No. My argument is to not say
No evidence = no racism
in an absolute-ish manner without acknowledging that questions need to be answered. Or that none of us have seen any actual evidence in the first place. We only know what’s been released and reported. And subsequently discussed in the public sphere.
To elevate the need for “evidence" over all other considerations without defining what you mean by that. What kind of evidence? Presumably what the police can provide but they’re only looking at it through the lens of crime and prosecution.
Or that lack of tangible physical evidence of racism doesn’t mean no race issues existed. It means there is no evidence of legal weight, but intent lies in the mind. Hard to get proof of legal weight there unless you’re on the set of Criminal Minds or Law & Order.
I’m just saying be careful about not falling into tribalism yourself arguing a specific point about evidence.
We should wait, see how things play out, and keep an open mind. We shouldn’t look for racism where it doesn’t exist. But we also shouldn’t get hung up on legal or investigative types of “evidence” as the sole determinant of whether race was a factor either.
I don’t know what you’ve been reading; most of what I’ve been reading is fairly balanced. People are talking about race and the rise of anti-Asian violence. They’re asking questions about how race may have played into it. They’re good questions. They’re talking about Asian fetish a lot and how that is a form of bias. There’s a lot of concern that race issues are going to be swept under the rug because the public notifications and messaging were somewhat bungled.
I’m not seeing much of where there are demands for a hate charge based on race or such. Or that it was racism but not misogyny. Things like that. Of course, I have limited reading time (as do we all) so I’m choosy about who and what I read from. Such extreme points of view may simply not be in my feed.
What comes out of the media and the pundits is…the media and talking head histrionics and outrage.
