(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 07:41 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  By policing differently, I'm more referring to the white kid who gets caught smoking a doob in his car gets told to go home whereas the black kid in the same situation gets arrested. Maybe gets pulled out his car and thrown to the ground to top it off.

So, an opinion based on stereotype, as opposed to one based on statistics?

"Police brutality" is notoriously hard to represent with good data. People dying at the hands of cops is much more reliable from a data standpoint but it doesn't provide the full picture of the problem.

Since it is difficult to represent with good data, that makes it the perfect catch all.

Statistically, we are probably lookinf at a couple of incidents a month out of millions of police/citizen interactions daily. Somewhere along the lone of 0.0000000001%, give ior take a few zeros.
What is the definitiion of systemic again?

As for the white kid with a doob vs. the black kid with a doob, are all other things equal? How do you know? The whole thing is just supposition based on urban legends. I think if anything, unequal treatment is based more on economics. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

I raised three white sons. Never caught a break as far as I know.

Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

My point was that the cops never sent them home.


Were you the one complaining of whataboutism?

edit: Yes it was you.

(06-08-2020 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, an opinion based on stereotype, as opposed to one based on statistics?

"Police brutality" is notoriously hard to represent with good data. People dying at the hands of cops is much more reliable from a data standpoint but it doesn't provide the full picture of the problem.

Since it is difficult to represent with good data, that makes it the perfect catch all.

Statistically, we are probably lookinf at a couple of incidents a month out of millions of police/citizen interactions daily. Somewhere along the lone of 0.0000000001%, give ior take a few zeros.
What is the definitiion of systemic again?

As for the white kid with a doob vs. the black kid with a doob, are all other things equal? How do you know? The whole thing is just supposition based on urban legends. I think if anything, unequal treatment is based more on economics. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

I raised three white sons. Never caught a break as far as I know.

Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

My point was that the cops never sent them home.


Were you the one complaining of whataboutism?

edit: Yes it was you.

Not sure how the link that I posted is whataboutism...

I actually don’t have a problem with whataboutism. I just like to point out when the person who complains about it the most seems to constantly employ it.

(06-09-2020 06:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  "Police brutality" is notoriously hard to represent with good data. People dying at the hands of cops is much more reliable from a data standpoint but it doesn't provide the full picture of the problem.

Since it is difficult to represent with good data, that makes it the perfect catch all.

Statistically, we are probably lookinf at a couple of incidents a month out of millions of police/citizen interactions daily. Somewhere along the lone of 0.0000000001%, give ior take a few zeros.
What is the definitiion of systemic again?

As for the white kid with a doob vs. the black kid with a doob, are all other things equal? How do you know? The whole thing is just supposition based on urban legends. I think if anything, unequal treatment is based more on economics. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

I raised three white sons. Never caught a break as far as I know.

Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

My point was that the cops never sent them home.


Were you the one complaining of whataboutism?

edit: Yes it was you.

Not sure how the link that I posted is whataboutism...

I actually don’t have a problem with whataboutism. I just like to point out when the person who complains about it the most seems to constantly employ it.

Damn, I just watched that video you posted.

Based on the flippant response by Tanq, I assumed it was an actual cartoon, not a StoryCorps that was animated. What a brutal way to start the day, by watching that video.

Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.

Worth a read as to why this number is rather misleading and misses a lot of police-on-civilian violence. Most importantly, the absolute number doesn’t account for the over-representation of blacks (based on total population), it doesn’t account for off-duty officer related deaths, and it doesn’t account for non-firearm related deaths (as in, it would not count George Floyd as a death).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ootings-p/

OO - I’m wondering if you read the transcript from the Kaepernick interview and if you still believe he wasn’t protesting against police brutality?

This isn’t related to whether or not you agree with him, or his protest, but just to the content of his protest, and whether it included police brutality.

(06-08-2020 11:00 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:15 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  So, an opinion based on stereotype, as opposed to one based on statistics?

"Police brutality" is notoriously hard to represent with good data. People dying at the hands of cops is much more reliable from a data standpoint but it doesn't provide the full picture of the problem.

Since it is difficult to represent with good data, that makes it the perfect catch all.

Statistically, we are probably lookinf at a couple of incidents a month out of millions of police/citizen interactions daily. Somewhere along the lone of 0.0000000001%, give ior take a few zeros.
What is the definitiion of systemic again?

As for the white kid with a doob vs. the black kid with a doob, are all other things equal? How do you know? The whole thing is just supposition based on urban legends. I think if anything, unequal treatment is based more on economics. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

I raised three white sons. Never caught a break as far as I know.

Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

Kareem Abdul Jabbar and now a cartoon. Your 'proof by vignette' odyssey has a roaring start there, 93.

Jabbar's opinion piece was not offered up as any sort of proof. It was an attempt to help understand how some black people feel. I thought it might be, you know, helpful to listen to the words of a black man as we discuss the motivations of black men regarding this issue.

(06-08-2020 06:39 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Do you think that, in general, some black people's racist attitudes towards white people are as significant as some white people's racist attitudes towards black people? Do you think those attitudes have historically caused an equal amount of damage in either direction?

Equal? Heavens, no. Certainly not on the scale of slavery. But plenty of damage? Absolutely. Enough to be problematic? Absolutely.

Quote:You think racism in America is not that big a deal these days. I disagree. Lots of people agree with me. I imagine plenty of people agree with you.

I don't think anyone believes that it is not a big deal, least of all Tanq or I. But going from there to "systemic" racism in our police forces as a fairly major jump. How about the problem lies somewhere in between?

These two responses on my part get at what I see as a huge intellectual problem in discussions with leftists. Either racism is "not that big a deal" or it is "systemic." Either black racism toward whites "caused an equal amount of damage" or it can somehow be ignored. Either I must believe that we must all go to electric cars tomorrow or I am a "climate denier." It's not black and white, it's not all extremes. They only reason to paint the issue that way is to impose some unrealistic and unreasonable constraints on the argument. I am not wiling to allow you to go there.

Quote:Arrrghh! Don't make me pull up that quote. Was it Owl#'s? Maybe OldOwl? I don't want to take the time to find it but I think I quoted it accurately. It wasn't you. I don't think you need to clarify it for the author. They were very clear.

What quote?

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.
Worth a read as to why this number is rather misleading and misses a lot of police-on-civilian violence. Most importantly, the absolute number doesn’t account for the over-representation of blacks (based on total population), it doesn’t account for off-duty officer related deaths, and it doesn’t account for non-firearm related deaths (as in, it would not count George Floyd as a death).
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ootings-p/

9 is the number of unarmed black people killed by police in 2019. 19 is the comparable number of whites. 235 is the total number of blacks killed by police in 2019, and 370 is the total number of whites.

Because of differences in total populations, the unarmed killings work out to 1 in every 5 million blacks and 1 in every 10 million whites, and the total killings work out to 1 per 200,000 blacks and 1 per 500,000 whites.

People adept at misusing statistics like to point out that blacks are "2.5 times as likely" as whites to be killed by police, or that unarmed blacks are "twice as likely" as unarmed whites to be killed by police. What those statistics actually show is that the possibility of either being killed by police under any circumstances is quite low. Given the tiny numbers, I'm not even sure that the differences are statistically significant.

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.

I have noted several times it is unarmed black deaths. I suggest please stop misrepresenting what I say. For once. Good fing grief. I think that number has been noted that way by me at least on a number of occasions.

Quote:Worth a read as to why this number is rather misleading and misses a lot of police-on-civilian violence. Most importantly, the absolute number doesn’t account for the over-representation of blacks (based on total population),

'on total population' -- again I think we have already discussed what a crock of **** that is in this case. First, the sheer small number blows away any statistical 'overweight'.

Second, the far better measure is not 'population makeup'. Put your thinking cap on lad. Issues with police are better measured by 'per encounter with police'. And yes, the sheer fing number of homicides *by* blacks, violent crimes *by* blacks, major drug convictions *of* blacks.

Hmmm, one gets a pretty good fing idea *why* black areas have more cops --- far more major crime occurs in those areas. What does more patrols, more cops in an area mean (i.e. the concpet of actually focusing on crime, that is focusing on areas that have the prevalence of crime). Funny how an actual logic process flows, as opposed to simply doing stuff 'well per capita says'.

I agree that *if* the black crime problem were equal, then an observation might have a grounding in reality -- but even then not at the very small number that we are talking about. But, the black crime problem *isnt* equal in scope -- not by a fing long shot.

Illini already noted that, but I guess in your 'glee' to escape that low number, you kind of fing forgot that in the interim. Much like you have most of the points that you 'discover' in this missive have already been noted or addressed.

Quote:it doesn’t account for off-duty officer related deaths, and it doesn’t account for non-firearm related deaths (as in, it would not count George Floyd as a death).

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ootings-p/

Oh I *sure* that changes the issue -- lets dive down. "28 unarmed blacks and 51 unarmed whites who died at the hands of police in 2019."

Wow, amazing. That got the number just *slightly* above the number of people en toto who were killed by dogs.

Uhhh..... how the **** does that change the narrative in any way, shape, or form? By god lad, I think you have the 'distinction without a difference' down like a black belt kung fu ju jitsu stealth ninja master. Yeah, they *really* should pull out those head slap emojis...

(06-09-2020 08:08 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.
Worth a read as to why this number is rather misleading and misses a lot of police-on-civilian violence. Most importantly, the absolute number doesn’t account for the over-representation of blacks (based on total population), it doesn’t account for off-duty officer related deaths, and it doesn’t account for non-firearm related deaths (as in, it would not count George Floyd as a death).
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/20...ootings-p/

9 is the number of unarmed black people killed by police in 2019.

That is incorrect.

It is the number of unarmed black people killed by police with a firearm by an on-duty police officer.

Quote:Those numbers matched the Washington Post’s tally of fatal shootings by police in the line of duty, although the Washington Post’s figures have increased since Elder made his claim.

But not all police killings happen when officers are on duty, and not all involve a gunshot. The Washington Post’s data doesn’t include deaths like Floyd’s, for example.

Quote: 19 is the comparable number of whites. 235 is the total number of blacks killed by police in 2019, and 370 is the total number of whites.

Because of differences in total populations, the unarmed killings work out to 1 in every 5 million blacks and 1 in every 10 million whites, and the total killings work out to 1 per 200,000 blacks and 1 per 500,000 whites.

People adept at misusing statistics like to point out that blacks are "2.5 times as likely" as whites to be killed by police, or that unarmed blacks are "twice as likely" as unarmed whites to be killed by police. What those statistics actually show is that the possibility of either being killed by police under any circumstances is quite low. Given the tiny numbers, I'm not even sure that the differences are statistically significant.

And I understand your point about the numbers being so low (with respect to the total population) that the statements of 2.5 times could just be noise (as in, not statistically significant as you say). But to really evaluate that, we would want to look at each year, and whether or not that disparity was present from year to year. If we find that every year blacks are killed by police officers at a disproportionate rate to other races, then it likely is statistically significant.

We would then want to really dig into the numbers and see what sort of confounding variables could be driving that disparity.

(06-09-2020 06:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:23 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  "Police brutality" is notoriously hard to represent with good data. People dying at the hands of cops is much more reliable from a data standpoint but it doesn't provide the full picture of the problem.

Since it is difficult to represent with good data, that makes it the perfect catch all.

Statistically, we are probably lookinf at a couple of incidents a month out of millions of police/citizen interactions daily. Somewhere along the lone of 0.0000000001%, give ior take a few zeros.
What is the definitiion of systemic again?

As for the white kid with a doob vs. the black kid with a doob, are all other things equal? How do you know? The whole thing is just supposition based on urban legends. I think if anything, unequal treatment is based more on economics. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

I raised three white sons. Never caught a break as far as I know.

Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

My point was that the cops never sent them home.


Were you the one complaining of whataboutism?

edit: Yes it was you.

Not sure how the link that I posted is whataboutism...

I actually don’t have a problem with whataboutism. I just like to point out when the person who complains about it the most seems to constantly employ it.

And funny, as I noted previously, is that your idiotic statement that some believe there is 'no racism' is, well..... idiotic.

It will exist in small amounts, and across racial lines, no matter what the circumstances. Not a whatabout, a simple basic truism. That, based on your (continued) response, you seem utterly clueless to. Clear now? I can type slower if you wish.

(06-09-2020 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.

I have noted several times it is unarmed black deaths. I suggest please stop misrepresenting what I say. For once. Good fing grief. I think that number has been noted that way by me at least on a number of occasions.

But it isn't unarmed black deaths. It is unarmed blacks killed by on-duty police officers using a firearm.

See: "shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian," as the Washington Post describes its data."

So again, George Floyd would not be counted in this, since he wasn't killed by a firearm.

(06-09-2020 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:30 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  Since it is difficult to represent with good data, that makes it the perfect catch all.

Statistically, we are probably lookinf at a couple of incidents a month out of millions of police/citizen interactions daily. Somewhere along the lone of 0.0000000001%, give ior take a few zeros.
What is the definitiion of systemic again?

As for the white kid with a doob vs. the black kid with a doob, are all other things equal? How do you know? The whole thing is just supposition based on urban legends. I think if anything, unequal treatment is based more on economics. But who needs facts when you have a point to make.

I raised three white sons. Never caught a break as far as I know.

Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

My point was that the cops never sent them home.


Were you the one complaining of whataboutism?

edit: Yes it was you.

Not sure how the link that I posted is whataboutism...

I actually don’t have a problem with whataboutism. I just like to point out when the person who complains about it the most seems to constantly employ it.

And funny, as I noted previously, is that your idiotic statement that some believe there is 'no racism' is, well..... idiotic.

It will exist in small amounts, and across racial lines, no matter what the circumstances. Not a whatabout, a simple basic truism. That, based on your (continued) response, you seem utterly clueless to. Clear now? I can type slower if you wish.

You can be as condescending as you want. I understand that racism exists and always will exist to some degree. We are on the same page there.

Don't freak out on me because I noted that people on this board have said something to the effect of, "America used to be a racist country but it isn't a problem any more." I brought that up because it informs their opinions on the current protests.

(06-09-2020 08:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

My point was that the cops never sent them home.


Were you the one complaining of whataboutism?

edit: Yes it was you.

Not sure how the link that I posted is whataboutism...

I actually don’t have a problem with whataboutism. I just like to point out when the person who complains about it the most seems to constantly employ it.

And funny, as I noted previously, is that your idiotic statement that some believe there is 'no racism' is, well..... idiotic.

It will exist in small amounts, and across racial lines, no matter what the circumstances. Not a whatabout, a simple basic truism. That, based on your (continued) response, you seem utterly clueless to. Clear now? I can type slower if you wish.

You can be as condescending as you want. I understand that racism exists and always will exist to some degree. We are on the same page there.

Don't freak out on me because I noted that people on this board have said something to the effect of, "America used to be a racist country but it isn't a problem any more." I brought that up because it informs their opinions on the current protests.

But don't you see, they're not saying there isn't any racism, it just isn't as bad. So the fact that we've gone from lynchings to legal segregation to non-state sponsored racism/bias means we're all good and we shouldn't be complaining about it. Things could be worse!

Why are you trying to get an A on race issues when a C is a passing grade? Stop complaining!

(06-09-2020 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.

I have noted several times it is unarmed black deaths. I suggest please stop misrepresenting what I say. For once. Good fing grief. I think that number has been noted that way by me at least on a number of occasions.

But it isn't unarmed black deaths. It is unarmed blacks killed by on-duty police officers using a firearm.

See: "shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian," as the Washington Post describes its data."

So again, George Floyd would not be counted in this, since he wasn't killed by a firearm.

Yes, great. That doesnt change the fact that you misrepresented that I said "total deaths", does it?

And, think of *why* the distinction is made between 'on-duty' and 'off-duty'. Given that the shotgun slayings of a cops wife and her lover by a cop are now thrown into the mix. Doesnt seem indicative of the present issue of 'police brutality', given that we are specifically talking about the left pulling the pin on the go apeshit grenade based on cops acting in their official duties. Does it?

Great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference. This doesnt get you even into 'nuisance territory', let alone into 'pull the pin on the go apeshit grenade territory.

(06-09-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.

I have noted several times it is unarmed black deaths. I suggest please stop misrepresenting what I say. For once. Good fing grief. I think that number has been noted that way by me at least on a number of occasions.

But it isn't unarmed black deaths. It is unarmed blacks killed by on-duty police officers using a firearm.

See: "shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian," as the Washington Post describes its data."

So again, George Floyd would not be counted in this, since he wasn't killed by a firearm.

Yes, great. That doesnt change the fact that you misrepresented that I said "total deaths", does it?

And, think of *why* the distinction is made between 'on-duty' and 'off-duty'. Given that the shotgun slayings of a cops wife and her lover by a cop are now thrown into the mix. Doesnt seem indicative of the present issue of 'police brutality', given that we are specifically talking about the left pulling the pin on the go apeshit grenade based on cops acting in their official duties. Does it?

Great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference.

You're right, I was wrong about what your misrepresented this number as.

But big picture, you and Owl#s were still misrepresenting the number by not explaining what it is, in totality. It's a segment of a segment of a segment.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

When you look at the total number of UNARMED people killed by police, you see that 28 unarmed blacks were killed by police - almost a 3-fold increase from the 9 being bandied about. If you want to diminish that number, it's your prerogative. But that seems way to high to me, given that the people were unarmed (and that's not even talking about the other races, for a total of 114 unarmed per year).

The only good news is that if you look at the trend, we've seen a decreasing trend in not only black, unarmed deaths per year since 2013, but overall unarmed deaths per year.

(06-09-2020 08:41 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:23 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:33 AM)Rice93 Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 11:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(06-08-2020 08:37 PM)Rice93 Wrote:  Did something like this ever happen to them?

https://www.colorlines.com/articles/vide...te-parents

My point was that the cops never sent them home.


Were you the one complaining of whataboutism?

edit: Yes it was you.

Not sure how the link that I posted is whataboutism...

I actually don’t have a problem with whataboutism. I just like to point out when the person who complains about it the most seems to constantly employ it.

And funny, as I noted previously, is that your idiotic statement that some believe there is 'no racism' is, well..... idiotic.

It will exist in small amounts, and across racial lines, no matter what the circumstances. Not a whatabout, a simple basic truism. That, based on your (continued) response, you seem utterly clueless to. Clear now? I can type slower if you wish.

You can be as condescending as you want. I understand that racism exists and always will exist to some degree. We are on the same page there.

I noted it because of your false attribution of a statement.

Quote:Don't freak out on me because I noted that people on this board have said something to the effect of, "America used to be a racist country but it isn't a problem any more." I brought that up because it informs their opinions on the current protests.

Perhaps you should use the actual statements instead of what your interpretation is. Your statement above still doesnt cut it. Do you practice at 'misquoting a position to ascribe an extreme to it'? If not, too bad there isnt a fing Olympic medal associated with that practice. Youd be a lock to be in proverbial constant contention.

(06-09-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 06:56 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Politifact does a good job dissecting the 9 number that Tanq keeps parroting (and misrepresenting as total black deaths, and not the more narrowly defined unarmed black people shot and killed by police) from the WSJ op-Ed.

I have noted several times it is unarmed black deaths. I suggest please stop misrepresenting what I say. For once. Good fing grief. I think that number has been noted that way by me at least on a number of occasions.

But it isn't unarmed black deaths. It is unarmed blacks killed by on-duty police officers using a firearm.

See: "shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian," as the Washington Post describes its data."

So again, George Floyd would not be counted in this, since he wasn't killed by a firearm.

Yes, great. That doesnt change the fact that you misrepresented that I said "total deaths", does it?

And, think of *why* the distinction is made between 'on-duty' and 'off-duty'. Given that the shotgun slayings of a cops wife and her lover by a cop are now thrown into the mix. Doesnt seem indicative of the present issue of 'police brutality', given that we are specifically talking about the left pulling the pin on the go apeshit grenade based on cops acting in their official duties. Does it?

Great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference.

You're right, I was wrong about what your misrepresented this number as.

But big picture, you and Owl#s were still misrepresenting the number by not explaining what it is, in totality. It's a segment of a segment of a segment.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

When you look at the total number of UNARMED people killed by police, you see that 28 unarmed blacks were killed by police - almost a 3-fold increase from the 9 being bandied about. If you want to diminish that number, it's your prerogative. But that seems way to high to me, given that the people were unarmed (and that's not even talking about the other races, for a total of 114 unarmed per year).

The only good news is that if you look at the trend, we've seen a decreasing trend in not only black, unarmed deaths per year since 2013, but overall unarmed deaths per year.

Lad, when the inclusion or non-inclusion of an off-duty cop shotgunning his wife and lover when off duty means literally a 10% change in the numbers, this is a pretty good indication of the definition of a non-problem.

When that number of 28, or 51, is stacked up against a number of 200 million police encounters, some say those numbers fail to show a trend of any sort.

Since you are 'Mr Objective' what exactly is the number that is derived by the simple formula of 79 divided by 200 fing million? Seems I forgot my calculator today.

And, to note again, great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference.

The funny thing is that you are still literally trying to gin up some 'systemic injustice' bull**** with something that occurs *less* than death by lightning, by a long margin.

(06-09-2020 09:10 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:58 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:49 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:30 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(06-09-2020 08:18 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  I have noted several times it is unarmed black deaths. I suggest please stop misrepresenting what I say. For once. Good fing grief. I think that number has been noted that way by me at least on a number of occasions.

But it isn't unarmed black deaths. It is unarmed blacks killed by on-duty police officers using a firearm.

See: "shootings in which a police officer, in the line of duty, shoots and kills a civilian," as the Washington Post describes its data."

So again, George Floyd would not be counted in this, since he wasn't killed by a firearm.

Yes, great. That doesnt change the fact that you misrepresented that I said "total deaths", does it?

And, think of *why* the distinction is made between 'on-duty' and 'off-duty'. Given that the shotgun slayings of a cops wife and her lover by a cop are now thrown into the mix. Doesnt seem indicative of the present issue of 'police brutality', given that we are specifically talking about the left pulling the pin on the go apeshit grenade based on cops acting in their official duties. Does it?

Great, lets look at the 'inflated' numbers you jump up and down and now scream about. Just north of death by dog mauling, and still much, much less than by lightning. Yeah, that makes a giant fing difference.

You're right, I was wrong about what your misrepresented this number as.

But big picture, you and Owl#s were still misrepresenting the number by not explaining what it is, in totality. It's a segment of a segment of a segment.

Talk about missing the forest for the trees.

When you look at the total number of UNARMED people killed by police, you see that 28 unarmed blacks were killed by police - almost a 3-fold increase from the 9 being bandied about. If you want to diminish that number, it's your prerogative. But that seems way to high to me, given that the people were unarmed (and that's not even talking about the other races, for a total of 114 unarmed per year).

The only good news is that if you look at the trend, we've seen a decreasing trend in not only black, unarmed deaths per year since 2013, but overall unarmed deaths per year.

Lad, when the inclusion or non-inclusion of an off-duty cop shotgunning his wife and lover when off duty means literally a 10% change in the numbers, this is a pretty good indication of the definition of a non-problem.

When that number of 28, or 51, is stacked up against a number of 200 million police encounters, some say those numbers fail to show a trend of any sort.

Since you are 'Mr Objective' what exactly is the number that is derived by the simple formula of 79 divided by 200 fing million? Seems I forgot my calculator today.

So where is the % cut off we need to start carrying about crimes on a per capita/encounter basis? 1%? 0.1%? 0.01%? Does the type of crime need to be weighted somehow so your % floor is lower?

And to the on/off-duty, where are you getting that there is a 10% change in the number of unarmed people killed?

I guess I need to explain, since 93 is taking my truthful statements and warping them into things I never said and never meant.

As I have said before, perhaps because of my age (75) I seen things differently, since I have actually seen different things that most of you have not. Seeing history is different than learning it. But I have seen 1953, and I am seeing 2020.

One thing I have seen is racism in this country move from state-sponsored to individuals only. We used to have laws on the books enforcing segregation. We had separate but equal schools, legally. When Rosa Parks refused to move, they called the cops to enforce the laws that said she had to.

Today, we don't have those laws anymore. Instead we have Affirmative Action and laws that enforce nondiscrimination. That is what the government enforces these days.

The country used to discriminate against black people. The country no longer does.

Yes some people still have discriminatory feeling toward people of other races, and sometimes those individuals are in a position to take action. But by and large they don't.

I like to play poker, as a self-supporting hobby. When I go to a casino (may the day come again), sometimes a black person will sit at the table. Maybe not everybody likes that, but nobody calls management to have him removed. The ones who care have learned to live with it, because the country, through its laws and customs, does not back them anymore. The country used to, but that has changed. I know of no private games that would bar a player on race.

The upshot here is that no black person under 50 has had the experience of being refused admission to a school or restaurant or hotel. The days that produced the Green Book are gone. I came into a segregated Rice. Instead, black scholars are sought out by schools like Rice and competed for. Is that not a change?

I don't see ANY governmental oppression against blacks. Nothing in the laws. Nothing in the interpretation of those laws. So I don't see the USA as an oppressive country. Do I see individuals who are prejudiced? Of course. All types of them. But that is not the same. The government actively works to minimize their effect.

Now some of yall have chosen to misinterpret my words, and chosen to imply other things I don't imply. I expect the intentional misinterpretations will continue from those who chose to misinterpret, but I hope those who chose to listen and debate will have a better understanding of what I really say and what i really think.