Hacker Timesnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Unfortunately I don't see anyone successfully publishing a study critical of BLM when you can get fired merely for mentioning a past study, as David Shor did[0]. I don't think studies are going to change anyone's mind when the allowed outcomes are politically determined.

We're limited to collections of news stories. The collections seem pretty broad - the criteria is basically "killed during a BLM protest"[1][2]. PolitiFact goes with 12-19 by June[3]. The Guardian counts "at least 25" by October[4]. (I don't have a count for the past three months). This counting of deaths of course opens the door to all kinds of quibbles over which deaths "count", e.g. it's not possible to prove one way or the other whether this woman in Minneapolis[5] would have been raped and killed without the cover of the rioting.

Is this sourcing acceptable to you, or do you really need a proper study?

[0] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/06/stop-firin... [1] https://www.huffpost.com/entry/george-floyd-protests-deaths_... [2] https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/tyler-o-neil/2020/07/0... [3] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/aug/07/facebook-p... [4] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/31/americans-kill... [5] https://minnesota.cbslocal.com/2020/05/29/woman-found-dead-i...



It's a bit tendentious to fail to mention that some of those folks were shot by the police.


I did emphasize the criteria, and it seems reasonable to expect any informed person to already know that there was violence from police, protesters, and counter-protesters. But the Guardian source says "All but one were killed by fellow citizens.", so I didn't find it particularly worth emphasizing that 4%.


One of the pieces you quoted said that two were killed by police.


Which would make it 8%?




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: