>The protests are mostly in the blue-voting cities

Yes, in the cities where most people in this country live.

Where people are most educated.

Where most minorities live.

But sure, them darn demz, at it again.

This is what happens when your understanding of politics doesn't have a material basis. You think the color coding of ruling power means something.

It's the cops on each force they cherry-picked. The fact that they are chief of police means nothing, but that you don't understand the institutions involved and how they work. This stuff is in front of SCOTUS and congress right now. It's not simple and it is very broken.

> The list of police chiefs & other officials is solid.

The list is solid ignorance of the institutions involved. It focuses on race of one part of police leadership and not police violence and the racist actions of many cops. Highlighting police chief race is a racial argument in the least and may be even a racist argument.

The list of police chiefs is solid.

I share your concerns over Qualified Immunity (and other problems). The relevant discussions are here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23379910 ("As Qualified Immunity Takes Center Stage, More Delay from SCOTUS")

and here:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23386260 (a subthread of this discussion)

[edit]

>It focuses on race of one part of police leadership >Highlighting police chief race

Excuse me? Where are you going with this?

I've updated my post with clear, sourced information on how the police leadership got put in their respective roles, to clearly indicate how it works.

The examples are mostly appointment by the (locally elected) major or by the (locally elected) city council.

> The relevant discussions are here

Squirmy

I thought it was a decent effort to point out content in the most relevant place.

The relevant site guideline is to assume that others are commenting in good faith.

This is a pretty cynical post, but I'm not going to downvote/report it.

I actually really like the guidelines of this site. @dang and the other administrators do a good job at keeping the conversation mostly civil and the guidelines are great principles and rules to aim for that end.

Maybe if you assume bad faith of a post (anywhere on social media), it might be time to skip over it or take a break.

I'm listening to the RabbitHole podcast[1] right now which is a pretty interesting analysis by the NYTimes of how social media / online content fuels impactful psycho/social impact on participants. I hope you find it interesting.

[1] https://www.nytimes.com/column/rabbit-hole