> No. The specific discussion of black-on-black crime is about the idea that nobody is discussing it, which is just false on its face. This is distinct from questioning whether black people are often the victims of crimes committed by other black people.
So now we're taking the literal definition of "nobody", and using it to say that this is false. Personally, I'd feel comfortable saying "nobody is talking about cause X", if related cause Y was being talked about 100x more. Otherwise "nobody is talking about X" is always trivially false - by saying that, you are talking about it. But by the 100x standard... Yeah, nobody (right now) is talking about black-on-black crime, in comparison to white-on-black crime.
> Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have.
> Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism.
The problem with this argument - that this is a bad-faith question and it's been sufficiently addressed so shutup and stop asking - is twofold. First, many people will ask this due to not being familiar with those answers. Second, some people might think those answers are insufficient. Why not just link to the experts addressing it?
> Personally, I'd feel comfortable saying "nobody is talking about cause X", if related cause Y was being talked about 100x more.
I'd truly encourage you to go engage with the literature and experts on this subject. You might find that your "100x" expectation is wildly inaccurate.
> Why not just link to the experts addressing it?
Because they are easy to find for people who are interested and spending time navigating the literature for people engaged in an intellectual denial of service attack is a waste of time. Same reason I stopped engaging with quacks causing trouble in my field of expertise.
> I'd truly encourage you to go engage with the literature and experts on this subject. You might find that your "100x" expectation is wildly inaccurate.
Funny thing is, for the people asking that question (and IIRC literally the case that led to this discussion, which was an on-the-street-interview) they aren't looking at the academic literature - they're reading Vox, or watching CNN, or Fox, or reading the NYTimes. And I think that 100x is pretty accurate there.
> Because they are easy to find for people who are interested and spending time navigating the literature for people engaged in an intellectual denial of service attack is a waste of time. Same reason I stopped engaging with quacks causing trouble in my field of expertise.
"This is easy, and people ask me to do it often, but instead of doing it once and saving the results I just say 'educate thyself' and walk away"
Things that are easy for you - a person evidently up-to-date with the literature here - might be extremely difficult/impossible for someone who's not familiar, or who doesn't have free journal access.
> Funny thing is, for the people asking that question (and IIRC literally the case that led to this discussion, which was an on-the-street-interview) they aren't looking at the academic literature - they're reading Vox, or watching CNN, or Fox, or reading the NYTimes. And I think that 100x is pretty accurate there.
You say this, but my wife is a historian and she and her colleagues get this crap thrown at them all the time. The "what about talking about black on black crime" meme is clearly being directed everywhere rather than specifically at the media. People use this phrase to specifically attack activists and academics.
If you want to criticize the media, great! Leftists aren't exactly big fans of the organizations you list. Just don't retreat to "its about the media" after criticizing other people.
> Things that are easy for you - a person evidently up-to-date with the literature here - might be extremely difficult/impossible for someone who's not familiar, or who doesn't have free journal access.
A core problem is that "wall of links" tends to not be productive. This isn't unique to fields like sociology. If somebody asked me about abstract interpretation and I just threw a bunch of Cousot papers at them it wouldn't be productive. The trick is to engage with people who can help you synthesize the literature and actually trust them. Look up the sociology faculty at a nearby university, find somebody who works in a thematically related field, and write them a letter.
So now we're taking the literal definition of "nobody", and using it to say that this is false. Personally, I'd feel comfortable saying "nobody is talking about cause X", if related cause Y was being talked about 100x more. Otherwise "nobody is talking about X" is always trivially false - by saying that, you are talking about it. But by the 100x standard... Yeah, nobody (right now) is talking about black-on-black crime, in comparison to white-on-black crime.
> Similarly, "what about black on black crime" is a weaponized idea designed to convince people that experts haven't considered this, when they really have.
> Experts have concluded clearly that the existence and even high frequency of black-on-black crime absolutely does not dismantle claims about white supremacy and systemic racism.
The problem with this argument - that this is a bad-faith question and it's been sufficiently addressed so shutup and stop asking - is twofold. First, many people will ask this due to not being familiar with those answers. Second, some people might think those answers are insufficient. Why not just link to the experts addressing it?