enforcement. About one in every thousand Black men in the United States is killed by police, the study found.

“Systemic and direct racism, manifested in laws and policies as well as personal implicit biases, result in Black, Indigenous, and Hispanic Americans being the targets of police violence,” it read.

Lindo said the number of people dying at the hands of police highlights how this violence is a major public health problem.

“That is a mortality rate greater than the likelihood of you dying of riding your bicycle in the United States, and riding your bicycle is dangerous,” he said.

Underreporting also most dramatically affected Black people, the study found, with nearly 60 percent of deaths misclassified. Men were more than 20 times more likely to be killed than women. In 2019, the study said, more than twice as many men died from police encounters than from testicular cancer.

“This is important because it kills more than some important disease, and it is preventable,” Naghavi said.

Misclassification rates varied broadly from state to state, with researchers finding Oklahoma incorrectly labeled more than 83 percent of deaths by police, Wyoming more than 79 percent, and Alabama, Louisiana and Nebraska all over 72 percent. Maryland had the fewest estimated misclassified police killings at around 16 percent.

Oklahoma, Arizona, Alaska and the District of Columbia had the highest rates of police killings, according to the study.

After police in Ferguson, Mo., killed Michael Brown in 2014, a Post investigation found that the FBI undercounted fatal police shootings by more than half. Most U.S. police departments have declined to share data with the National Use-of-Force Data Collection since its launch in 2019 — despite a presidential order and other pressure.

Lindo said the underreporting is “an act of dehumanizing the death of these communities.”

Obscuring the actual figures of deaths from police violence compounds mistrust in the government and could also lead to greater impunity for officers, Lindo said.

With such discrepancies in how police deaths are reported, Lindo said the study is primed to generate attention. Yet, more than a rude awakening, the professor said, the findings should catalyze action.

“What the study doesn’t speak to and what we need to focus on … is that the underreporting doesn’t necessarily mean that the behavior of the police brutality changes immediately,” he said. “And so while, yes, we focus on how severe this underreporting is, we also have to identify the tactics to make sure that this police violence no longer exists.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2 ... unt-study/

[Big RR]

BSG, black people in America have their own language constructions, speech patterns, and certain phonic groups that are different from normal — or 'White' — English (I might as well push the bias button, since you're going to accuse me — along with every other swinging dick on this board — of being a white male racist yet again anyway...).   Remember when they tried to pass it off as "Ebonics"?

As I've said here so many times, no race has the right to sequester words and language, that's plain racism.

While I don't agree it is racism, I do agree that no person or group has that right. But I do agree that simple etiquette demands that we avoid offense of others, and that basically states that there are some words which we should not use, even if the use is not forbidden. It is not enough to say the word was not used with any offense intended, we should modify our speech based on the perceived (or predicted) reaction of the person hearing it, not our intent. It really isn't that hard avoid the offense, so why not do it

And, FWIW, learning empathy would be much better than memorizing a list of words which should be avoided.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I was taught 'sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me.' I'm not saying name calling is OK; but to go all wobbly because someone mentions a word which was once used hatefully seems a little precious to me.

Was once used hatefully?! Do you have any idea how out of touch you sound? How white privileged? Is your head buried in the fucking sand?!

Oh FFS BSG. We are discussing the use of the word now in the context of when it was used in the past - is it permissible to utter the word now in the context of a discussion about how it was then used? You know as well as I do, and you know that I know, that it is never appropriate to use it as an insult. (Nor has it ever been - but there is not much we can do about the past.) I am well aware, and you should you be aware that I am aware, that the word is used by white racists and others (and, BTW, similar words in other cultures - maybe Meade can enlighten us because I do not know - is the k-word forbidden even in a discussion of its use amid the nastiest form of white supremacy the world has known in the past century?)

We have not discussed police killings because it simply is not the point of this thread. Randall Kennedy and Eugene Volokh do not discuss police killings in their - IMO - perceptive piece. I do not take that omission to be evidence that they do not care or are out of touch. Are their heads buried in some sand somewhere?

BSG you have often boasted about your ability to read and comprehend. Please fucking do so. Look for nuance, look for context, look even between the lines. You might find it helps.

[BoSoxGal]

I’m not going to apologize for being highly frustrated and disgusted by the nonchalance about racism and the outright racism repeatedly expressed by many of the current participants on this board. Nope. Not gonna.

[MajGenl.Meade]

maybe Meade can enlighten us because I do not know - is the k-word forbidden even in a discussion of its use amid the nastiest form of white supremacy the world has known in the past century

I don't know either. People have been jailed for using the word - rightly so in the all-two-both cases reported when white women were jailed in 2016 and 2018 for using the k-word.

But it is doubtful that the word is spoken aloud, even in discussion of literature and society in educational establishments. As with the media, "k-word" is sufficient - it doesn't need to be repeated.

I will note that some people are excellent at attacking others for insensitivity over something that offends them but equally vocal in repeatedly defending their right to use foul language to and about people who are offended by it. Obviously, standards differ depending entirely on whose ox is being gored.

[ex-khobar Andy]

I’m not going to apologize for being highly frustrated and disgusted by the nonchalance about racism and the outright racism repeatedly expressed by many of the current participants on this board. Nope. Not gonna.

Straw man, BSG.

[Bicycle Bill]

maybe Meade can enlighten us because I do not know - is the k-word forbidden even in a discussion of its use amid the nastiest form of white supremacy the world has known in the past century

I don't know either. People have been jailed for using the word - rightly so in the all-two-both cases reported when white women were jailed in 2016 and 2018 for using the k-word.

But it is doubtful that the word is spoken aloud, even in discussion of literature and society in educational establishments. As with the media, "k-word" is sufficient - it doesn't need to be repeated.

The only 'k-word' I could think of that might be offensive was 'kike' — but then again, I don't live in South Africa and, while I was somewhat aware of their history with black/white apartheid, wasn't fully aware of all the nuances or terms relating to it.

Thank goodness that, unlike BSG and others of her ilk, Google and Wikipedia aren't afraid to print and discuss the word in question in order to clearly provide valuable information.

[MajGenl.Meade]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaffir_(racial_term)

[Burning Petard]

On The other hand, why do some people believe they have a right to go though life, never offended?

snailgate

[Sue U]

I do not agree with the attempt to censor offensive words, particularly in literature and particularly in classes that are studying that literature. Students who are reading Huckleberry Finn or To Kill A Mockingbird or whatever are presumably mature enough to understand and discuss the ideas presented. If they encounter the word "nigger" in the text, there is nothing wrong with having a frank discussion about how it's used and why it's there. And this is perhaps a "teachable moment" about taboos and social sensibilities in navigating the world.

"Me and fellow campaigners are saying this word is a violent word and it adds nothing to the lesson by saying it out loud."

I will refrain from commenting on the violence done to standard English grammar by that sentence. (Oops, too late!) But if it is a "violent word," the "violence" is not solely gratuitous (at least in the context of the literary canon), and so it does in fact add to the lesson by discussing the effect it is intended to have on readers. What are these authors saying to us with their choice of words? What are they depicting with this text?

I agree with the WaPo opinion piece by Randall Kennedy and Eugene Volokh, posted by BSG. It is injurious to education to attempt to sanitize texts and speech that are inherently filthy. The truth of their use should be laid bare, not hidden behind a prudish veil of modesty, so as to foster understanding of language -- which is the greatest gift bestowed on humanity and the key to both our survival and destruction.

That said, I am also a fan of etiquette and consideration, and believe there is a time and place for everything. And I have to wonder about (let's face it, white) people who are so incensed by the idea that there is probably never a time or place they should use the word "nigger" or even "nigga" in ordinary conversation. What is their great need to do so?

[MajGenl.Meade]

On The other hand, why do some people believe they have a right to go though life, never offended?

snailgate

Dunno, maybe it's related to not wanting to go through life in the company of physical and mental abusers?

[Gob]

Was once used hatefully?! Do you have any idea how out of touch you sound? How white privileged? Is your head buried in the fucking sand?!

That's you told!

[Guinevere]

I do not agree with the attempt to censor offensive words, particularly in literature and particularly in classes that are studying that literature. Students who are reading Huckleberry Finn or To Kill A Mockingbird or whatever are presumably mature enough to understand and discuss the ideas presented. If they encounter the word "nigger" in the text, there is nothing wrong with having a frank discussion about how it's used and why it's there. And this is perhaps a "teachable moment" about taboos and social sensibilities in navigating the world.

"Me and fellow campaigners are saying this word is a violent word and it adds nothing to the lesson by saying it out loud."

I will refrain from commenting on the violence done to standard English grammar by that sentence. (Oops, too late!) But if it is a "violent word," the "violence" is not solely gratuitous (at least in the context of the literary canon), and so it does in fact add to the lesson by discussing the effect it is intended to have on readers. What are these authors saying to us with their choice of words? What are they depicting with this text?

I agree with the WaPo opinion piece by Randall Kennedy and Eugene Volokh, posted by BSG. It is injurious to education to attempt to sanitize texts and speech that are inherently filthy. The truth of their use should be laid bare, not hidden behind a prudish veil of modesty, so as to foster understanding of language -- which is the greatest gift bestowed on humanity and the key to both our survival and destruction.

That said, I am also a fan of etiquette and consideration, and believe there is a time and place for everything. And I have to wonder about (let's face it, white) people who are so incensed by the idea that there is probably never a time or place they should use the word "nigger" or even "nigga" in ordinary conversation. What is their great need to do so?

This. 100%.

Frankly if a group of law students are upset about the use of the word “nigger” in a case they are studying, and cannot distinguish between reviewing and discussing the case in an educational context, and using the word “nigger” as an epithet today, they probably should not be in law school.

[Sue U]

Frankly if a group of law students are upset about the use of the word “nigger” in a case they are studying, and cannot distinguish between reviewing and discussing the case in an educational context, and using the word “nigger” as an epithet today, they probably should not be in law school.

I am ashamed that this happened at my law school (although apparently at the Newark division, not here in Camden). It seems the offended students were a group of 1Ls who perhaps have not yet gained our lawyerly/superannuated perspective.