No, I was referring to cooperating with law enforcement authorities instead of antagonizing them at every possible chance. How many victims of police shootings could have avoided that fate by simply peacefully cooperating with the officers involved?

> Nah, crime rates in marginalized eras don't prove what you claim, and neither do they justify cop violence.

They do.

> No. You are just fixated on your favorite boogie man, while decrying cops and racism being singled out by "the radical left". The "BLM leaders" are irrelevant -- this is a decentralized rallying cry against police brutality, not a hierarchical organization -- what matters is the outcry on people who reacted to police brutality. You are grasping at straws anyway, anyone on HN can see that arguing about funding has nothing to do with whether protesting police brutality is a just cause.

Not all police shootings are police brutality. In fact, I'd argue most are perfectly justified by suspects refusing to follow orders.

> Your stats show police shooting victims are NOT primarily white. I think you meant "blacks aren't the majority", but that's not the winning argument you think it is: nobody said cops are exclusively prejudiced against blacks. Also, shooting is not the only way the police exerts violence and discrimination.

I prefer to rely on hard data than on paranoid conspiracy theories.

> Finally, your link supports the fact police brutality is a problem in the US.

More palatable to blame the cops than the suspects who needlesly refuse to cooperate.

> The comment I was replying to argued Adams was radicalized, but blamed the hysterical left. It pays to read the conversation before jumping in.

I read the comment. I disagree with the characterization.

https://imgur.com/a/OS93vKe

Leftists pushing the idea that all good aspects of western culture are white supremacy and must be dismantled would be a factor, yes.

> Bullshit. Your opinion lacks any depth or explanatory power. No serious analysis would stop here.

Crime rates in minority areas prove it.

> Reality shows otherwise. There's reason there has been increasing backlash against police violence, and it's not "the hysterical left".

The increased backlash responds to increased profitability. Just look at how much BLM leaders cash in. Most police shooting victims are white, yet there's not talk about it anywhere.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-de...

> that Scott Adams had become radicalized

He wasn't. That's just leftist hysteria and willfull character assassination.

At some point people have to stop blaming whites from hundreds of years ago and start looking at the consequences current policies and individual choices. This cop violence problem is really only a thing in high-crime areas.

> It ignores how the US got to that situation

Yes, by very lenient with violent criminals.

> Also, cops aren't in the same category as criminals (well, non-criminal cops anyway) and should be held to higher standards. They should de-escalate, not be another factor in violence.

They try that. Suspects refuse to cooperate and results are predictable.

> So we should cut Scott Adams' some slack because he was "radicalized" by the "hysterical reaction of the left", but not acknowledge the reasons for BLM's existence or anything even before that?

There's nothing radical about peacefully disengaging with people who think your mere existance is a bad thing. BLM on the other hand is mostly an attempt to make crime worse by weakening police forces, which again, would mostly hurt black people.

If you treated people with respect and dignity for your entire life and the result you get is increased hatred against you then disengaging is in fact a perfectly valid course of action.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_1992_Venezuelan_coup_...