At some point, we all say no…
When truth is no longer part of the debate, you're no longer engaged in debating, you're engaged in lying.
And if you're demanding things based on those lies, under threat of violence, then you're not merely lying, you're committing an act of extortion.
Regardless of the semantics though, the onus is on the progenitor of the discussion to prove why their position merits the attention of others.
Wild claims with little to no basis merit nothing but a dismissive wave. Honestly, we have better things to do than listen to your tantrums. We're more than ready (eager even) to hear your fact-based, substantive argument, but if reality is not on your side, "identifying" as if it were is not an acceptable substitute.
"Well, it coulda happened!" is not "Here's where it happened, when it happened and why I believe it will continue to happen unless fill-in-the-blank."
Many among the BLM and Antifa crowd will be shrieking "We've been doing that! You just aren't listening!"
I would assert that you've done nothing of the kind. You have seized upon singular incidents (tragic and unjust as they may be) and projected the dynamics of those incidents onto EVERY instance of police/citizen encounter.
You can't make that leap without justification. Screaming "Everyone knows it!: is not justification, it's raw and unformed opinion that generally won't holdup to scrutiny.
Insisting people make major changes to EVERYTHING based on your "feels" is laughable. Threatening people for not blindly accepting your point of view is repugnant, and may I remind you, illegal.
A simple, unassailable fact has yet to be refuted by those who would have us upend society, government and individual rights - the data do not support your allegation.
Much is said of the disparity between the number of blacks killed at the hands of police vs the number of whites, drawing attention to an assumed "over-representation" in that a greater proportion of the black population dies in this fashion compared to whites.
While the raw numbers indicate significantly more whites than blacks die at the hands of the police, when adjusted for population it appears blacks are between 2.5-3.5 times more likely to die in a police encounter.
Sounds like damning evidence indeed! And if these were the only salient factors I would be inclined to agree. However, what is left out of that equation is the nature of the locations where these incidents occur. They are almost entirely found in high-crime areas with black majority populations.
When you examine that, you find that the disparities disappear, and whites in those areas are actually killed at a higher rate than blacks during encounters with police.
The unavoidable fact is, whether black or white, if you are in a high crime area and resist arrest or attack the police, your chances of emerging from the encounter with your life drops dramatically REGARDLESS of your race.
It's not a racism problem, and insisting it is only prevents addressing the real issue in play, how ought police handle these encounters, and how ought citizens behave when encountering police.
Address the right problem and you'll find many allies. Keep twisting the issue to satisfy your anger and animus, and your only accomplishment will be to drive away all those who might've stood shoulder to shoulder with you.