Kaepernick

Wrecking Ball

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
694
Northeast Stinger, the numbers don't play out that narrative. http://www.lifezette.com/polizette/hillary-clings-myth-systemic-racism-first-debate/

The bigger question is what we've done as a society to create a world where 6% of the population commits 50% of the murders. THAT is why they are stigmatized. It's a chicken and egg thing, the marginalization led to violence which led to more marginalization, but you can't talk about one without the other.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
I have no idea what that had to do with anything that was being talked about.

It has as much to do with the topic under discussion as the anecdote you provided, which you are right is not "anything." You see, I don't think anyone disputes that racism exists and that racial profiling occurs among police and civilians alike. The question is whether the data actually supports the notion that we have a systemic problem in our nation's police forces of denying that black lives matter.

So, let's look at the article you referenced:
Here you go. I confess I have not retained all the sources in my memory from the last few years because it is a settled issue for me after I read multiple sources all giving the same statistics. I just tend to remember the statistics now.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...-by-police-yes-but-no/?utm_term=.75c5e0c724b2

My problem is with how the statistics are being used. For example, the article includes this paragraph:
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.​

Now, frankly, I don't know if I'm more surprised that this paragraph was written or that anyone with half a brain takes it as a serious indicator of systemic bias. I mean, seriously. How pathetically devoid of common sense must a person be to take seriously anything written after this paragraph? Are we really supposed to believe that the persons killed by police are just some sampling of the entire population? SMDH.

Hey, we also see that 95% of the civilians killed by police were men. When you consider that men make up just under 50% of the population, it's clear that police are nearly twice as likely to shoot men than women. Does this suggest an implicit bias against men? Do we need a "Male Lives Matter" movement? Give me a break.

Perhaps, we should conclude other factors are involved.

Now, the article, to its credit, seems to recognize this problem since it goes on to wave its hand at considering other factors. However, it still included that earlier paragraph, and it doesn't show the other factors considered and how they were considered.

So, let' s look at some data. According to the Washington Post database, 93 of the 948 civilians killed by police were "unarmed." Of these, 19 included signs of mental illness, and of the remaining 74, 25 were listed as "attack in progress," 40 as "other," and 9 as undetermined. Of the 40 "other," 16 were white, 13 black, 9 Hispanic, and 2 "other." However, if you read the descriptions of the various accounts, you see remarkable similarities in the context of the encounter: fleeing arrest, car chases, not following police instructions, etc. In other words, we don't have situations where police are encountering a sample of the total American population and just shooting some. They are serving warrants, responding to calls from the public, etc.

Now, the article you cited did mention a Wall Street Journal study which alluded to this fact:
Because detailed FBI data on crime can lag by several years, the most-cited statistics on this point refer to 2009 data. According to that data, out of all violent crimes in which someone was charged, black Americans were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the country’s 75 biggest counties — despite the fact that black Americans made up just 15 percent of the population in those places.

“Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force,” wrote Heather Mac Donald, a conservative researcher, in a Wall Street Journal column headlined “The Myths of Black Lives Matter” that was originally published in February and re-published this weekend. ...​
Unfortunately, the article obscures MacDonald's point in her article by asserting the thesis of her new book within the same paragraph:
The assertion that the black men and women killed by police are primarily violent criminals and the explanation for racial disparities in who gets killed by law enforcement is the premise of Mac Donald’s new book, “The War on Cops.”​
The "assertion that the black men and women killed by police are primarily violent criminals" was not the point being made by MacDonald in the article, but it did set up a straw man which the WP article could then knock down with other obfuscating statistics.

The actual point is a simple one. Given the crime statistics, police likely have the types of encounters which may lead to the discharge of a firearm with African-Americans disproportionately to their population. The statistics cited suggest that the overall disproportion of percent population to percent crime parallels the disproportion of police shootings. Now, ideally, it would be nice to get data on the demographics of police encounters with the public, but I think the near enough is close enough principle should be sufficient.

And don't get me wrong. There are bad cops and bad shootings. There are police who are being prosecuted. I'm not denying that racism exists. I'm denying that the data supports the suggestion that America promotes a system of local policing in which Black lives don't matter. I'm also concerned that these protests will only make things worse. The heightening of distrust between the African American community and police may actually make things worse by encouraging more defiance of, and fleeing from police officers--two prevalent contexts for police shootings.

Furthermore, I do think that national policy has contributed to this worsening situation. I think the African-American community has suffered disproportionately from public assistance policy which discourages marriage and work, thereby contributing to cycles of poverty and delinquency. If people want to have a serious conversation about Black Lives Matter, rather than talking about the 13 African Americans who were killed by police in 2015 while being unarmed and neither attacking the police nor suffering from mental illness, let's talk about the 870 African American lives which are aborted EVERY DAY. Let's talk about the culture which tells mothers that their children's lives don't matter.


 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Staff member
Messages
12,294
Location
Marietta, GA
You are factually wrong on this point. Buffet has never gloated about this. He has repeatedly pointed it out because he is in favor (as are many billionaires) in paying more in taxes. He thinks the rich are not paying their fair share and has lobbied (unsuccessfully) to change our tax laws to correct this.
Curious if Buffet pays more in taxes than he has to or if he takes advantage of tax breaks.... There is no law about paying in more than required being illegal.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,184
It has as much to do with the topic under discussion as the anecdote you provided, which you are right is not "anything." You see, I don't think anyone disputes that racism exists and that racial profiling occurs among police and civilians alike. The question is whether the data actually supports the notion that we have a systemic problem in our nation's police forces of denying that black lives matter.

So, let's look at the article you referenced:


My problem is with how the statistics are being used. For example, the article includes this paragraph:
According to the most recent census data, there are nearly 160 million more white people in America than there are black people. White people make up roughly 62 percent of the U.S. population but only about 49 percent of those who are killed by police officers. African Americans, however, account for 24 percent of those fatally shot and killed by the police despite being just 13 percent of the U.S. population. As The Post noted in a new analysis published last week, that means black Americans are 2.5 times as likely as white Americans to be shot and killed by police officers.​

Now, frankly, I don't know if I'm more surprised that this paragraph was written or that anyone with half a brain takes it as a serious indicator of systemic bias. I mean, seriously. How pathetically devoid of common sense must a person be to take seriously anything written after this paragraph? Are we really supposed to believe that the persons killed by police are just some sampling of the entire population? SMDH.

Hey, we also see that 95% of the civilians killed by police were men. When you consider that men make up just under 50% of the population, it's clear that police are nearly twice as likely to shoot men than women. Does this suggest an implicit bias against men? Do we need a "Male Lives Matter" movement? Give me a break.

Perhaps, we should conclude other factors are involved.

Now, the article, to its credit, seems to recognize this problem since it goes on to wave its hand at considering other factors. However, it still included that earlier paragraph, and it doesn't show the other factors considered and how they were considered.

So, let' s look at some data. According to the Washington Post database, 93 of the 948 civilians killed by police were "unarmed." Of these, 19 included signs of mental illness, and of the remaining 74, 25 were listed as "attack in progress," 40 as "other," and 9 as undetermined. Of the 40 "other," 16 were white, 13 black, 9 Hispanic, and 2 "other." However, if you read the descriptions of the various accounts, you see remarkable similarities in the context of the encounter: fleeing arrest, car chases, not following police instructions, etc. In other words, we don't have situations where police are encountering a sample of the total American population and just shooting some. They are serving warrants, responding to calls from the public, etc.

Now, the article you cited did mention a Wall Street Journal study which alluded to this fact:
Because detailed FBI data on crime can lag by several years, the most-cited statistics on this point refer to 2009 data. According to that data, out of all violent crimes in which someone was charged, black Americans were charged with 62 percent of robberies, 57 percent of murders and 45 percent of assaults in the country’s 75 biggest counties — despite the fact that black Americans made up just 15 percent of the population in those places.

“Such a concentration of criminal violence in minority communities means that officers will be disproportionately confronting armed and often resisting suspects in those communities, raising officers’ own risk of using lethal force,” wrote Heather Mac Donald, a conservative researcher, in a Wall Street Journal column headlined “The Myths of Black Lives Matter” that was originally published in February and re-published this weekend. ...​
Unfortunately, the article obscures MacDonald's point in her article by asserting the thesis of her new book within the same paragraph:
The assertion that the black men and women killed by police are primarily violent criminals and the explanation for racial disparities in who gets killed by law enforcement is the premise of Mac Donald’s new book, “The War on Cops.”​
The "assertion that the black men and women killed by police are primarily violent criminals" was not the point being made by MacDonald in the article, but it did set up a straw man which the WP article could then knock down with other obfuscating statistics.

The actual point is a simple one. Given the crime statistics, police likely have the types of encounters which may lead to the discharge of a firearm with African-Americans disproportionately to their population. The statistics cited suggest that the overall disproportion of percent population to percent crime parallels the disproportion of police shootings. Now, ideally, it would be nice to get data on the demographics of police encounters with the public, but I think the near enough is close enough principle should be sufficient.

And don't get me wrong. There are bad cops and bad shootings. There are police who are being prosecuted. I'm not denying that racism exists. I'm denying that the data supports the suggestion that America promotes a system of local policing in which Black lives don't matter. I'm also concerned that these protests will only make things worse. The heightening of distrust between the African American community and police may actually make things worse by encouraging more defiance of, and fleeing from police officers--two prevalent contexts for police shootings.

Furthermore, I do think that national policy has contributed to this worsening situation. I think the African-American community has suffered disproportionately from public assistance policy which discourages marriage and work, thereby contributing to cycles of poverty and delinquency. If people want to have a serious conversation about Black Lives Matter, rather than talking about the 13 African Americans who were killed by police in 2015 while being unarmed and neither attacking the police nor suffering from mental illness, let's talk about the 870 African American lives which are aborted EVERY DAY. Let's talk about the culture which tells mothers that their children's lives don't matter.


There are an awful lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions in your response. You could have saved us all the time but just saying you have made up your mind and facts don't matter to you.

The article I referenced was only one of many. You are a smart person so I know you surely have seen the dozens of other similar reports. Virtually all police departments keep up with traffic stops, arrests and various encounters with citizens. These can be looked at either by precinct or as a whole. If you don't want to do that work then simply look at the Bureau of Justice statistics, or the Cornell Law study or the study done by the New York Times.

Blacks have a different experience with police than whites. Rushing past that, discounting it or diverting the discussion with red hearings like public assistance or abortion does a real disservice to the cause of trying to understand the struggles of our fellow man.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,184
Curious if Buffet pays more in taxes than he has to or if he takes advantage of tax breaks.... There is no law about paying in more than required being illegal.
Buffett gives away lots of money. It is well documented and has been the subject on shows like 60 minutes. He also pays taxes.
 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Staff member
Messages
12,294
Location
Marietta, GA
... bet he doesn't pay more than legally required...
Nothing wrong with donations, think they are great. I'm glad that capitalism let's folks make $s to be able to make big donations.

Wish Soros, Buffet, et al would voluntarily quit using deductions to be a shining example when it comes to taxes.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
There are an awful lot of assumptions and jumping to conclusions in your response. You could have saved us all the time but just saying you have made up your mind and facts don't matter to you.

The article I referenced was only one of many. You are a smart person so I know you surely have seen the dozens of other similar reports. Virtually all police departments keep up with traffic stops, arrests and various encounters with citizens. These can be looked at either by precinct or as a whole. If you don't want to do that work then simply look at the Bureau of Justice statistics, or the Cornell Law study or the study done by the New York Times.

Blacks have a different experience with police than whites. Rushing past that, discounting it or diverting the discussion with red hearings like public assistance or abortion does a real disservice to the cause of trying to understand the struggles of our fellow man.

Yeah, you didn't read my post (I hope or smdh). I acknowledged racial profiling exists. I posted a video that suggests caution on putting too much weight on a person's experience of police.

You chose the link to represent your position, and I responded to it. Rather than asserting "assumptions" and "jumping to conclusions," discuss the data rationally.

If you can't discuss data rationally, admit that once again you have simply accepted liberal ideology by faith.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,184
Yeah, you didn't read my post (I hope or smdh). I acknowledged racial profiling exists. I posted a video that suggests caution on putting too much weight on a person's experience of police.
Putting that explanation with the video might have helped. As it was, it was a non sequitur.

We were talking about the experience that other people have. Since I am not black, it behooves me to use a certain amount of empathy (translation, get out of my own political mindset) to actually hear an experience that is different from mine. To post a video about some white woman I do not know made no sense at all to me since the topic was the experience of black men, who, statistically, are treated differently from other groups.

Instead, when I voiced my puzzlement over what the video had to do with the black experience you simply said that my previous post wasn't about anything, implying it was trivial or unimportant. Really?

Then you decided to launch into your diatribe about the Washington Post article I had posted several days ago. You had already warned me, before you read it, that you were going to disagree with it. But when you finally shared your disagreement I noticed that you found one paragraph that you thought was suspect and then used that to discredit the whole article. Never mind that I had already established that this article was not an outlier but fit with multiple studies from multiple sources.

I agree with 90% of what you say on most things you post on this site. But, and I am sure you are aware that you have heard this before, there is a mean streak in you that is a mile wide. I am not sure where that comes from, since I do not know you. But in the article that you had already decided not to like, you took that one paragraph and then said in so many words that anyone who believed that article just didn't measure up intellectually and you could not take them seriously. Really? That is the way you want to argue?

Your level of ridicule on this site really is unseemly for a grown man. You sometimes simply resort to LOL or smdh. When someone posted a graphic on global warming recently I believe your only response was lol. That was it.

I could give you several more cases in point but I am sure you will take none of this to heart and will fall back on your pet phrases like "liberal fundamentalist." I have tried to resist name calling with you. But frankly, I sometimes have a hard time separating you from the kinds of sources you link in your arguments. You linked some source a long time ago that claimed that the government was giving huge amounts of money to support the global warming hoax. When I looked up the government reporting on this the number was off, exaggerated by a factor of ten. Likewise you like to quote from the Washington Times, a newspaper that follows the fascist political philosophy of its founder, Sun Myung Moon. That is not name calling, nor is it hyperbole. Moon really believed that the government should work hand in glove with big business and use military force to subdue all who have a different political philosophy. At one time he had the largest private collection of military arms in the world. About that he said, and this is an exact quote, "The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world."

Now I am aware that perhaps you feel that the Washington Times is no longer beholden to Suny Myung Moon since he is no longer alive. The only problem with that is that their official editorial policy is not that he died but that he was resurrected. They also stated that he is the Messiah and the savior of the world. Perhaps you believe he is the messiah but please note, as much as I disagree with your favorite choices for authoritative articles, I have chosen not to call you names about it.

I think that if you are going to throw around derogatory names about people you disagree with you it would behoove you to pick better sources to quote from than the kinds of sources you seem to invariably fall back on, since these indeed have their own, very rigid ideology. Just my opinion.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,184
... bet he doesn't pay more than legally required...
Nothing wrong with donations, think they are great. I'm glad that capitalism let's folks make $s to be able to make big donations.

Wish Soros, Buffet, et al would voluntarily quit using deductions to be a shining example when it comes to taxes.
The point is, many of these billionaires are on record supporting tax reform and paying their fair share. Clearly there are other billionaires who do not feel the same way who have been able to block such reform. So, as an alternative, until the tax laws are changed, Buffet has given away and estimated $38 billion so far. If people are predisposed to not like him, or Bill Gates, or any number of other similar rich white guys, I can't help that. But I personally find it inspiring and admirable.
 

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Staff member
Messages
12,294
Location
Marietta, GA
It's not that we don't like him/them, in fact I do, my point is that they can pay more taxes if they opt not to take deductions. They also can opt to apply funds to pay down the national debt.
My bet is that they take all the deductions they are allowed and also don't voluntarily make payments to reduce the national debt.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
Putting that explanation with the video might have helped. As it was, it was a non sequitur.

We were talking about the experience that other people have. Since I am not black, it behooves me to use a certain amount of empathy (translation, get out of my own political mindset) to actually hear an experience that is different from mine. To post a video about some white woman I do not know made no sense at all to me since the topic was the experience of black men, who, statistically, are treated differently from other groups.

Instead, when I voiced my puzzlement over what the video had to do with the black experience you simply said that my previous post wasn't about anything, implying it was trivial or unimportant. Really?

Then you decided to launch into your diatribe about the Washington Post article I had posted several days ago. You had already warned me, before you read it, that you were going to disagree with it. But when you finally shared your disagreement I noticed that you found one paragraph that you thought was suspect and then used that to discredit the whole article. Never mind that I had already established that this article was not an outlier but fit with multiple studies from multiple sources.

I agree with 90% of what you say on most things you post on this site. But, and I am sure you are aware that you have heard this before, there is a mean streak in you that is a mile wide. I am not sure where that comes from, since I do not know you. But in the article that you had already decided not to like, you took that one paragraph and then said in so many words that anyone who believed that article just didn't measure up intellectually and you could not take them seriously. Really? That is the way you want to argue?

Your level of ridicule on this site really is unseemly for a grown man. You sometimes simply resort to LOL or smdh. When someone posted a graphic on global warming recently I believe your only response was lol. That was it.

I could give you several more cases in point but I am sure you will take none of this to heart and will fall back on your pet phrases like "liberal fundamentalist." I have tried to resist name calling with you. But frankly, I sometimes have a hard time separating you from the kinds of sources you link in your arguments. You linked some source a long time ago that claimed that the government was giving huge amounts of money to support the global warming hoax. When I looked up the government reporting on this the number was off, exaggerated by a factor of ten. Likewise you like to quote from the Washington Times, a newspaper that follows the fascist political philosophy of its founder, Sun Myung Moon. That is not name calling, nor is it hyperbole. Moon really believed that the government should work hand in glove with big business and use military force to subdue all who have a different political philosophy. At one time he had the largest private collection of military arms in the world. About that he said, and this is an exact quote, "The whole world is in my hand, and I will conquer and subjugate the world."

Now I am aware that perhaps you feel that the Washington Times is no longer beholden to Suny Myung Moon since he is no longer alive. The only problem with that is that their official editorial policy is not that he died but that he was resurrected. They also stated that he is the Messiah and the savior of the world. Perhaps you believe he is the messiah but please note, as much as I disagree with your favorite choices for authoritative articles, I have chosen not to call you names about it.

I think that if you are going to throw around derogatory names about people you disagree with you it would behoove you to pick better sources to quote from than the kinds of sources you seem to invariably fall back on, since these indeed have their own, very rigid ideology. Just my opinion.

Thank you.

Now that you've got this out of your system, I think we have found a point of agreement. Citing an authority is meaningless if the other person doesn't accept it. You don't like the Washington Times, I don't like some of your sources. Studies may suffer bias, intentional or unintentional, and you agree to this

That's why it's important to be able to find data that all can agree on and discuss the data.

That's what I did in my extended post using the data/source you provided.

I look forward to you now rationally discussing the data showing my assumptions and jumped to conclusions.
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,184
I look forward to you now rationally discussing the data showing my assumptions and jumped to conclusions.
So, just curious, if you are all about rational discussion why is it that your first volley is often ridicule? How does that promote rational discussion? Seriously, I want to know.

For instance, if you believe that Rev. Moon is the Messiah I am content for that to be your belief structure, even though I strongly disagree. The fact that this is the kind of authority you appeal to, and the fact that you choose to ridicule and demean people who disagree with you, again, often as a first response, leads me to believe that there is a part of you that is totally irrational on some topics. Further suggesting that all sources are biased or claiming a false equivalency of bias between conflicting sources seems like a very weak argument to me. Especially after you have come out with your claws.

Can you help me understand why this gets so personal with you? I am serious. Others see this in you also. What is going on with you?
 

Northeast Stinger

Helluva Engineer
Messages
11,184
It's not that we don't like him/them, in fact I do, my point is that they can pay more taxes if they opt not to take deductions. They also can opt to apply funds to pay down the national debt.
My bet is that they take all the deductions they are allowed and also don't voluntarily make payments to reduce the national debt.
Well, I am not sure. Buffett pays a lot in taxes. There are some well known personalities who pay no taxes.

I suspect Buffett is rich enough to avoid paying any taxes also but he does not choose to do that. As for paying additional amounts beyond what he is legally required, my first thought about that is that he probably does not believe that fixes the problem. He has indicated he would rather pay more in taxes as a matter of law, thus insuring that everyone pays their fair share, and the overall tax structure is changed to be more equitable.
 

AE 87

Helluva Engineer
Messages
13,030
So, just curious, if you are all about rational discussion why is it that your first volley is often ridicule? How does that promote rational discussion? Seriously, I want to know.

For instance, if you believe that Rev. Moon is the Messiah I am content for that to be your belief structure, even though I strongly disagree. The fact that this is the kind of authority you appeal to, and the fact that you choose to ridicule and demean people who disagree with you, again, often as a first response, leads me to believe that there is a part of you that is totally irrational on some topics. Further suggesting that all sources are biased or claiming a false equivalency of bias between conflicting sources seems like a very weak argument to me. Especially after you have come out with your claws.

Can you help me understand why this gets so personal with you? I am serious. Others see this in you also. What is going on with you?

Well, two posts in a row of just personal attack, but I'm the bad guy? You wonder why I post LOL and SMDH? Read your post. Rather than talking about the issues you want to make it about me. I'm sorry, but I just don't find that a mature response.
 
Top