Black Lives Matter Protest.

[Sharpie]

51 minutes ago, luckyBatistuta said:

 

I also watched the tapes of George Floyd dying at the hands of the police Bob. It was hard to watch another human beings life being taken by a callous killer. This does not mean that all police officers in America are racist killers, even though some individuals will try to paint a picture that they are. It must be hard for the good honest officers to go to work every day being branded as such. There are bad officers in all forces around the world. I’m still waiting over three months later for the proof that this was a racial killing, but still nothing coming from the accusers on here. People with an agenda at odds with the truth posting nonsense.

 

Yes it was a unfortunate picture to have to view. My point from early on has been the what I see as terrible mismanagement of that particular police force at that time. It seems though that police management throughout the States has its problems. I have to hit my special sore point that the Police Associations seem to have more power than the management and I would suggest that the relationship between Trump and these same Associations is going to make things worse.

 

When I was in the Edinburgh Police we had an Association, their primary responsibility seemed to be to get us more money, this was acceptable to all. I do not recall them having anything tp do with disciplinary matters. In those days the Association was that and not a Union. It was not permitted by the police  to have a Union as this was banned after the big General Strike. The Floyd incident became racial because Floyd was black. With the record of the department I suspect a prisoner of any race could have been treated similarly.

[Justin Z]

19 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

This is speculation I can't support with data though there may be data on my speculation somewhere. I'm thinking that perhaps racism isn't a common thread running right through all or most American cops as such.

There may be examples of it in some or maybe even many departments. But i'm speculating that where you have an odd rotten apple or two in the barrel the majority are not like them and will sideline them through various means.

On the other hand i'm more than confident there are specific departments in specific states where almost the entire barrel is infected and anyone questioning their activities will be the ones to be sidelined.

How do you deal with that in such a fractured system with no national controlling body.

 

Yeah, it's hard to put a data-driven finger on those feelings.

 

But it comes down to what happens when that "rotten apple or two", as you put it (and we'll run with that idea for the sake of argument), do inappropriate things. Repeatedly and systematically, most cops who do things like murder George Floyd already have disciplinary records, and they faced little or no consequences for their prior bad actions. Then, repeatedly and systematically, they have rarely faced consequences for their latest bad action. There are extreme cases like the one I outlined here in Arizona where the officer was not convicted of murder, and was given a $30,000 a year for life pension.

 

Having a badge is rightly seen as carte blanche to do things to other human beings that if you or I or any person off the street did them, we'd be facing serious legal consequences for.

 

Bob @Sharpie is also correct. The police unions here aren't just labour unions, they're literal "keep-cops-out-of-jail-no-matter-what-they-do" associations—their primary function quite probably is to shield these "rotten apples" from accountability. When bands of protesters have the power to come together to shield the worst behaving ones from consequences, be sure to let me know, and I'll revise my assessment accordingly.

 

Anyway, calling these things out as being wrong is not saying that "all police in America are racist killers", and it takes one's head being quite firmly and deeply up one's own arse to claim that it is, but here we are.

 

Bob is also right that similar treatment can be expected regardless of race, but the statistics do show it's skewed based on race.

 

Combine that with the militarisation of US police forces over the past several decades and continuing to make excuses for the combined broad behaviour our populace is subjected to is just that—excuses—and sob stories about the poor good cops just trying to do their jobs are merely that as well: pleas to emotion with no basis in reality whatsoever for the millions of Americans whose lives have been affected by police misconduct and systemic failure.

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Justin Z

[JFK-1]

6 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Bob is also right that similar treatment can be expected regardless of race, but the statistics do show it's skewed based on race.

 

There's data to suggest that if you put race as a percentage of the population aside and focus on just number of interactions with police they're actually statistically killing more white people than blacks.

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

 

There's data to suggest that if you put race as a percentage of the population aside and focus on just number of interactions with police they're actually statistically killing more white people than blacks.

Racist!!!!

[JFK-1]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

Racist!!!!

 

I don't think we can label numbers as racist. But in the world of Trump who knows.

[Justin Z]

5 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

There's data to suggest that if you put race as a percentage of the population aside and focus on just number of interactions with police they're actually statistically killing more white people than blacks.

 

The data I have seen is the reverse, i.e. in absolute terms, there are more white people killed than Black, but because whites make up x times of the population more, that as a per capita rate, it's actually Black people being killed more.

 

Either way, since the core point I care about is about police conduct as a whole being destructive and anathema to justice, thinly veiled attempts to paint it as otherwise can be seen for what they are:

 

3 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Racist!!!!

 

Respectful realist. There's nothing wrong with an honest assessment of the data—you ought to try it sometime instead of resorting to reactionary whining.

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Justin Z

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

 

 

Respectful realist. There's nothing wrong with an honest assessment of the data—you ought to try it sometime instead of resorting to reactionary whining.

😅

 

[Justin Z]

In before

 

- DUR HOW DO YOU NOT SEE YOU DO THE EXACT SAME THING YOU'RE SAYING

 

- HUR I AM THE ONE DEALING IN FACTS, YOU'RE THE MOST RACIST POSTER ON THE BOARD

 

- NUR ANTI-FASCISTS ARE THE REAL FASCISTS

 

and several dozen exclamation points

 

Edit: Oh, no, I missed out. The "social justice warrior" slur, as if caring about people who are not exactly like me is a bad thing.

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Justin Z

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I don't think we can label numbers as racist. But in the world of Trump who knows.

Just a wee joke👍 it's like no one can say anything against the BLM movement or anything slightly positive about the police without being labelled as an "ignorant racist" 

I obviously wasn't calling you a racist👍

 

[Dawnrazor]

2 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

In before

 

- DUR HOW DO YOU NOT SEE YOU DO THE EXACT SAME THING YOU'RE SAYING

 

- HUR I AM THE ONE DEALING IN FACTS, YOU'RE THE MOST RACIST POSTER ON THE BOARD

 

- NUR ANTI-FASCISTS ARE THE REAL FASCISTS

 

and several dozen exclamation points

 

Edit: Oh, no, I missed out. The "social justice warrior" slur, as if caring about people who are not exactly like me is a bad thing.

Ooft!!!! A raw nerve has been hit I see😆

[Justin Z]

4 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

Just a wee joke👍 it's like no one can say anything against the BLM movement or anything slightly positive about the police without being labelled as an "ignorant racist" 

I obviously wasn't calling you a racist👍

 

And yet JFK did bring up a potential counter to one of my points, and we were able to talk about it quite easily. Since it's not like you just described, at all.

 

I hope he's able to provide the data he mentioned, as it would be nice to refine my view, even of something I've done research into going back over a decade.

 

And yeah, it's not a raw nerve—I'm the one living rent-free in your head, remember? Still much obliged. It's just boring and I'd like to change the music in here if you don't mind. We get it, there's literally no data or facts that can sway your opinion. It's 99.9% Black people and their supporters' fault, and zero point one percent the police's. And yes, once again in before "dur you can't see your own blindness" etc.

 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Justin Z

[Dawnrazor]

Just now, Justin Z said:

 

And yet JFK did bring up a potential counter to one of my points, and we were able to talk about it quite easily. Since it's not like you just described, at all.

 

I hope he's able to provide the data he mentioned, as it would be nice to refine my view, even of something I

 

And yeah, it's not a raw nerve—I'm the one living rent-free in your head, remember? Still much obliged. It's just boring and I'd like to change the music in here if you don't mind. We get it, there's literally no data or facts that can sway your opinion. It's 99.9% Black people and their supporters' fault, and zero point one percent the police's. And yes, once again in before "dur you can't see your own blindness" etc.

"living rent free in my head"😅😅😅😅

Don't flatter yourself😅😅😅😅

You're last few lines are just nonsense but crack on fly guy!!!

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

"living rent free in my head"😅😅😅😅

Don't flatter yourself😅😅😅😅

You're last few lines are just nonsense but crack on fly guy!!!

 

For real though, I'm not a fan of conflict and it's much more comfortable up in here when you're not all wound up anyway.

 

Repeating myself for at least the fourth or fifth time, I remain open to the idea that my last few lines are nonsense. If so, once again, just prove it: Demonstrate that you're actually capable of looking at evidence and adjusting your position accordingly. If you do, it will be the first time I've seen at least, but that would be good, it would nice to see you turn a new leaf.

 

We're waiting on JFK to provide that data he mentioned, so here's an example of my own if it will help: Scottish independence. Was against when I lived here, had never been to the UK, and knew frankly little about it. Came to Scotland, came to learn about the issues at a deeper level, reversed my position entirely.

 

Simples.

[JFK-1]

4 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

I hope he's able to provide the data he mentioned, as it would be nice to refine my view, even of something I've done research into going back over a decade.

 

Wise view, if i'm wrong about anything at all I want to know it it even if I find the truth unpalatable. I will presume you know who Sam Harris is and further presume you know he is no racist or right winger. And about as anti Trump as it gets.

This video is primed to start at the point he's leading into speaking about the data I mentioned.

 

 

[Dawnrazor]

1 minute ago, Justin Z said:

 

For real though, I'm not a fan of conflict and it's much more comfortable up in here when you're not all wound up anyway.

 

Repeating myself for at least the fourth or fifth time, I remain open to the idea that my last few lines are nonsense. If so, once again, just prove it: Demonstrate that you're actually capable of looking at evidence and adjusting your position accordingly. If you do, it will be the first time I've seen at least, but that would be good, it would nice to see you turn a new leaf.

 

We're waiting on JFK to provide that data he mentioned, so here's an example of my own if it will help: Scottish independence. Was against when I lived here, had never been to the UK, and knew frankly little about it. Came to Scotland, came to learn about the issues at a deeper level, reversed my position entirely.

 

Simples.

Your assumption that the whole US police force and everyone in it is self evidently wrong, simples.

[Dawnrazor]

4 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Wise view, if i'm wrong about anything at all I want to know it it even if I find the truth unpalatable. I will presume you know who Sam Harris is and further presume you know he is no racist or right winger. And about as anti Trump as it gets.

This video is primed to start at the point he's leading into speaking about the data I mentioned.

 

 

Have you watched the whole thing?

Can you provide a quick run down and the big points please?

An early start for me again so off to bed.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

Your assumption that the whole US police force and everyone in it is self evidently wrong, simples.

 

I can't even make heads or tails of that. Is it missing a word or two?

 

Regardless, as I've already pointed out above to LuckyBatistuta, you continue to not engage with my actual position, instead creating a straw man to attack. Whatever those missing words are, it's not position, because I don't think the whole US police force and everyone in it, is a monolith. Also, nothing is self-evidently wrong or right except to a person with an in-built bias they refuse to put aside, so thank you for confirming that once again.

 

Anyway, continuing to beat that drum is both dishonest, and just generally shitty—though true to past form, unfortunately. I think that you do this because you don't actually have a valid basis for what you believe, so it's necessary to pretend my position is something that it is not. Else you might have to change your mind, and we can't have that.

[JFK-1]

1 minute ago, Dawnrazor said:

Have you watched the whole thing?

Can you provide a quick run down and the big points please?

An early start for me again so off to bed.

 

Yes I have watched the whole thing. His preamble is over 40 minutes so I feel disinclined to go through it. This link has a text version of the entire video.

https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/

[Dawnrazor]

11 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Yes I have watched the whole thing. His preamble is over 40 minutes so I feel disinclined to go through it. This link has a text version of the entire video.

https://samharris.org/can-pull-back-brink/

Cheers👍 if I can get reception tomorrow I'll try and watch as much as I can.

[Dawnrazor]

14 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

I can't even make heads or tails of that. Is it missing a word or two?

No, it just cuts through the pish you pad up your posts with and is the nub of your argument.

[Justin Z]

2 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

No, it just cuts through the pish you pad up your posts with and is the nub of your argument.

 

Sorry to break this to you, but it's not even grammatically a sentence. You might want to check again.

[Justin Z]

8 minutes ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Wise view, if i'm wrong about anything at all I want to know it it even if I find the truth unpalatable. I will presume you know who Sam Harris is and further presume you know he is no racist or right winger. And about as anti Trump as it gets.

This video is primed to start at the point he's leading into speaking about the data I mentioned.

 

 

 

Thanks. I generally like Sam. I think he's tone-deaf sometimes, and has issues of his own, but for me, he's shown that he's generally striving for truth.

 

Regarding his questions, I wanted to answer them before he did, then respond to his own answers.

 

- "Does the killing of George Floyd prove that we have a problem of racism in the United States? Does it even suggest that we have a problem of racism in the United States? In other words, do we have reason to believe that had Floyd been white, he wouldn't have died in a similar way? Do the dozen or so other videos that have emerged in recent years of Black men being killed by cops—do they prove or even suggest that there is an epidemic of lethal police violence directed especially at Black men, and that this violence is motivated by racism?

 

My answer: Any of these incidents—not on their own. Insofar as they're part of a much larger pattern, that stretches across many areas of life here, it may form part of a basis to demonstrate this.

He points out that this the answer is "obvious" to people, and he's right I think. People come to see a "big picture" and then they are prone to viewing it through that lens. Take Black people who grow up in urban communities that are statistically far more "diligently policed," to use a euphemism, than suburban white communities, and of course they're going to have a tendency to view things much differently. They, or people who can sympathise with their plight, are then often derided as "woke" or "SJW" or whatever for daring to point out a potential problem. Or for daring to kneel at an NFL game. Or what have you.

 

He claims that taking five minutes to look at the data will give you a "no" answer to his questions. Having taken far more than five minutes to look at the data over a period of many years, I disagree with him.

 

He points out violent crime has "come down" over the past quarter century, and that's true. But this doesn't jive with what people think here. It is white, Trump-supporting type people who, more than other Americans—but we're all statistically guilty of it—that will say that crime is a worse problem than it's ever been in the past 5-10 years, and that it's more important than ever to "Back the Blue" who are out there risking their lives to protect all of us. The uptick in this attitude also coincides with the election of the first Black president, though that little detail may or may not be a coincidence.

 

Anyway, here is the data on police killings in the last several years:

 

 

1,468 white versus 790 Black out of a total of 2,957 and we'll just compare those two for simplicity's sake. That's about 50% white, about 27% Black, and about 23% the rest.

 

Well, the percentage of white-only and non-Hispanic folks in the population is estimated to be about 60%.  Black folks not mixed, about 13%. That's a problem for Sam's claim straight away. 50% and 60% pretty neatly line up, statistically speaking. It shows white people are slightly underrepresented in these shootings but not terribly. But 13% and 27% . . . not so much. That's showing a double risk, approximately, for Black folks by comparison.

 

I am supposed to be working, so I've stopped listening at this point. I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on why Harris is justified in what he's trying to say.

[Justin Z]

5 minutes ago, Dawnrazor said:

the pish you pad up your posts with

 

I ran this through that Dawn-to-English translator and it came back with "facts and data that make me uncomfortable", but it still isn't a sentence either way, soz.

[JFK-1]

9 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

I am supposed to be working, so I've stopped listening at this point. I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on why Harris is justified in what he's trying to say.

 

You have to listen to all of it from the point I primed it to start to get the full picture of what he's saying. He goes into great detail to get his point across which is the only way to clarify complex subjects.

And that's why so many people are entirely ignorant. If something can't be explained in a paragraph they're not going to dig any deeper. A tweet society.

You would probably find the entire video interesting and yet again, how many of these people who proclaim to know what they're talking about on the basis of a tweet would listen to a presentation that runs almost two hours.

[Justin Z]

1 minute ago, JFK-1 said:

 

You have to listen to all of it from the point I primed it to start to get the full picture of what he's saying. He goes into great detail to get his point across which is the only way to clarify complex subjects.

And that's why so many people are entirely ignorant. If something can't be explained in a paragraph they're not going to dig any deeper. A tweet society.

You would probably find the entire video interesting and yet again, how many of these people who proclaim to know what they're talking about on the basis of a tweet would listen to a presentation that runs almost two hours.

 

I see. And yeah, that's fair, but one of the problems I have with Sam is that he'll spend two hours to belabour a point there's not even any disagreement on: "Political polarisation is a problem in the US and it's because people tend to jump to conclusions." I mean, yes, thanks my man. You really got at that one.

 

I'll listen more when I can give proper attention to it.

[Justin Z]

Continuing...

 

- 2019 was a 30-year low for police shootings in Los Angeles.

 

Factual, but contextually, it's hollow to me. 26 people shot at, compared to 115 in 1990. Okay. That's one city in the entire US. How many people were shot in the whole of England and Wales in a similar time period? 13. Like, it's good that it's improved in one city in the US. Why is it still even this bad? It's an average of about 3 per day across the US. Is that okay, just because it might be lower than it was 30 years ago (though I couldn't find data)?

 

A bit later he presents a thousand a year in the US as if it's insignificant and that it's counter-factual to find that number unacceptable. Pish, for the reasons I just said before I even got there.

 

He then turns it to an emotion-laced question, "do any of these people protesting know that 2019 was a 30-year-low in Los Angeles?" Since this is a movement with nationwide and people both directly affected and unaffected by police violence and misconduct are protesting, that's a pretty highly irrelevant question.

He then says "this feeling" (of outrage, etc.) at him for even saying what he did, "isn't an argument." Neither is the question I just highlighted. He then goes on a "people get offended" rant that's again, factual in a vacuum. There is legitimate and illegitimate offence, yes Sam. Congrats on confirming that.

 

This too reflects for me a problem I have with him sometimes: he microfocuses and then takes his microfocused analysis and sleight-of-hand applies it to the whole. Sorry, he's not sliding this one in unchallenged.

 

Nor is he sliding in with his "1-in-10,000 chance of dying if you're arrested" argument, especially when he then even acknowledges that in other countries it's nowhere near this! "It is what it is for a reason." Sam, that is not an argument. He says he'll get back to that reason. Does he?

He then says cops have a very hard job without addressing a primary refrain from BLM, that police unions, police command structures, and politicians are largely to blame for how hard their job is, because they have been ignoring very easily demonstrated racism nationwide for decades.

 

Harris points out Black and Hispanic cops are more likely to shoot non-white suspects than white cops are. I wrote a paper that touched on this years ago. The concept broadly is called implicit bias. One of the ways you know the folk who can't argue honestly, are being dishonest, is when they say my position is that the entire US police force is racist. Well implicit bias is sub-conscious. It "creates racism without racists" – the exact opposite of what they say I claim. I 100% guarantee they've never even considered the concept, much less educated themselves about it.

 

---

 

@JFK-1, this is getting really long already and I'm barely past 53 minutes in the video. But needless to say I'm very unimpressed with Harris' line of argument up to now. If you have some key points you'd like to discuss, I'm more than willing, as always. If we don't end up agreeing, I won't think you're a racist. Racists out themselves pretty obviously, anyway.

[JFK-1]

3 hours ago, Justin Z said:

Nor is he sliding in with his "1-in-10,000 chance of dying if you're arrested" argument, especially when he then even acknowledges that in other countries it's nowhere near this! "It is what it is for a reason." Sam, that is not an argument. He says he'll get back to that reason. Does he?

 

I think you  need to listen to the entire presentation and I think he's introducing so many points it's more practical to focus on just a single point at a time.

For example the point I quoted above which he does indeed get back to and touches on multiple times. He nowhere says it's acceptable.  This quote an example of that.
 

Quote

If the cops decide to arrest you, it would be reasonable to think that your chance of dying is around 1/10,000. Of course, in the United States, it’s higher than it is in other countries.

So I’m not saying that this number is acceptable. But it is what it is for a reason, as we’re about to see.

 

[JFK-1]

In this video there are multiple instances where they switch to Scotland showing them demonstrating  to American cops how Scottish police deal with violent incidents. I have primed it to begin at just one of them.
 

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by JFK-1

[Justin Z]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

I think you  need to listen to the entire presentation and I think he's introducing so many points it's more practical to focus on just a single point at a time.

For example the point I quoted above which he does indeed get back to and touches on multiple times. He nowhere says it's acceptable.  This quote an example of that.

 

Okay so he goes to great lengths to humanise police officers' perspective and there's nothing wrong with that, especially in the context of what he repeatedly hits on: Cops in the US are poorly trained in hand-to-hand, in weapons, in defusing situations. This is a major systemic issue for sure.

 

He remains tone deaf when he talks about "you need to just comply, you need to not resist arrest, and then you can clear everything up in the police station, preferably with a lawyer." Yeah that's easy to say as a guy who can afford a lawyer, and bail, like Sam. It's easy to say while ignoring people who died in police custody for literally no reason. It's easy to say when you're not the one being taken into custody, also for no reason, and you're made to sit in a five yard square cell with one toilet, no privacy, and 15 other people for hours straight as you wait to be arraigned, as I have had it reported to me by multiple criminal defence clients here in Phoenix.

 

He makes great pains to point out you don't know what's in a cop's head while simultaneously declaring what is in especially people of colour's heads as bad or wrong. He then makes the statistical argument that I already took issue with above. He points out Black people commit crimes at a higher rate than white people. His point is not that Black people commit more crime because he is racist, but that leaves him with the other possible conclusion, that they are more deprived. Which leads right back to the point, which is this is a society at its core that provides fewer opportunities for Black people. This is not exclusive to race, but race is a well-studied complicating factor: Point BLM once again.

 

I disagree there is media distortion towards Black people as Harris claims as an argument from ignorance (he can't name any white people murdered by police other than the one example he gave). One of the best-known cases is that of Daniel Shaver, the man from Arizona I have mentioned multiple times whose murderer got a pension for life. It got all kinds of coverage. Besides, BLM isn't undermined in the slightest by the fact that white people are also killed by police far too often; if anything, that strengthens their core point.

 

Then Harris makes the claim the major story of crime in America is Black-on-Black crime. Well in equal statistical measures, Black people kill Black people at about the same rate as white people kill white people. Crimes happen within communities. Communities are highly segregated here, thanks to generations of racist housing policy by the US government. His analysis is superficial. "One remedy for these problems would be effective policing." Effective, non-brutal policing is exactly what they've been asking for for ****ing decades, Sam. They've never gotten it. It's why they're protesting now.

 

He's trying to be even-handed. He's done an exceptionally poor job at it, imo. I got to 1 hour 20 minutes now, and he's gotten to the part about how non-lethal force is statistically more likely to be used against Black people than white people. I'll leave it at that for tonight.

 

Thanks for sharing the podcast but I would really like to hear some of your actual thoughts having gotten through a lot of it myself by now.

 

Edited September 10, 2020 by Justin Z

[JFK-1]

Well again let's try to just clear up a single detail at a time. You said this.
 

16 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Then Harris makes the claim the major story of crime in America is Black-on-Black crime. Well in equal statistical measures, Black people kill Black people at about the same rate as white people kill white people.

 

How can that be when black people, 13% of the total population, are committing over 50% of the total murders?

[Justin Z]

Just now, JFK-1 said:

Well again let's try to just clear up a single detail at a time. You said this.
 

How can that be when black people, 13% of the total population, are committing over 50% of the total murders?

 

Talking about the relative rates, not the absolute rates. Yes, more murders are committed by Black folks, as we already agreed. But if it were reversed, and white people were 13% of the total population committing 50% of the total murders, you'd see a similar total amount of white-on-white murder, because the rate at which it's white-on-white versus white-on-something else is roughly the same as Black-on-Black versus Black-on-something else. Does that make sense? It's still roughly proportional even though it's a higher absolute rate. But no one ever talks about the rate at which whites kill other whites. It's just crime. It's all statistically very similar, so this "Black-on-Black" trope is meritless and poisons the well.

 

The only point Harris ends up making then is what was mentioned before, that we're dealing with systemic deprivation, much of it caused by very bad historical (and some modern) structural racism.

[JFK-1]

16 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

 

Talking about the relative rates, not the absolute rates. Yes, more murders are committed by Black folks, as we already agreed. But if it were reversed, and white people were 13% of the total population committing 50% of the total murders, you'd see a similar total amount of white-on-white murder, because the rate at which it's white-on-white versus white-on-something else is roughly the same as Black-on-Black versus Black-on-something else. Does that make sense? It's still roughly proportional even though it's a higher absolute rate. But no one ever talks about the rate at which whites kill other whites. It's just crime. It's all statistically very similar, so this "Black-on-Black" trope is meritless and poisons the well.

 

The only point Harris ends up making then is what was mentioned before, that we're dealing with systemic deprivation, much of it caused by very bad historical (and some modern) structural racism.

 

Regarding numbers of intraracial homicides what i'm seeing on politifact is this.

Percentage of white homicide victims killed by white offenders 10 year average 82%

Percentage of Black homicide victims killed by Black offenders 10 year average 90%

But I still don't get why that's even worth bothering about if say for example there are around 20,000 total murders a year which there are.  And more than 10,000 of them are being committed by a group comprising just 13% of the population.

I think that's a far more striking factor that has to be the main focus. And that has nothing to with any bias. I expect you have seen enough by now of everything I post on multiple topics to know for a fact that it doesn't come from even a modicum of bias.

[Dawnrazor]

8 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

I ran this through that Dawn-to-English translator and it came back with "facts and data that make me uncomfortable", but it still isn't a sentence either way, soz.

It isn't a sentence as you quoted it obviously, but you like to mis quote to your own end so no surprise there, I ran yours post through my Justin-to-English and it said, Justin doesn't like to be questioned as it makes him feel vulnerable the wee lamb!

[Dawnrazor]

9 hours ago, Justin Z said:

In before

 

- DUR HOW DO YOU NOT SEE YOU DO THE EXACT SAME THING YOU'RE SAYING

 

- HUR I AM THE ONE DEALING IN FACTS, YOU'RE THE MOST RACIST POSTER ON THE BOARD

 

- NUR ANTI-FASCISTS ARE THE REAL FASCISTS

 

and several dozen exclamation points

 

Edit: Oh, no, I missed out. The "social justice warrior" slur, as if caring about people who are not exactly like me is a bad thing.

 

Only you're not "in before" because all these have been accurately leveled at you many times before, keep up at the back!

[The Real Maroonblood]

The EPL starts this weekend.
I’m wondering if they’ll still continue with this kneeling nonsense before the start of games.

[JFK-1]

I don't see the point of it in Britain. It began in the US and continues there are a refusal to stand for the national anthem. 
 

Quote

Since August 2016, some American athletes have protested against police brutality and racism by kneeling on one knee during the U.S. national anthem.

Beginning in 2017, many players also protested against President Donald Trump's criticisms of those involved in the protest, and some against Trump's policies since taking office

 

We play no national anthem before domestic games in Britain, our police are nothing like US police. And Trump isn't the PM. 

[jambo89]

9 hours ago, Justin Z said:

 

Anyway, here is the data on police killings in the last several years:

 

 

1,468 white versus 790 Black out of a total of 2,957 and we'll just compare those two for simplicity's sake. That's about 50% white, about 27% Black, and about 23% the rest.

 

Well, the percentage of white-only and non-Hispanic folks in the population is estimated to be about 60%.  Black folks not mixed, about 13%. That's a problem for Sam's claim straight away. 50% and 60% pretty neatly line up, statistically speaking. It shows white people are slightly underrepresented in these shootings but not terribly. But 13% and 27% . . . not so much. That's showing a double risk, approximately, for Black folks by comparison.

 

I am supposed to be working, so I've stopped listening at this point. I'd be curious to hear more of your thoughts on why Harris is justified in what he's trying to say.

 

The link isn't working and I can't find any source whereby the death rate anywhere near 3000.

 

Have you got a web-site for this Information

 

  https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/   Seems to have decent data but can't find anything for comparison in previous years. 

 

1 hour ago, Justin Z said:

 

 

He makes great pains to point out you don't know what's in a cop's head while simultaneously declaring what is in especially people of colour's heads as bad or wrong. He then makes the statistical argument that I already took issue with above. He points out Black people commit crimes at a higher rate than white people. His point is not that Black people commit more crime because he is racist, but that leaves him with the other possible conclusion, that they are more deprived. Which leads right back to the point, which is this is a society at its core that provides fewer opportunities for Black people. This is not exclusive to race, but race is a well-studied complicating factor: Point BLM once again.

 

 

 

 

This is the crux of the matter for me. They are targeted because they are poor, not because they are black.

 

But they are poor because they are black.

 

In the UK, we might see a guy in a hoodie, tracksuit bottoms etc. walking down the street late at night and think 'he looks a bit dodgy'. In the US, this same situation is applied to black people. 

 

In the (admittedly poor) example above, when we in the UK see the guy in the hoodie and think 'dodgy' we are making pre-conceptions about there back ground / social status of said person. The police do the exact same thing, it is there job. 

[Ron Burgundy]

21 minutes ago, The Real Maroonblood said:

The EPL starts this weekend.
I’m wondering if they’ll still continue with this kneeling nonsense before the start of games.

The fear of being labelled racist will ensure it does IMO.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 minute ago, Ron Burgundy said:

The fear of being labelled racist will ensure it does IMO.

More than likely.

[doctor jambo]

1 hour ago, JFK-1 said:

 

Regarding numbers of intraracial homicides what i'm seeing on politifact is this.

Percentage of white homicide victims killed by white offenders 10 year average 82%

Percentage of Black homicide victims killed by Black offenders 10 year average 90%

But I still don't get why that's even worth bothering about if say for example there are around 20,000 total murders a year which there are.  And more than 10,000 of them are being committed by a group comprising just 13% of the population.

I think that's a far more striking factor that has to be the main focus. And that has nothing to with any bias. I expect you have seen enough by now of everything I post on multiple topics to know for a fact that it doesn't come from even a modicum of bias.

The problem is using stats on all sides.

In Scotland you could point out that more people aware murdered by catholics than any other group,and that catholics are more likely to commit crime and end up in prison .

Catholics are also more likely to kill catholics than other faiths.

That does not make it alright for the cops to target/ kill catholics.

All those stats tell us is

1- catholics are poor

2- catholics live together in groups

points 1+2 are connected and explain everything else

[luckydug]

22 hours ago, John Findlay said:

I will repeat ad nauseam. A country born from the firearm, and run by the firearm.

Anyone who tries,to do anything about it, they will be shot. Like many I am amazed Donald Trump is still alive. Still plenty time left for some crackpot or daft group to take him out though.

Trump has enabled these militia groups by refusing gun control. 

Any assassination attempts are more likely to be against his opponents imo. 

 

 

 

 

[Justin Z]

9 hours ago, jambo89 said:

 

The link isn't working and I can't find any source whereby the death rate anywhere near 3000.

 

Have you got a web-site for this Information

 

  https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/   Seems to have decent data but can't find anything for comparison in previous years.

 

That was an image yesterday. Let me try to pull it up again . . .

 

 

9 hours ago, jambo89 said:

This is the crux of the matter for me. They are targeted because they are poor, not because they are black.

 

But they are poor because they are black.

 

It can be both, and imo is. Lots of various complicating factors; these are two. It's also that many are poor because they are Black because of explicit government policy for generations stacking the economic deck against minorities (linked a few examples up there somewhere)

 

9 hours ago, jambo89 said:

In the UK, we might see a guy in a hoodie, tracksuit bottoms etc. walking down the street late at night and think 'he looks a bit dodgy'. In the US, this same situation is applied to black people. 

 

In the (admittedly poor) example above, when we in the UK see the guy in the hoodie and think 'dodgy' we are making pre-conceptions about there back ground / social status of said person. The police do the exact same thing, it is there job. 

 

Yeah, good example. I would just reiterate that for me, it's what you said the situation is in the UK, plus another factor on top of that.

 

8 hours ago, doctor jambo said:

The problem is using stats on all sides.

In Scotland you could point out that more people aware murdered by catholics than any other group,and that catholics are more likely to commit crime and end up in prison .

Catholics are also more likely to kill catholics than other faiths.

That does not make it alright for the cops to target/ kill catholics.

All those stats tell us is

1- catholics are poor

2- catholics live together in groups

points 1+2 are connected and explain everything else

 

Good thoughts, this also hits on the fact that Catholics were a disfavoured group in Scotland for many years (and as we know, in some quarters they still are) and there are lasting effects from that. Same as race in the US from a historical perspective, then combine with things in the present day like implicit bias that answers the assertion that Black and Hispanic cops are more likely to kill minorities than white cops are, and Bob's your uncle.

[Justin Z]

Just a little perspective.

 

 

Not to mention the costs associated with fighting it.

 

A pyrotechnic device at a gender reveal party sparked one of the California wildfires, burning over 8,600 acres

 

According to this site it's now 12,000+ acres and only 23% contained.

[Beni]

12 minutes ago, Justin Z said:

Just a little perspective.

 

 

Not to mention the costs associated with fighting it.

 

A pyrotechnic device at a gender reveal party sparked one of the California wildfires, burning over 8,600 acres

 

According to this site it's now 12,000+ acres and only 23% contained.

 

Girl or boy?

[CJGJ]

Premier League players will wear a No Room For Racism badge on their sleeves throughout the 2020/21  season, it has been confirmed.

The league’s own anti-discrimination slogan replaces Black Lives Matter which was worn throughout the restarted 2019/20 campaign.

The BLM slogan was adopted during the restarted 2019-20 campaign over the summer, following on from global protests in support of the movement sparked by the death of George Floyd in the United States while in police custody in May.

Premier League captains were consulted over the change during a conference call on Thursday.

Premier League chief executive Richard Masters also confirmed that the league will continue to support players who take a knee before matches.

“We, our clubs, players and match officials have a long-standing commitment to tackling discrimination," he said.

“Players rightly have a strong voice on this matter, which we saw last season. We have continued to talk and listen to players on this issue and will support them as well as continuing to emphasise the Premier League’s position against racism.

“Discrimination in any form, anywhere, is wholly unacceptable and No Room For Racism makes our zero-tolerance stance clear. 

"We will not stand still on this important issue and we will continue to work with our clubs, players and partners to address all prejudiced behaviour.”

[ri Alban]

12 hours ago, weehammy said:

Police Scotland are fantastic (unless you drop dead while gardening and are reported missing by family which precipitates a thorough but unfruitful police search of your property)

Then someone finds your body under your garden hedge six months later.

 

What a pointless post. Matched only by the poster. 

Edited September 11, 2020 by ri Alban

[The Real Maroonblood]

2 hours ago, ri Alban said:

What a pointless post. Matched only by the poster. 

[XB52]

4 hours ago, ri Alban said:

What a pointless post. Matched only by the poster. 

He's not just snp bad but Scotland bad, pretty sad really

[The Real Maroonblood]

34 minutes ago, XB52 said:

He's not just snp bad but Scotland bad, pretty sad really

This.

[The Real Maroonblood]

1 hour ago, weehammy said:

Wow, attacked by a cybernat tag team!

Seriously, is there anything you like about Scotland?