The Trial of Derek Chauvin

[Gorbles]

So what was "wild" about what he said?
All differences between sexes ultimately come down to a mix of two things: evolutionary factors and cultural conditioning. To what degree each plays a role is hardly possible to separate precisely - but they both do. Attempts to entirely deny the former are just neo-creationism.

Samson answered this for me excellently, but I just want to highlight something. I'm not denying evolutionary differences between humans. I have no idea why you'd claim that. If you have an understanding of this apparent "evolutionary slumber" that you want to put forward, go for it.

But my disagreeing with the conclusions a poster is drawing from them doesn't mean I'm denying they exist. Seems pretty weird you'd even try and make that as my argument.

 

[Sommerswerd]

You think I'm opposed to the drug war so I can criticize the people responsible for it?

No. As a standalone matter, I think you're opposed to "the drug war" as an abstract concept, including some of what you see as the results of that concept, period.

As a separate issue, I think that you are opposed to Democrats substantially more than Republicans.

As a separate issue, I think that you invoke your abstract opposition to "the drug war" mainly as a tool to attack Democrats. I also think its possible that you are not even fully aware that you are doing this and that you do it reflexively, as a consequence of your focus on opposing Democrats.

As an aside, and more on-topic, I will add that I think that criticizing Democrats for "the drug war" is a legitimate criticism, including in the context of police brutality. However, I don't accept "the drug war" as an alternate for the obvious institutional racism against black people going on in the criminal justice system. Racism and racist ideology (the kind that caused Chauvin's attitude and actions towards George Floyd) is what led to "the drug war" not the other way around.

I'm convinced the reason Obama beat Hillary was her vote on that war.

Prior to 2016 and 2020, I might have been inclined to consider that possibility, but not any more. Hillary lost to Trump and Obama before that, in part, because lots of people hate and despise her. I think that has less to do with the Iraq vote than you seem to think and more to do with Hillary herself, personally, aesthetically, and otherwise superficially. I could have been persuaded, prior to 2020, that it was also the fact that she was so deeply tied to and viewed as establishment, but Biden's election kinda dispelled that. Biden's election also dispelled the Iraq War vote explanation. Hillary lost because she was so widely, vehemently disliked, by so many people. And remember, that while she lost the election, she still won the popular vote.

But all of this (ie "Hillary"/Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with the Trial of Derek Chauvin, BLM, and related issues. It is just another stark example of you constantly steering every issue into an attempt to attack Democrats.

 

[El_Machinae]

Memories are short, though. Clinton could have lost because of her complicity in the Iraq War, and then by 2020 that bug-a-boo was less cared about. Biden had more time to clean up his image.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Memories are short, though. Clinton could have lost because of her complicity in the Iraq War, and then by 2020 that bug-a-boo was less cared about. Biden had more time to clean up his image.

Meh. "Short memories" would have long-ago stopped caring about a War that started in 2003 by 2016. The four additional years to 2020 wouldn't have made any difference to "short-memories". But again, the Hillary-Iraq thing has nothing to do with this thread.

 

[Berzerker]

The Chauvin verdict might get tossed out, one of the jurors wasn't up front about attending protests. Apparently the defense has filed a motion that includes other complaints like jury intimidation.

 

[Yeekim]

The "wild" thing is "male cops are more likely to face greater risks". There was a time when women were excluded from combat roles in the military, because of similar thinking. This was ruled sexist and stopped. Berzerker is claiming without evidence this is going on in the police force to an extent that it results in a 6 fold difference in rate of killing. Considering the litigious nature of the states, I find this unlikely to be happening.

Samson answered this for me excellently, but I just want to highlight something. I'm not denying evolutionary differences between humans. I have no idea why you'd claim that. If you have an understanding of this apparent "evolutionary slumber" that you want to put forward, go for it.
But my disagreeing with the conclusions a poster is drawing from them doesn't mean I'm denying they exist. Seems pretty weird you'd even try and make that as my argument.

I have trouble seeing what you disagree with then.
1) Males tend to be more aggressive compared to females: this is evidenced by male cops killing suspects more frequently.
2) Because of 1), men are also perceived as more of a threat compared to females. This explains why male cops are also killed more frequently themselves.
3) There is probably a feedback loop between 1) and 2).
4) Evolutionary factors are at least partially to blame for 1), so this gender disparity is unlikely to disappear.

What don't you agree with?

 

[Sommerswerd]

The Chauvin verdict might get tossed out, one of the jurors wasn't up front about attending protests. Apparently the defense has filed a motion that includes other complaints like jury intimidation.

The Chauvin verdict was getting appealed regardless, the Judge explicitly stated that Maxine Waters have given them grounds for appeal because of her comments even before the verdict even came in. The picture of the juror wearing a BLM hat at a march just adds another argument for the defense to use in their appeal.

Photo of Chauvin juror wearing BLM T-shirt at march raises questions of impartiality, experts say

The photo, shared by several news sites, shows Brandon Mitchell, a 31-year-old high school basketball coach in Minneapolis, standing next to two relatives wearing a black T-shirt with a picture of Martin Luther King Jr. with the words “Get your knee off our necks,” as well as a black baseball cap with the letters “BLM” (for Black Lives Matter).


On Monday, Mitchell told the Star Tribune that the photo was posted on social media by his uncle in D.C. last August, during the commemoration of Martin Luther King Jr.’s “I Have a Dream” speech from 1963.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/05/03/chauvin-trial-juror/

 

[Berzerker]

I'm sure you have stats and evidence to back up this wild claim then.

You mentioned wild, dont males in the wild generally fight over the females? I dont know when sexual dimorphism appeared in our species but one of the reasons why men are larger than women is because they had to compete with other men and kill big game. And ofc women liked men who could protect them and their kids.

When mommies became mommies is when men became expendable risk takers. Can we consider how many men die in war as evidence? I was responding to stats that show male cops are more involved in shootings, isn't that evidence? Men want to protect women, the Israeli army studied the matter and agreed.

My assumption was that veterans and active duty members are trained explicitly to not be meek and compliant, and police do not like that so kill people who are not.

You are still coming up with lots of claims with no number to back them up.

I'm letting you make my points, you've just established a non racist motive for death by cop. And ofc you are right, yay. Military people are killed more than the average because they're more likely gonna resist and pose a threat. It would be interesting to see how many white men and women are killed by cops, the average was 9.4% but certainly men are killed far more often than women, so its possible white men are killed more than black people.

The "wild" thing is "male cops are more likely to face greater risks". There was a time when women were excluded from combat roles in the military, because of similar thinking. This was ruled sexist and stopped. Berzerker is claiming without evidence this is going on in the police force to an extent that it results in a 6 fold difference in rate of killing. Considering the litigious nature of the states, I find this unlikely to be happening.

If you want to argue male cops kill more people because men are just more violent, I wont disagree. I think men evolved to be more violent and more protective of females. But the cops are accused of racism, not Neanderthalism.

As Samson said, that doesn't help. It certainly has nothing to do with whatever "evolutionary slumber" Berzerker is evidently educated about.

A reference to our lengthy mammalian evolutionary path and the roles played by males and females. Men take the risks because our female ancestors started having babies which made both vulnerable.

 

[Lexicus]

As an aside, and more on-topic, I will add that I think that criticizing Democrats for "the drug war" is a legitimate criticism, including in the context of police brutality. However, I don't accept "the drug war" as an alternate for the obvious institutional racism against black people going on in the criminal justice system. Racism and racist ideology (the kind that caused Chauvin's attitude and actions towards George Floyd) is what led to "the drug war" not the other way around.

QFT

I'm letting you make my points, you've just established a non racist motive for death by cop. And ofc you are right, yay.

this is so revealing lol

 

[Birdjaguar]

You mentioned wild, dont males in the wild generally fight over the females? I dont know when sexual dimorphism appeared in our species but one of the reasons why men are larger than women is because they had to compete with other men and kill big game. And ofc women liked men who could protect them and their kids.

When mommies became mommies is when men became expendable risk takers. Can we consider how many men die in war as evidence? I was responding to stats that show male cops are more involved in shootings, isn't that evidence? Men want to protect women, the Israeli army studied the matter and agreed.

... But the cops are accused of racism, not Neanderthalism.

A reference to our lengthy mammalian evolutionary path and the roles played by males and females. Men take the risks because our female ancestors started having babies which made both vulnerable.

You need to brush up on evolutionary studies. Mammalian sexuality and roles are very different across its many species. You'd be better off sticking to hominids if you want to generalize. There is no such thing as Neanderthalism (stupid, brutish, lumbering, etc.) except in the minds of people stuck in the 1950s.

Female humans choose who they mate with and drive the natural selection (and now cultural selection) process that results in children. Size and strength may have been a factor in the past, but gaining fatherhood was and still is tied a need by females for a male to be caring and bonded so that the size and strength are an asset and not a liability to the "family".

Risk taking is tied to brain development and peer connections as young people make the transition from pre pubescent to adulthood.

 

[Farm Boy]

Don't overcomplicate things. We have the fossil records of prehistoric humans, and young women have spiral wrist fractures at significant rates. Older women have ones that have healed. Those are present in victims of domestic abuse. Sexual dimorphism is an expensive evolutionary development if it does not provide an advantage. Advantages need not be civilized, peaceful, or moral. They just have to be advantages in the environment in which they are present. All the more reason to be clever enough to plan and change the environment.

Everyone takes risks. Young people take more because they are less developed. Males take relatively more in the same environments because testosterone does that. It's a hormone. The relative balance of those impacts behavior.

 

[Berzerker]

No. As a standalone matter, I think you're opposed to "the drug war" as an abstract concept, including some of what you see as the results of that concept, period.

As a separate issue, I think that you are opposed to Democrats substantially more than Republicans.

As a separate issue, I think that you invoke your abstract opposition to "the drug war" mainly as a tool to attack Democrats. I also think its possible that you are not even fully aware that you are doing this and that you do it reflexively, as a consequence of your focus on opposing Democrats.

How many Republicans are here? In all my time I've had 1-2 debates about the drug war with supporters who might have been Republicans. I criticized the GOP and their presidents, especially their war in Iraq. But how many Republicans were here back then defending Bush and Cheney? I cant remember anyone. So when I agree with Democrats it goes unnoticed and when I disagree it proves a partisan Republican bias. You see, 'both sides suck' is actually an endorsement for one of the sides.

Anyway, my opposition is not in the abstract. I vote for people who will end these foreign and domestic wars and I preach that message. I would think the people opposing the drug war as an abstract are those voting for the politicians responsible for it. I'm hoping to convince voters to make it a higher priority and I'm praying Oregon can lead the way. It might be common ground for Antifa and the right wing groups out there.

As an aside, and more on-topic, I will add that I think that criticizing Democrats for "the drug war" is a legitimate criticism

sigh

However, I don't accept "the drug war" as an alternate for the obvious institutional racism against black people going on in the criminal justice system. Racism and racist ideology (the kind that caused Chauvin's attitude and actions towards George Floyd) is what led to "the drug war" not the other way around.

Our drug war predates Chauvin, unless you're arguing racism predates the drug war. I agree, thats why we got the drug war. But drug wars change societies in many ways, and hardly any of them are for the better. I cant think of one. If we actually cut way down on drug use I could at least see an argument beyond drugs r bad, mkay.

But all of this (ie "Hillary"/Iraq) has absolutely nothing to do with the Trial of Derek Chauvin, BLM, and related issues. It is just another stark example of you constantly steering every issue into an attempt to attack Democrats.

You brought up my past criticisms of Democrats to psychoanalyze me and I pointed out how the only ones I criticized for the Iraq War voted for it. You changed the subject and blamed me.

 

[Berzerker]

this is so revealing lol

you never let us in on the joke

You need to brush up on evolutionary studies. Mammalian sexuality and roles are very different across its many species. You'd be better off sticking to hominids if you want to generalize. There is no such thing as Neanderthalism (stupid, brutish, lumbering, etc.) except in the minds of people stuck in the 1950s.

Then there is such a thing and I got my point across, but violent and protective were the attributes I cited. Do you believe the first female mammalians were more vulnerable by virtue of giving birth instead of laying eggs? Would that translate into the males of the species becoming more connected to a family and the incumbent risks protecting and providing for momma and the kids? The groundwork for us now was laid back then.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Then there is such a thing and I got my point across, but violent and protective were the attributes I cited. Do you believe the first female mammalians were more vulnerable by virtue of giving birth instead of laying eggs? Would that translate into the males of the species becoming more connected to a family and the incumbent risks protecting and providing for momma and the kids? The groundwork for us now was laid back then.

Mammals date back millions of years and predate the the Cretaceous extinction event. There is little to no evidence of their social behavior. In most mammal species the fathers are not around after they impregnate a female. In only about 10% of mammal species do fathers stick around and help care for their young. So no, giving birth to live young is not a driver for male protective behavior. "Single moms" dominate the mammalian world.

And if humans were created space aliens as workers, there wouldn't be any evolutionary link to mammalian history.

 

[Gorbles]

I have trouble seeing what you disagree with then.
1) Males tend to be more aggressive compared to females: this is evidenced by male cops killing suspects more frequently.
2) Because of 1), men are also perceived as more of a threat compared to females. This explains why male cops are also killed more frequently themselves.
3) There is probably a feedback loop between 1) and 2).
4) Evolutionary factors are at least partially to blame for 1), so this gender disparity is unlikely to disappear.

What don't you agree with?

1. Correlation is not causation.
2. Correlation is not causation (on the second half. The first is fair, but also by default therefore implies an inherent underestimated of armed women, especially armed women in a police force, despite their full ability to kill someone should they choose).
3. "probably" is not a solid argument. The reasons why police killings are so frequently vary by nation and culture, and in the US it boils down to both targets for recruitment and general immunity from consequences (most of the time).
4. You've evidently never played a women's team in water polo

C'mon, this is basic evidence / claim stuff. You're positing a conclusion that you want to see that is only partially-supported by the data you have. You don't raise any competing theories, nor do you explain the limitations of the conclusions you're proposing.

You mentioned wild, dont males in the wild generally fight over the females? I dont know when sexual dimorphism appeared in our species but one of the reasons why men are larger than women is because they had to compete with other men and kill big game. And ofc women liked men who could protect them and their kids.

When mommies became mommies is when men became expendable risk takers. Can we consider how many men die in war as evidence? I was responding to stats that show male cops are more involved in shootings, isn't that evidence? Men want to protect women, the Israeli army studied the matter and agreed.

A reference to our lengthy mammalian evolutionary path and the roles played by males and females. Men take the risks because our female ancestors started having babies which made both vulnerable.

Gonna slam these two together because the general drift is the same.

I mentioned "wild" as in, "out there". Far-out. A reach. The kind of reach that makes Michael Jordan's dunk in Space Jam seem realistic in regular human basketball. Anyhow, in the wilderness, what relevance does it have for you to generalise the behaviour of other species? Sociology as we mostly engage in it relates specifically to humans (mainly because there's a whole bunch of questions should we start relating it to other animals).

Have a read (a link to the middle of an article about the reason for physiological differences in humans). You might learn something.

 

[Yeekim]

@Gorbles
Again I fail to see what your actual argument is. Instead, you come off as being triggered by suggestion that biology/evolution is a factor (not even the factor, just a factor) behind observable behavioural differences between sexes.

Note that I make no argument regarding any particular mechanism or causation behind this disparity in aggression. I don't pretend to know why we're wired the way we are. Like with difference in height and pelvis width (a nice article btw, thanks for sharing), any number of explanations are possible... or it might just be a random side-effect of something else.

 

[Gorbles]

@Gorbles
Again I fail to see what your actual argument is. Instead, you come off as being triggered by suggestion that biology/evolution is a factor (not even the factor, just a factor) behind observable behavioural differences between sexes.

Note that I make no argument regarding any particular mechanism or causation behind this disparity in aggression. I don't pretend to know why we're wired the way we are. Like with difference in height and pelvis width (a nice article btw, thanks for sharing), any number of explanations are possible... or it might just be a random side-effect of something else.

My argument is that Berzerker's conclusion isn't necessarily correct and that he's wildly reaching for something the data doesn't support. It's nothing to do with being "triggered". I'm sorry you don't like me arguing against his opinions?

I mean, you're coming across as someone who seems very invested in Berzerker's opinions by proxy. I don't see the need. If you can't understand my argument, why even object? Why not ask me from the start exactly what my argument was? I've said it more than once at this point.

Eh, just striking through all of that (leaving it up in case it was read already). This just seems like a really pointless tangent. I've said what my argument is, and now I've said it again. Hopefully that helps.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, which means that you at least partially understand some of what both BLM and Defund are talking about.

Sure, though that doesn't change my opinion on them. Even the most hateful institutions tend to do/say at least some good things. If the greatest idiot or worst criminal out there were to advocate that we shouldn't carpet bomb the EU...it would still be true that we shouldn't carpet bomb the EU.

There are numerous reforms to police oversight, what constitutes crime, civil forfeiture, and transparency which would make them perform strictly better (at least for most of society, perhaps not for the corrupt subset of police organizations).

The Chauvin verdict was getting appealed regardless, the Judge explicitly stated that Maxine Waters have given them grounds for appeal because of her comments even before the verdict even came in. The picture of the juror wearing a BLM hat at a march just adds another argument for the defense to use in their appeal.

He was always going to try to appeal, but a juror revealing that he more or less straight up lied on the juror survey + another juror admitting she feared retaliation based on verdict gives legal grounds for declaring mistrial outright. We'll see what they do.

 

[Farm Boy]

Do you believe the first female mammalians were more vulnerable by virtue of giving birth instead of laying eggs?

An egg is a hell of an investment. The dependency level of the offspring dictates more. Think male penguins and the long cold winter. Shows both points.

Humans are in an unusual group of more brainpower dependent large mammals that are utterly tied down in the investment required to navigate the long incompetencies of their youths.

 

[Berzerker]

You mean everywhere. We drink waaaaay less than we did in the 1800s, and this is puritan-land for real.

I about choked when I saw somebody post that up to 50 units a week is probably healthy. That's both binge and alcoholism by everything I've heard at home. But I finally skirt by on that number as ok!

I have a game of Houseparty flippy cup to go win tho. Pride is on the line. We are up to giving a pint to 12oz handicap to our friend, but I don't think it's enough... the poor suburban boy.

That gave birth to America's first prohibition movement. The wars ended, the founding fathers were drug dealing, and women had to put up with a bunch of drunkards reliving their glory days. So by the 1820s they had enough. I dont know what local and state laws were passed but the national effort fell short of federal intervention. But the women got their point across, alcoholism did go down because of social/peer/religious pressure.

An egg is a hell of an investment. The dependency level of the offspring dictates more. Think male penguins and the long cold winter. Shows both points.

Humans are in an unusual group of more brainpower dependent large mammals that are utterly tied down in the investment required to navigate the long incompetencies of their youths.

I had in mind female fish laying eggs to be fertilized by the male or sea turtles burying eggs in a sand bank and heading back out to sea. Both systems have proven adaptable, both survived the dinosaurs. But I think the reason why men are more violent and (overly) protective of women is because parenthood took on a new meaning when females were giving birth to mini mes. I got an Austin Powers reference in.

this is so revealing lol

I was welcoming a convert, what did you think I meant?

Anyhow, in the wilderness, what relevance does it have for you to generalise the behaviour of other species? Sociology as we mostly engage in it relates specifically to humans (mainly because there's a whole bunch of questions should we start relating it to other animals).

Have a read (a link to the middle of an article about the reason for physiological differences in humans). You might learn something.

I dont think we can attribute the changes between Lucy and us to hormones. I'm sure there are many reasons including natural selection but the fact is we got bigger and smarter and deadlier. Thats why we're here and everybody else is gone.

I just noticed nothing in there was about Chauvin, other than the broader discussion about the causes for police brutality. Sorry