@SSCReader's banner p




2 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 23:39:15 UTC


User ID: 275



2 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 23:39:15 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 275

Having run elections before, blank ballots we just put in a pile and basically ignore. Those who are written on but not filled out correctly, we did have to report on specifics, but blank ones the only thing we reported was the number, and given we don't know if it was supposed to be a protest or someone's pen didn't work and they failed to notice or something else, we didn't actually carry that through to our election reports in any meaningful way. There are always blank votes, but being blank doesn't actually tell you the person meant to submit it blank.

Your assumption is that the people running the elections will interpret a blank vote the same way you meant it. I am not sure at all that is true.

If there were some kind of publicized campaign (Vote for none of the above!) then maybe. But without it, a blank vote doesn't carry useful information in and of itself.

I think it is probably false, but there is no-one who is unbiased enough to make the determination fairly in any case. My experience is that people of any ideology are largely very similar. A conservative or progressive born at the right time in the right place in Germany would probably have been a Nazi. A Nazi born in revolutionary France may have been wielding a guillotine or fleeing to England depending. Very few people choose their ideology, it's built out of their social experiences, from what their family and community believes.

People are just people, they are largely socialized into their ideologies and can be socialized into entirely different ideologies in different circumstances. Some of them are more or less committed, some of them are more or less informed, some of them are nicer and some of them are more selfish. You get gossipy small town church ladies and gossipy office HR ladies. I've lived in 3 different countries, visited dozens more as part of my work and I have yet to note that any particular ideology has more or fewer intellectually honest people. In fact I don't think most people even particularly care or think about being intellectually honest in whatever country or ideology they may be. There are so few people that do, I have no idea how you would even be able to determine if it differs per ideology, the numbers would be so small, and the methods of determination so vague.

If pushed I might say that Libertarianism seems to have the greatest number of people who think being intellectually honest is useful or good, but I can't say that I've actually seen that they actually are in practice any more than Rural MAGA Christians or suburban progressive soccer moms or any other group.

This is a discussion and a conversation, not a debate being scored. It goes where it goes that's the beauty of this format. So no, I won't stick to a single point, any more than you have. You don't get to set the rules in a conversation. That is not how this works. If I go on a tangent you don't want to talk about, just don't follow me down that path. Neither of ys get yo control what the other says, just what we do.

Do you have examples of where you think doctors have lied to their patients (or the parents of their parients) in this frame?

Doctors who lobotomized patients when that was the prevailing medical consensus were not themselves behaving unethically at the time. This is critical because it one of the reasons I am not a progressive. The most ethical doctor in the world who looked at all the reearch and thought, sounds like this is exactly what my patient needs is not being unethical. He is just wrong and ignorant. A doctor who did it today, knowing better would be unethical.

If we discover tomorrow that heart transplants are slowly destroying the planet, that doesn't mean heart surgeons were unethical to do it.

Lets say for the sake of argument you are correct that doctors themselves are being hoodwinked by WPATH. But that doesn't mean Dr Smith who is following the guidelines (but had no hand in writing them) is being unethical himself. Being unethical requires (ironically) informed decision making.

I don't think you've even justified that 2 is true let alone that progressives are in it. I live in a Red Tribe area but i work mostly with Blue Tribe progressives in academia. My interactions with all of them indicate that they do care about the things they say they care about even when their opponents claim their actions show otherwise.

I think you are simply put wrong. I've given you reasons why they don't behave as you expect they do. I think those are correct and you yourself are hopelessly stuck in 7) Because everyone is tempted to think they are in G and their opponents are in G' their ability to unbiasedly evaluate the evidence is hopelessly confounded, even when they think it is not.

Whereas, I don't think there is a difference between G and G' in this respect at all.

Sure,but where you started out was where the doctors were actually advocating for what they believed was the best solution, but were wrong. That isn't an ethical problem.

If a doctor is recommending something they know to be harmful, i've already said they should be dealt with however their local area prefers.

But a doctor who is trying to do their best and is wrong, should be advocating for what they think is in the patients best interest. And the patient or parent can accept that or not. If they are being lied to that is different, but the situation we are discussing is one where they don't lie, they themselves are wrong, but well intentioned.

Otherwise we wouldn't have been talking about whether intentionally doing harm was worse than trying to help but doing harm anyway remember?

This is why the first time round, i was trying to understand your actual position, because you kind of keep equivocating between these doctors are well intentioned and these doctors know they are wrong. And so your arguments keep criss-crossing over that point. You initially talk about them as if they are well intentioned but incorrect, but then your arguments assume they are lying, pushy assholes. But someone who is genuinely well intentioned and actively trying to get the best outcome for the patient is highly unlikely to be a lying pushy asshole (most doctors in my experience are distinctly not Gregory House M.D.)

My arguments are based on us talking about people who are genuinely well intentioned. A good person who is wrong is highly unlikely to lie to a patient about treatment because from his perspective he doesn't have to. The facts are on his side. This is the best option.

Again this is nothing specific to progressives. You can make the same argument about malaria nets, the civil war in Yemen, how many people Putin has disappeared, the benefits of getting us to Mars, outbreaks of cholera in India, and the like.

People simply do not have the bandwith for all the terrible things in the world, so this is largely outsourced to whatever influencers in their community. What my local church talks about is influenced by what the minister talks about.

That is just how people work, and not just progressives. It does mean perhaps they are more worried about church burnings in Canada than flooding in the next state. But that doesn't mean they don't care about the flood victims,it means they can't pay attention to everything and outsourcing that to others is a significant benefit.

What goes viral in a community tells you what goes viral not what they care about. Otherwise we'd be forced to believe people care about the colour of dresses or laurel vs yanny. What goes viral is unpredictable and emergent, it depends who saw it first and decided to share it. The reason BLM went viral was because it was all over black social media first. It had plenty of momentum behind. Black on black violence does not have that in the black community, as it stands. And where it does it is aimed inward quire often because they fear that bringing attention to it would bring more attention from organizations and people that have mixed trust.

Does that mean black people themselves don't care because they don't talk about it as much? Or does it mean these things are complicated and trying to reduce it to "doesn't care" is simply incorrect?

I do not grant that. The child is too impressionable and ignorant to make an informed decision on the subject, and from personal experience, most parents are intimidated to agree by activist doctors, abusing their authority. This is why I am in favor of taking that authority away from them.

This is a fully generalizable argument against anybody deciding anything. If your government and culture provides incentives and pressure to get married and have kids does that mean you can't make an informed decision so every one is abusive? I submit the answer is no. But I point out your argument is basically the one used by strands of feminism, that all marriage is unwilling, that all sex is rape because women exist in a world where men are bigger and stronger and more powerful than them. I reject that that from them and I reject it from you. We are the captain of our own ships. Doctors have no power and authority over parents that those parents themselves do not allow. And I note it also applies to priests and any authority who doesn't have legal authority. Like I say fully generalizable and ends up saying that none of us can actually make our own choices where someone else has some kind of pressure to exert. Which given as you say we exist in a society, is almost everyone.

I reject that premise entirely. You do not have to do what a doctor tells you, you can get a second opinion or a third, you can research yourself. This is not the middle ages. Just as with David Bowie, they have no power over you! Stop denying people their agency.

My outgroup does not care about what they claim to care about is pretty much always incorrect. Exactly the same attack is used against pro-life people and it similarly incorrect there. The vast majority of people do not look for explanations for much of anything or weigh their various concerns rationally. That is entirely normal.

They would know better if they cared more. In fact, they would know better if they cared much at all.

The average person simply does not invest much time in investigating causes beyond what their immediate social circle is doing. If you are using that to say progressives don't care, then pretty much nobody cares about anything. We are the outliers here, not them.

The average white progressive doesn't know many, if any people in black urban communities. So they are reliant on what movements like BLM say.

Now there's an internal contradiction as I mentioned. BLM still has 80% support among black people, but the defund the police option is much less popular but you wouldn't necessarily know that if BLM was your source. In other words whatever movement is the one that was riding the zeitgeist at the time is the one that got to set the narrative.

We are currently in a situation where trans activists are persuading people to their belief system (using a lot of underhanded tactics that my side is not, by the way) and regulating in their favor, and my side is doing the same. Curiously you only complain about me, and never the trans activists, but ok. Anyway, I'm offering that we both stop - a truce. You say that's not a truce because... there's another active war on a completely different issue I have nothing to do with?

I am saying that you cannot separate one issue from the others. I agree it would probably be better if we could, but that is not the reality of the situation. Alliances and coalitions have formed, and so beliefs are correlated, we can't simply trade one thing for another. We frame it as a culture war not a culture debate for a reason. Your side whether you like it or not includes people who are trying to do the very thing you want the trans community to stop doing to you, to others. If you want me (or some fictional me, who would care enough, and have enough time to do so) to go to bat against my side, you would need to go against yours. And what would actually happen is we would both end up being expelled from our sides for being traitors. And then we wouldn't have even a tiny amount of influence. We are judged not just by our own positions but also by the positions of those we are allied with. I don't think anyone is in a position to offer a truce at all. All that happens is that an equilibrium is reached where the people roughly settle on what they find acceptable. And to be clear I expect on the trans issue that will be somewhere short of where we are now. It just isn't anything that can be negotiated, it's emergent from people's reaction to the situation.

I wish you'd address my arguments the way I actually present them, rather than constantly changing them to your liking. If anything we were talking about giving testosterone to aging me, when I'm starting to run short on it. And I just told you you're far more likely to find a doctor that will prescribe it to a little girl, than to an aging man.

But that wouldn't be a one to one correlation. But in any case, I said I agree with you there no? Aging men should be able to access testosterone more easily. Your answer appears to be to make it harder for someone else, I would say let's make it easier for you and boys in general as an extension. If you want it to be easy to get these kind of interventions why aren't you arguing that instead of trying to make it more difficult for the other group, that doesn't actually include you? Isn't that the crabs in the bucket mentality often decried here? I can't get it easily, so these other people should not?

Because if we have a system where authorities are deciding who is allowed to use which medicine for what ailment, I want these authorities to prevent usage of very potent medicine in a way that is not scientifically valid, against an ailment that doesn't even have a proper definition, and cannot be reliably detected beyond a self-report.

Then become a doctor or scientist and write papers about it. Because now we have just circled all the way back to the beginning, where they claim it is scientifically valid (and you say they are wrong) and back around we go.

Try to set aside whether you think they are scientifically right or wrong, and just look at what they are allowing, in almost all the instances you are talking about the parents, child and doctor are all agreed. So what's the big deal? Why should your judgement of what is harmful override theirs? Some chance one of your kids decides they are trans? Well you can deal with that by talking to them, and forbidding them treatment and assuming your spouse agrees, it is extremely unlikely they will ever be able to get treatment until they are an adult. They might be able to go to court and emancipate themselves early or perhaps get a court appointed guardian, but if your kid is willing to do all that to get treatment then that in and of itself is probably a pretty good indicator of actual intent. We can control a lot about our children but we cannot control everything. I'm pretty satisfied with "it is up to the parents except in unusual situations where a court gets to decide" I don't think that is going to break anything that allowing parents to decide on healthcare or when to withdraw healthcare does. There will be some cases where a court mandates healthcare is withdrawn over the parents wishes, or mandated over the parents wishes, but they will be few and far between and essentially a rounding error. Very sad for the families involved but you can't rearrange your entire system for rounding errors.

To try and close this down as we don't seem to be getting anywhere. I think it is absolutely ok to think trans ideology is harmful, I think it is perfectly ok to vote or take other actions downstream of that. What I don't think is ok is pretending this is some brand new thing that we let people's ideologies inform what harmful things they choose for their children and then demand this is the one we stop at. We have already done that for hundreds of years. This isn't anything new.

Finally I still submit that assuming the doctors are operating in good faith and trying to help not harm, they are less morally wrong than someone who is trying to harm. They may still need to be sanctioned and perhaps even commit a crime, but that is why we separate negligent homicide and manslaughter from first degree homicide, or even first degree homicide from 2nd degree. The intentions of a person have an impact on how moral their actions are perceived to be.

They may still be harming people! They may still need to be stopped! But I don't think you have come anywhere near persuading me that a trans advocate doctor who truly believes transitioning some 14yo boy will be best for them, is just as bad as some doctor who believes it will be bad but does it anyway for the lulz or because they are a sadist, or whatever. The child in question may suffer equal harm, but the level of harm is not the only component of moral judgement for anyone outside of hard consequentialists.

They may have an interest in ideology, but that isn't the same thing as having a firm one yourself. But power and money are different. Money to an extent can buy power, but most people in politics want direct power and influence. Not indirect. Sure they won't turn down extra money, but that isn't the drive.

Ambitious and money hungry you go into the City (well in the UK at least). Ambitious and power hungry, you go to Westminster.

Some few ideologues do make it, and fewer principled ones but it's a shark tank otherwise. And the last 10 years show it, with various sharks eating each other to achieve their own ambitions.

regret to inform you that you landed on a topic I have considerable personal familiarity with. Every single time I opened the door for them as a kid, they asked if there is an adult in the house, and did an about-face when the answer was negative.

As do I, which is how I know. My wife was an ex-Jehovah's Witness and her family all still are, so I have considerable familiarity with how they operate and have been to multiple JW events. JW's do not baptize until adulthood, but they absolutely will attempt to convert children, they don't typically do that on a door to door visit with no adults around, because that looks very shady. But they absolutely will given the chance, my wife as a kid, had classes on how to talk to other kids about it. What do you think the point of leaving the Watchtower with you was about? I disagree with them fundamentally on almost everything, but the vast majority of them are good hearted people who truly believe what they are doing is for our own good and I think that does count for something.

Two things here. A truce where progressive parents get to trans their own kids, but they, and the doctors, stay the hell away from more conservative parents in any medical and/or cultural way, is acceptable to me.

That isn't the truce though. We have accepted it is ok to try and convert other people to our belief systems. Do conservatives try to stay away from say regulating abortion for other people, and persuading them it is wrong? No. There is no reason that trans advocates should be prevented from trying to spread their ideology. And you of course can spread yours, and I can spread mine and then the people we convert can choose to do what they like within that framework. Hell, the fact that I am here, means I accept Nazis and communists and antisemites and age of consent people should all be able to do that. And if that convinces doctors and parents that giving blood is harmful, or that GAC is good, then those are the results of our competing ideologies. We have to give people some level of agency. I accept a limit on significant amounts of harm should be imposed by the state. I don't stand in the way of JW's coming to your house and I won't stand in the way of trans advocates doing it either, whether it is in person, through TV shows, or whatever. If they win and change the culture they will deserve to have done so, just as the JW's would if they managed to convert 90% of the US. If you don't want to let them in your house that is entirely up to you. And if your kid decides they are JW or trans and you want to stop them then you should be allowed to try to stop them. And they can then go to the courts and try to emancipate themselves or argue you are harming them or whatever and then that decision can be made. I repeat, this is not a new thing, we have been dealing with how much control have over kids and where that balance lies either when parents want to do something dumb or the kids do. And if the trans advocates have managed to convince the judges then that too should be reflected in the outcomes. Just as elections have consequences so do to cultural changes. Christianity won for a long time, and was able to set and create a culture based upon it. And other ideologies should get the same chance. If they fail, they fail, it won't be the end of the world. If they succeed, it will also not be the end of the world.

I am fine with making getting testosterone easier for men sure, seems entirely reasonable. I accept the medical system in many countries is way too restrictive in allowing people access to drugs/treatments. But let's build on this victory not try to roll it back! This can be a template for how to persuade the medical community. Why nerf trans people's ability to get the treatment they want rather than buff everyone else's? If you want to give your son testosterone and they want it too, I'd suggest you find a doctor who can try to do it as safely as possible, but sure give it a whirl.

Also, Jehovah's Witnesses, for all their faults, stay away from other people's children.

They do not. They attempt to convert them. They even take their own kids along to help. As they attempt to convert adults as well. And if they convert them, then they will refuse blood products and risk death or greater harm than would otherwise befall them. If it is the spread of the trans ideology that is a problem, then JW's also fall afoul of it. Because they try to change you and your children into believing what they believe. That is why they come knocking at your door. Now of course they believe they are saving you. And if they are right, then them spending their time knocking on your door for the 1% chance you might believe them and convert is a great service to you and your children.

The funny thing here is that this logic justifies completely banning GAC. You've been trying to catch me on an inconsistency, but you're the only one with inconsistent views.

No, because i don't think you are understanding my position. If the evidence shows that GAC leads to an increased risk of death then I am perfectly happy for that choice to be overridden parental or not. I don't care enough about it, to be an advocate for it. I am not really for or against GAC, my position is that if the parents and child are all on board then that is up to them and not really my business. What I do care about is how it is used as a pinata when many of the arguments against it are also arguments against many things we do allow and this is conveniently ignored. So my position is not inconsistent, I am just against the perceived hypocrisy. We have established processes for how to deal with potential harm to kids where their parents are behind/ in agreement with it. We can just use those as necessary. Trans ideology is no worse than many others that we currently mostly ignore. That's what annoys me (well a bit, enough to post about it here, but not enough to actually do anything about it, because I don't actually care THAT much). If GAC is harmful then sure ban it, but then I want to be able to be taking a good look at all the other harmful things we allow parents to do, because there is no reason the trans issue should be the only one.

I also don't agree that opting into a treatment or out of one in this context is relevant. We allow parents to make many choices for their kids some of which increase harm by doing something (taking them white water rafting or hiking in the desert, or allowing them to drink enough sugar to float a battleship) and some where they increase harm by not doing something (not giving them blood, not allowing them surgery, turning down chemotherapy, not making them go outside and exercise). And in almost all of those cases we simply allow them to get on with it up to the point of a very serious risk of death (and even then intervention is spotty). And that is regardless of whether they have been influenced by their religion or their belief system in crystals or astrology or veganism or because they are unfamiliar with how risky certain things are. We give parents very broad autonomy to indoctrinate their children into what ever oddball belief system they like, but this is the one all of a sudden where we draw the line? It looks like blatant special pleading.

It does not matter if the parents or kid have been influenced by trans ideology, everyone is influenced by some ideology and it does not generally invalidate their decision making, whether we think their ideology is nonsense or not , and regardless of whether we think the people championing it are talking nonsense or not. This is again special pleading. If Bob and Linda want to tell Gene he can be a girl if he likes, then that is their business not mine. Just as it would be if they want Gene to be raised believing space aliens live in volcanos and how this will cripple his cognition for the rest of his life, or teach him God is always watching him masturbating so that he will have horrible guilt around sex. That is the deal. We all get to try and spread our ideologies then people can act on which ever one they believe.

Either I get to be involved in these decisions or I do not, I just dislike it when people are inconsistent about how much other people's kids belong to them. I am teaching my kids the truth, you are brainwashing your kids into a harmful ideology. Pick one or the other. Either I get to be involved before we are literally talking about kids about to die, or I don't.

Separately, if specific doctors are not explaining the procedures and potential outcomes such that patients/parents cannot give informed consent then those doctors should be subject to whatever local disciplinary measures they have. If they are, but are themselves just wrong about those outcomes then that is sad but again something we tolerate every day. This is not some new thing we just came up with. We already had this conversation as a society and decided the answer was, your kids, your choices, until you are literally about to kill them, then maybe we will stop you. Let's not open that can of worms because that truce is there for a reason.

Not at all, I don't think you were able to provide a good argument against it. Indeed you conceded it when you said those ideologies only got treated better when the outcome was self-destructive. Trans people wanting surgeries is (assuming you think it is destructive at all), self-destructive! Therefore my point was correct!

And it can't be that spreading the ideology counts as harming others because otherwise Jehovahs Witnesses who are famously aggressive about spreading their faith which then causes people to refuse life saving treatment would fall afoul of it.

So far your arguments seem to come from a place of disliking the trans movement then rationalizing why it is uniquely bad, when it simply does not seem much worse than things we do tolerate when it comes to self-determination, then tying your arguments in knots about it.

Your own post doesn't show there is no informed consent, it says specifically for children (only a subset of trans people!) Informed consent is hard because sometimes parents giving consent don't understand and sometimes kids don't understand. I agree thats a tough issue, but its one that happens in medicine all the time. Do you think young kids understand what death is, and it might happen because their parents are against blood transfusions or the like? Do the parents having been raised into a religion that teaches them weird things really have the ability to give informed consent?

And the answer is we basically shrug our shoulders and say yeah, close enough. And its only in the most dire circumstances where courts sometimes decide to override it. And I think thats reasonable for trans issues too. If going ahead is going to lead to death then sure override the parents and kids choices. Perfectly happy with that.

But we accept that people (or parents on behalf of their children) get to make risky decisions all the time. But it seems an isolated demand for rigor to require people to be (as the WPATH person themselves said would be ideal) "tiny endocrinologists" when we do not demand that for people going through even riskier treatments.

Hell the JW'S have a whole network of people whose job it is to convince the hospital and pressure the parents on behalf of the church to not use blood treatments. And we allow that in 99% of cases with no problem at all. When the outcome is a higher risk of death, we allow parents or patients to make stupid calls all the time, yet for trans issues all of a sudden, it's way too risky?

If the parents disagree then absolutely I am on board with restricting trans care. If the parents and kid are on board, well we don't intervene until their actions are about to cause a high risk of death in most cases (and sometimes not even then!) why should this issue be different?

Right the BLM movement is spawned from but not controlled by the black communities that are impacted by it one way or the other. I'd agree there.

Well, when generalizing there will always be exceptions of course. I'm sure there are some who may believe there is more of an agreement than there is, and others who perhaps care less about being seen to be paternalistic. All movements contain variation.

So you agree that with informed consent then trans people should generally be allowed to have surgeries and we should only step in, in the most unusual situations? I'm confused by your position here.

Your own post pointed out the people writing WPATH were concerned about making sure their patients were aware of the risks and potential outcomes. Given that, then by your own logic above why are you worried about this at all? If the patient gives informed consent then no-one is imposing a medical procedure.

Why should that be surprising? I've worked with politicians nearly my whole working life. That isn't a surprise at all to me.

Sure, possibly. But the rest of your argument doesn't automatically follow--

But that's my whole argument! You might well get the same punishment, it might well still be bad, but my entire argument with OP is that we see recklessness or negligence as being just as bad as intentional harm and I argued that did not appear to be true.

If you are conceding that, then that is the totality of my point. I don't have a further argument beyond that.

Damned if I can see the point of modern Progressives though. How does it make sense that they get all up in arms over a police shooting of a black guy who, upon review of the situation, probably had it coming,

Start earlier. Remember progressivism started from the very real discrimination faced by black people in the US historically, just as Bolsheviks may too have had a real grievance about conditions. If you have already lost trust in authority (as many black people have) then that makes sense.

Many Catholics to this day distrust the Northern Irish police service due to how it was used back in the day. And that is after disbanding the RUC, renaming it and mandating a Catholic quota in officers.

That is where BLM comes from. Trust once lost is hard to regain. They are not starting with a neutral view. As for black on black violence, white progressives also don't want to be seen to be racist and paternalistic in forcing solutions on black communities that they did not ask for. And black communities are hopelessly divided on that issue. If they (or at last a large majority) could agree a solution, white progressives would be happy to champion it as they did BLM.

Sure, I am not claiming reckless or negligent behavior can't be bad or even criminal. But negligent homicide or manslaughter and the like are lesser crimes than first degree homicide for a reason.

And that is because it jibes with the general rough understanding that intent matters.

I'm not arguing it can't be bad, I'm arguing that all else being equal negligence or recklessness are seen to be not quite as bad as a planned intention.

That is what the people around me seem to believe, it's what I believe and I don't think its a coincidence that our criminal justice system operates the same way.

If you want to condemn WPATH as being bad, and reckless I think thats reasonable! But we don't consider reckless and intentional to be the same. I think that is apparent in pretty much all of society.

You should have known better may well land you in trouble (and should!) but did know better and still intentionally did it is worse.

Religious people don't treat cults and fanatics as "accidental harm".

Sure they do, in that they sympathize with the victims as being misled. Now of course what they see as a cult and what they see as a religion may vary from their own biases. But many of my Christian neighbors think Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons are a cult and think most of the people are being taken advantage of. See how they react to people trying to deny blood products to their kids that will kill them. We don't arrest them for attempted murder, we generally just override their decision. We clearly do in fact treat people differently where we think they are making bad choices for what they see as good reasons.

That doesn't mean we don't do anything, we have negligent homicide and the like for a reason. But we do not as a society see it as harmful as a direct planned harm.

They would be the ones starting that conversation if they cared about the lives of black people.

They do care about the lives of black people. But they also care about not being seen to be racist and paternalistic to black communities. So they will defer solutions and conversations in that space to black people. White people telling black people that black on black crime is a problem absolutely stinks of neo-colonialism to progressives. They can talk about police brutality because black people have raised that as an issue and suggested solutions through the BLM movement et al, (though of course black people not being a monolith the solution space progressives are seeing is a necessarily constrained subset, but that police violence is a problem has more widespread acceptance in black communities than what to do about black on black violence).

Remember progressives just like everyone else have a whole competing stack of interests, and priorities. They have wanting for fewer black people to be killed AND wanting to defer to black voices on black problems. If black communities can agree on a solution to black on black violence and push that up the progressive stack then progressives will start to talk about it.

I think the problem is that your model of progressives is incorrect. They aren't life saving maximizing machines, if they were it would make sense for them to push that conversation. But they aren't so your understanding of WHY they don't do what you think they should do if they hold the values you think they do is incorrect.

Progressives care about lots of things, and those competing desires explain their behaviors. Just like how progressives talk about people who think abortion is murder. "If you really thought that abortion was murder and hundreds of thousands of innocent babies were tortured and killed each year you would do much more about it". And the same answer is the one here. They really do believe that, but they also have a bunch of other things they care about which constrains the solution spaces they can explore. For pro-life people, that might be a belief in law and order, moral precepts that murder is wrong, so killing abortionists is not an acceptable solution, and the belief that the alternatives to democratic options are worse.

For progressives here the answer is that their moral precepts that they should not be enforcing solutions on black communities (that they don't think black communities have asked for) means that is not an acceptable approach to black on black violence.

And part of the problem with that is that black communities are deeply divided themselves, on this. There is wariness about how their communities have been treated in the past, degraded trust levels, and much much more.

TLDR Progressives are not just black life utility maximizing machines, so when they don't do the exact things you think they should do, it doesn't mean they don't care, it means they have a whole stack of other moral precepts and beliefs to balance. Just like how pro-lifers are not all single issue voters.

My experience is with Westminster in the UK but having now moved to the US my interactions with politicians here seems to indicate they aren't any different.

I think you are vastly underestimating personal ambition and desire for power. My experience directly with hundreds of those national level politicians is that those are the top motivations for most of them. Some ideological purists but they tend to get ground down over time. Doing the right thing and helping people are what politicians say, but when you are in a room with them hashing out election strategies their revealed preferences show a different side. Maybe they started out that way but by the time you get to national level, your ambitious, power hungry types have outcompeted the rest.

I've worked with hundreds of MPs and there were at best a handful I would call good people who were motivated by helping people or doing the right thing.

If my years in politics have taught me anything it is whatever level of cynicism you have towards politicians it is probably nowhere near enough. Desire for money may be there, but its less than ambition and power because politicians don't get paid huge amounts in general. Though you can leverage it afterwards if you are successful.

No its ambition and power. Top 2, by a lot. If you assume any given national level politician is a borderline narcissist with nuclear levels of ambition, who has to filter that through pretending to be committed to an ideology and to want to do good, then it explains all the various undercurrents in the halls of power.

Politicians are sharks with good PR. That's why they both have big smiles to show off.