For what it’s worth, “violent agreement” is a specific concept—it just means using an argumentative tone when they seem to be agreeing. I’m not actually suggesting you were behaving violently.

I agree that your additional context is important, but it has opened almost every single conversation about race in America for the last 10-30 years. At a certain point, it would be good if we could advanced beyond it because absent the verboten cultural aspect it’s difficult to imagine how these things (particularly those which were officially ended decades ago, like the overwhelming majority of our racist policies) are manifesting as population-level differences in behavior apart from culture. For what it’s worth, we should absolutely release nonviolent drug offenders and repeal any remaining racist laws, but I don’t think anyone is expecting those things alone to solve crime in black communities. Refusing to look at it and shouting “racist” at anyone who does certainly hasn’t worked so far.

> At a certain point, it would be good if we could advanced beyond it

It sure would; but if you can't call out literal white supremacist talking points then that's gonna be pretty hard to do.

> Refusing to look at it and shouting “racist” at anyone who does certainly hasn’t worked so far.

I didn't do that, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. There are literal racists toxicing up this thread, deliberately, so it's weird you'd focus your debate on the people adding the context which "has opened almost every single conversation about race in America for the last 10-30 years" yet is still somehow necessary to say.

> I didn't do that, so I don't know why you're bringing it up

I'm not trying to mischaracterize you, but I'm pretty sure you used "literal white supremacist talking point" to refer to the parent's suggestion that culture seems to play a role in disparities.

> so it's weird you'd focus your debate on the people adding the context ... yet is still somehow necessary to say.

My debate wasn't focused on you adding this context, my argument is that critiquing culture is a valid thing to do. I never argued that you oughtn't add context, only that omitting the context (as it is common sense) isn't proof of racism in the same way that not opening a conversation with a treatise on gravity doesn't make one 'anti-science'. I'm trying to read and respond to your comments carefully so as to not accidentally argue against straw men--please afford me the same courtesy.