The Two Autopsies of George Floyd Aren’t as Different as They Seem | Hacker News Reader

The Two Autopsies of George Floyd Aren’t as Different as They Seem

fivethirtyeight.com

2 pointsrectang7 comments

Like many, I've been wondering whether there was any malfeasance by the Hennepin County Medical Examiner because their report did not attribute Floyd's death to "asphyxiation". This article thoroughly examines the issue and barring the emergence of new and unexpected information, puts it to rest in my mind. It explains in detail why the both the official autopsy and the independent autopsy are basically saying the same thing.

The article also anticipates that the bogus diagnosis of "excited delirium" will be brought up at Chauvin's trial — but it was not in any of the autopsies, but an assessment by one of the officers on the scene.

See also https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/voices/george-floyds-au... titled "George Floyd’s Autopsy and the Structural Gaslighting of America".

> The world was gaslit by misreporting about George Floyd’s initial autopsy report. As concerned physicians, we write to deconstruct the misinformation and condemn the ways this weaponization of medical language reinforced white supremacy at the torment of Black Americans.

> As concerned physicians, we write to deconstruct the misinformation and condemn the ways this weaponization of medical language reinforced white supremacy at the torment of Black Americans

Holy shit. I had no idea science already has become such an ideological battlefield. These people want to do away with inconvenient findings when these findings prop up some 'white supremacy at the torment of Black Americans'.

(Notice the capitalization of 'white' and 'Black' in the quote.)

What "inconvenient findings" are you referring to?

To quote the 538 link: "The two autopsy reports aren’t actually all that different in their conclusions." So you can't be referring to this autopsy report, right?

Regarding "ideological battlefield", to quote the SciAm editorial:

> We wish to remind fellow physicians that medical science has never been objective. It has never existed in a vacuum; there have and will always be social, political and legal ramifications of our work.

What is your point about the capitalization of "white" and "Black"?

We often if not nearly always use capital letters for ethnic groups. We write "Hispanic Americans" and "Latino Americans" and "Native Americans". The Wikipedia page at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_Americans uses "African Americans (also referred to as Black Americans or Afro-Americans)" shows about a 50-50 split between "black American" and "Black Americans." We also write "Hispanic", and "Creole" and "Cajuns". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Americans shows "White Americans", "White Hispanics", and "White" when referring to "a racial or ethnic group of Americans who identify as and are perceived to be white people".

While my spot check of "White Supremacy", with that capitalization, is not used on Wikipedia, outside of titles. The strong preference is instead for "white supremacy".

Your point is surely not that white supremacists should be considered an ethnic group, so what's your actual point?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com