If these right-wing nutjobs tell that it's a one-off incident, how did this come out 2 years ago?
Posts
Total:
56
I agree with you on this one, https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0022103115000992 .
-->
@RationalMadman
Right wing nut jobs, left wing nut lobs, moderate nut jobs....All nut jobs is nut jobs.....That's the problem.
I hope that you're not a discriminatory nutjobist
-->
@Trent0405
I didn't see where they accounted for high crime areas. If blacks commit a disproportionate percentage of violent crimes, much of which happens in poor urban areas and if those areas population is mostly blacks then you should expect the other disproportions as well right? so is the reaction time, whatever their claim due to bias or statistical fear?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Firstly, is statistical fear the fear an officer feels when encountering African Americans because African Americans are more likely to commit crime? That is what I interpret it as. But anyway, this stills proves racism, if an officer is in 2 identical situations with the exception being that the criminal is black instead of white, then him choosing to shoot one but not the other is still racist. Officers ought to use force based on the actions of the criminal in that situation, not the broad statistics of that person's race.
Moreover, the reason why African Americans commit more crime does date back to racism as well.
-->
@Trent0405
ok so they are reacting out of fear, it does not prove racism. Your impossible hypothetical of 2 identical situations does not include the officers previous experiences right? If they have encountered a disproportionate number of violent black people wouldn't you expect that to change their behavior?
Officers ought to use force based on the actions of the criminal in that situation
and I think that is true but also it's based on their experience, they are still human after all right? No 2 people or situations are ever the same are they?
of the police shootings what is the percentage race of the officers involved? that doesn't seem readily available but maybe you know.
would you say that blacks have a disproportionate rate of murder and other violent crimes even if it's only media driven?
what perception have the present and past riots given to police do you think?
if police patrol more in the high crime areas, the high crime areas are generally poor urban areas and predominantly a black population how could that NOT affect the percentages?
People don't wish to be hurt, brutalized, victimized etc right? So they would act in ways they think will minimize their risk and that includes bias. I don't go to certain parts of the city because whatever actual risk there is, isn't worth it to me, bias or not doesn't matter to me.
this is really long and I didn't read it all.
IV. RESULTSA. Descriptive Statistics1. Race, Age, and GenderThe analysis sample for the study is 3757 police-involved fatalities. Due tomissing data on names, race, ethnicity, or the circumstances of the killing, 161cases from Table 1 were excluded from this analysis.Table 2 shows that about one in four (25.2%) police-involved fatalities wereBlack, while just over half (51.9%) were white. Just under one in five (18.7%)were Latinx, and there were small percentages of Asians, Pacific Islanders,Native Americans, and Others (together 4.3%).
when you look at results like these they don't take out the ones that were armed, resisting or in some other way "justified" When you account for that the numbers drop pretty significantly and doesn't show this systemic problem in the context of all police interactions. I think I've posted that somewhere else, maybe I'll see if I can find it.
-->
@Trent0405
In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involvedshootings on either the extensive or intensive margins
Using data from Houston, Texas – wherewe have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions withpolice where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likely
Partitioningthe data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings.
we argue that the results are most consistent with, but in no way proof of, tastebased discrimination among police officers who face convex costs of excessive use of force. Yet, thedata does more to provide a more compelling case that there is no discrimination in officer-involvedshootings than it does to illuminate the reasons behind racial differences in non-lethal uses of force.
in short you need to have some actual proof of racism within all the police departments in the U.S. otherwise you are just stoking the fires without facts.
Moreover, the reason why African Americans commit more crime does date back to racism as well.
racism makes blacks kill each other at a higher rate than any other group? wow you'll have to explain that to me because I don't get that at all.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
It's to do with poverty, desperation to earn due to having zero inheritance and big families per house to spread money between.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
In stark contrast to non-lethal uses of force, we find no racial differences in officer-involvedshootings on either the extensive or intensive marginsUsing data from Houston, Texas – wherewe have both officer-involved shootings and a randomly chosen set of potential interactions withpolice where lethal force may have been justified – we find, in the raw data, that blacks are 23.8percent less likely to be shot at by police relative to whites. Hispanics are 8.5 percent less likelyPartitioningthe data in myriad ways, we find no evidence of racial discrimination in officer-involved shootings.we argue that the results are most consistent with, but in no way proof of, tastebased discrimination among police officers who face convex costs of excessive use of force. Yet, thedata does more to provide a more compelling case that there is no discrimination in officer-involvedshootings than it does to illuminate the reasons behind racial differences in non-lethal uses of force.
Your source found no evidence of racial bias in shootings but did say in the abstract that...
""On non-lethal uses of force,blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of forcein interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities.""
Also, you pointed to one study, I pointed to a meta analysis of 42 studies. Remember a meta analysis serves to find a consensus amognst academics and their research, so a broad analysis of the data sides with me, this is no doubt an outlier study.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
People don't wish to be hurt, brutalized, victimized etc right? So they would act in ways they think will minimize their risk and that includes bias. I don't go to certain parts of the city because whatever actual risk there is, isn't worth it to me, bias or not doesn't matter to me.this is really long and I didn't read it all.
I didn't read the whole thing either, I just used control F and found this.
""We suggest that the longstanding practice of deferring to the reasonableness of police officers’ expertise fails to effectively protect persons of color by allowing racial bias to influence an officer’s use of deadly force. Without rethinking the reasonableness standard, persons who are perceived to be dangerous on account of their race, the immediate social context of their encounter with the police, or their mental illness will remain at risk.""
-->
@RationalMadman
It's to do with poverty, desperation to earn due to having zero inheritance and big families per house to spread money between.
perhaps that is a factor that pushes someone over that edge, but a majority choose otherwise and do not murder because of their circumstances. couldn't that be true for anyone regardless of skin color? Some very wealthy people and most notably some rappers have murdered and committed violent crimes and they are multimillionaires. Perhaps what you said are factors but how much I'm not really sure
-->
@Trent0405
that short snippet of the meta analysis left out too many variables which is why I went to those studies, but maybe columbia law and yale are wrong. None of it shows racism, at best all of it says, we don't know for certain, including your meta analysis. So I still stand by my statement "you need to have some actual proof of racism within all the police departments in the U.S. otherwise you are just stoking the fires without facts."
You haven't changed my mind yet.
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
that short snippet of the meta analysis left out too many variables which is why I went to those studies, but maybe columbia law and yale are wrong. None of it shows racism, at best all of it says, we don't know for certain, including your meta analysis. So I still stand by my statement "you need to have some actual proof of racism within all the police departments in the U.S. otherwise you are just stoking the fires without facts."
Okay, I understand your skepticism. I hate to hurl sources at you but this study controls for extraneous factors and found a racial bias. Are these controls sufficient? Keep in mind I'm trying to use sources and facts, I think their sufficient because they show a racial bias, police may have a statistical fear of African Americans, but this is still a bias that ought to be eliminated. My study in this post accounts for the different ways different races act around the police, and there was still a bias, so in similar circumstances officers are more likely to shoot black people.
We analyze data from 213 metropolitan areas over a 21‐year period, and examine two possible reasons for the disproportionately high number of Black suspects killed in police officer‐involved shootings. One account suggests that such shootings reflect racial bias on the part of police. A second account suggests that Black suspects behave differently (perhaps more aggressively) than White suspects, and that police respond to suspects’ behavior (but not race). Our analysis statistically controls for racial differences in criminal activity (a proxy for behavior) and provides a statistical test of the effect of race on police shootings. Results suggest that officers are more likely to shoot Black suspects, even when race‐based differences in crime are held constant.
-->
@Trent0405
it suggests there is racial bias, suggests is not fact right? I wouldn't deny there is bias or even racial bias but context matters. Regardless I don't think I have ever seen anyone claim that racial bias is the same as racism. Do you think they are the same or different?
I also noticed they use the term officers but not white officers, so if "officers" doesn't differentiate then that's a problem isn't it?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
it suggests there is racial bias, suggests is not fact right? I wouldn't deny there is bias or even racial bias but context matters. Regardless I don't think I have ever seen anyone claim that racial bias is the same as racism. Do you think they are the same or different?
A racial bias is not necessarily racism, it could just be observing racial disparities and acting based on those disparities. But even when accounting for these disparities we still see biases as proven in the studies. This isolates for one variable, race. Keep in mind I do not think most cops are racist, it's probably a very small minority, but a lot of officers have biases that they aren't aware of.
I also noticed they use the term officers but not white officers, so if "officers" doesn't differentiate then that's a problem isn't it?
No, I don't think so, I believe there is racial bias in officers broadly, not just white officers. I am pretty sure black officer are more likely to shoot black people than white officers, so it isn't just "wHiTe gUy bAd." Rather, it's probably a broad bias in officers generally, at least that's what the data suggests.
-->
@Trent0405
sounds like we mostly agree then, if you aren't familiar I would encourage you to look up "compassion fatigue" it's normally used in healthcare but probably applies more to the police but given their training, job etc I doubt it's ever been talked about or even thought about.
certain color of cars get pulled over more than others
we are human and biased, that's just the way it is I guess. We can't eliminate bias but perhaps we could reduce it. That would require a big change in society to be less violent and kinder which is not the trend and I don't ever see that happening tbh.
In a potential life threatening situation bias is a defensive mechanism in many ways, perhaps even a logical one. It would escalate and be at the level dependant on the threat level I would think.
Think of it this way (about bias) gang members dress in certain ways, colors, tattoos etc so they are recognized as a gang member and a threat. If I see someone who looks like they could be a gang member wouldn't it be logical to act accordingly, like avoiding them? It's similar to the instinct of fight or flight imo.
I think this is a far more complex issue than most people think, don't you?
-->
@TheDredPriateRoberts
Okay then, it does seem like we agree mostly. I will look more into "compassion fatigue." 'Twas an interesting conversation.
-->
@Trent0405
it was, one of my "issues" is the misuse and overuse of the word Racism(ist) etc the impact that word should have has been diminished imo, and that's not a good thing. Much of our language has gone that way so it's no surprise that word has as well. There really is no profanity anymore, certainly no reaction to it as it once was. We've become too desensitized to these things and there's no going back. Society will continue its downward spiral until it's ultimate demise, but that's another topic I guess.
7 days later
-->
@RationalMadman
It's to do with poverty, desperation to earn due to having zero inheritance and big families per house to spread money between.
Poverty, eh?
According to the 2010 census reports, Owsley County has the second-highest level of child poverty of any county in the United States.[4] In terms of income per household, the county is the poorest in the nation.[5]
Owsley County violent crime is 7.8. (The US average is 22.7)
Owsley County property crime is 14.4. (The US average is 35.4)
The racial makeup of the county was 98.7% White
One of the poorest areas in the entire country, has a property and violent crime rate well below country average, homogeneous society. Obviously more to it than just being poor.
-->
@bmdrocks21
One of the poorest areas in the entire country, has a property and violent crime rate well below country average, homogeneous society. Obviously more to it than just being poor.
has anyone argued it is strictly due to poverty? There is also racial discrimination and suppression by the police and elected officials. There is the very well earned feeling that politicians don't give a shit about you and only want you to shut up.
Let's also not forget the war on drugs which is also used to target minorities.
-->
@HistoryBuff
Why couldn't they just say no to drugs? It was mainly targeted towards fiends that want to poison our nation's children with drugs. (based on main offense, over 94k in prison for trafficking vs 247 for possession) https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/dofp12.pdf
Madman blamed it on poverty.
Racial discrimination? You mean like affirmative action? I'm surprised White and Asian crime rates haven't skyrocketed as a result. Politicians don't give a shit about them(black people)? Trump must have shouted about African American unemployment over a hundred times. He has set up "opportunity zones", let a lot of them out of jail with "prison reform", gave more funding to historically black colleges. If this is what racists do as president, then heck, I'd say if they think the government doesn't care about them, it is on them for thinking that.
But I'll humor you: how does being poor and the government not liking you make you rape and murder people at much higher rates than any other group?
-->
@bmdrocks21
They vote Republican to their own demise, since their State is run by Republicans it makes sense that the poor are left to rot harsher, unfortunately for them their vote is hurting them. I am not laughing at them, I am genuinely sympathising with their 'trapped in a well they can't work their way out of' metaphorical trap.
-->
@RationalMadman
Of the nine states with the worst homelessness crises (including Washington DC), 8 of them are blue states. Only red one on there is Alaska.
Could those high taxes and regulation be leading to higher costs of living, housing shortages, and lower employment rates?
-->
@bmdrocks21
No it couldn't and frankly you're lying out of your ass but you can trust your bullshit website like 'business insider' look at the name you don't even need to look further than the name to hear the bias and corruption screaming. Do you know why there are more homeless people in blue states? That is because of the opposite way around.
Also, after you just proved that the poor whites are in a Republican state (Kentucky), you then went on to realise that your first point was bullshit and disproportionate exaggeration by going into the fact that black ghettos in blue states are the poorest. Do you know why they are poorest? It's not at all to do with the Dem policies, it's to do with the federal level of policy and such being Republican for far too long in recent times.
On top of that, they ended up 'blue states' in the first place because unlike a trailer park individual who literally votes Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. (I'm sorry but the irony is too extreme not to at least smirk as you go 'wtf' to), the ones who are poor and actually care enough to research policy and perhaps their own ethnicity's history begin to see that the only ones who genuinely give a shit to truly make things fair and merciful on the poor are Democrats and vote accordingly.
-->
@RationalMadman
Also, after you just proved that the poor whites are in a Republican state (Kentucky), you then went on to realise that your first point was bullshit and disproportionate exaggeration by going into the fact that black ghettos in blue states are the poorest.
I brought them up because I misread one of your points. That is why I mentioned crime rates.
no it couldn't and frankly you're lying out of your ass but you can trust yoru bullshit website like 'business insider' look at the name you don't even need to look further than the name to hear the bias and corruption screaming. Do you know why there are more homeless people in blue states? That is because of the opposite way around.
Oh boy, they have business in the name, so it must be wrong, right?
They used data from the Department of Housing and Urban Development, so unless you can top that, you'll have to concede.
On top of that, they ended up 'blue states' in the first place because unlike a trailer park individual who literally votes Reagan and Bush Sr. and Jr. (I'm sorry but the irony is too extreme not to at least smirk as you go 'wtf' to), the ones who are poor and actually care enough to research policy and perhaps their own ethnicity's history begin to see that the only ones who genuinely give a shit to truly make things fair and merciful on the poor are Democrats and vote accordingly.
Mhm, but don't go far enough back to know who George Wallace or what Dixiecrats are, right?
And they may vote Republican because they don't like baby murder and social degeneracy like Dems do. Maybe they don't like offering handouts for not working?
it's to do with the federal level of policy and such being Republican for far too long in recent times.
Do you not recall 8 years of Obama just 4 years ago? Or 8 years of Clinton before the 8 years of Bush? Trump got elected in a campaign crapping on both of those two.
-->
@bmdrocks21
They also have insider in their name and your stats worked against your original case which pretended that whites are poorer than blacks. Thanks and goodbye, feel free to reply Illuminati propaganda to this but I am not taking it anymore. You are blocked.
-->
@RationalMadman
-->
@Trent0405
Who checks the bias of mediabiasfactcheck?
Yes and no. Founded as Silicon Alley Insider, it was renamed and relaunched as Business Insider circa 2009, by Henry Blodget. As others have noted, Mr. Blodget’s life has been controversial (a good article about his rise and fall and rise again is here: Henry Blodget's comeback complete after $343m sale of Business Insider). But Business Insider has continued to thrive, with millions of visitors to its website. Its core audience of “bankers, traders and tech geeks,” wrote Ian Burrell, a reporter for England’s The Independent, “…is overwhelmingly young and male. “They appreciate [Business Insider’s] mobile-friendly and graphics-illustrated guide to hot stocks.” And writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky noted that the publication benefits from being digital-only, and that “60 percent of its traffic comes from mobile devices and 39 percent from social networks.”
This is both good and bad. Business Insider is known for getting unique and interesting stories first, as well as for compelling story-telling; but since it is aimed at a younger and more tech-savvy audience, its detractors say the focus is on getting stories first, rather than getting them right; there have also been reports of extreme pressure on its writers to turn out more and more content for the site. In addition, Business Insider has been criticized for its tabloid and clickbait-style headlines. And some critics have said the site traffics in gossip as much as it does in business news. On the other hand, Business Insider remains very popular with its target audience and has absolutely reported some important stories; a number of its writers have solid reputations. Thus, while it certainly seems legitimate, you may want to contrast what it publishes with stories from more traditional business publications like Forbes, Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. (Even if it’s the best source in the world, it’s never a good idea to only get your news from one place!)
-->
@bmdrocks21
During Clinton's era and Obama's too, things were getting better for them. Bush passively eroded away at everything that helped them (but not aggressively like Reagan did). From welfare to public education quality and just all of it, health insurance not being at all subsidised and all of that stuff. Yeah, that's an issue. Imagine being poor and getting sick or injured but you have mouths to feed.
-->
@RationalMadman
Who checks the bias of mediabiasfactcheck?
It's a pretty good source imo, it actually seems biased to the left. Rational wiki is basically leftist propaganda while conservapedia is basically alt right propaganda. One was labled a questionable source while the other one got ranked as a high factuality source.
Yes and no. Founded as Silicon Alley Insider, it was renamed and relaunched as Business Insider circa 2009, by Henry Blodget. As others have noted, Mr. Blodget’s life has been controversial (a good article about his rise and fall and rise again is here: Henry Blodget's comeback complete after $343m sale of Business Insider). But Business Insider has continued to thrive, with millions of visitors to its website. Its core audience of “bankers, traders and tech geeks,” wrote Ian Burrell, a reporter for England’s The Independent, “…is overwhelmingly young and male. “They appreciate [Business Insider’s] mobile-friendly and graphics-illustrated guide to hot stocks.” And writing for Bloomberg News, Leonid Bershidsky noted that the publication benefits from being digital-only, and that “60 percent of its traffic comes from mobile devices and 39 percent from social networks.”This is both good and bad. Business Insider is known for getting unique and interesting stories first, as well as for compelling story-telling; but since it is aimed at a younger and more tech-savvy audience, its detractors say the focus is on getting stories first, rather than getting them right; there have also been reports of extreme pressure on its writers to turn out more and more content for the site. In addition, Business Insider has been criticized for its tabloid and clickbait-style headlines. And some critics have said the site traffics in gossip as much as it does in business news. On the other hand, Business Insider remains very popular with its target audience and has absolutely reported some important stories; a number of its writers have solid reputations. Thus, while it certainly seems legitimate, you may want to contrast what it publishes with stories from more traditional business publications like Forbes, Financial Times, and the Wall Street Journal. (Even if it’s the best source in the world, it’s never a good idea to only get your news from one place!)
okay? So it certainly isn't fake news propaganda then.