General US Politics Discussion

[Tchuck]

9 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

Oh, OK. And why American police specifically?

Because they're highly militarized, and have very lax standards. Takes 6 months to become a cop in some states. How insane is that? Very little care is paid to the types of candidates as well, leaving you with a highly dysfunctional and racist police force. My native Brazil also has an extremely abusive and militarized police, nearly as racist as the American one. And f*ck them too.

 

9 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

You think maybe when you are the police force in a country with some estimates of 390 million firearms, more than the actual population of people - a country where many of it's states allow of open-carry and for citizens to carry forwards and with millions of unregistered firearms that the police standard is going to be the same as say, Germany or perhaps somewhere like the UK. It's not unreasonable to think if you are going to hold US Police to a different standard and scrutiny that you might consider the population they have to police? Is that fair? And when you consider the gun crime in the US,  and the 40-50 cops every year murdered in the line of duty it all factors in. 

You think maybe people react that way because they are forced to deal with an armed group of people, some of whom are violent individuals, who have the full backing of a massive union to get away with whatever they want, and immunity in cases for when the union can't protect them? You have this police force composed of individuals who will treat you differently based on your skin color. Who know they can, and do, get away with anything they want, as seen by the countless case of police abuse throughout history, and the thousands of cases that rose up during the protests. You don't respond to violence with violence. It never works. Yet the police continues to do so. And then they cry they don't get any respect. f*ck them. f*ck all of them. You speak as if Americans are some kind of beasts that require excessive force in order to be controlled.

 

9 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

Wow, what evidence do you have to support this? So, good cops, if they see something bad, and don't report it are just as bad and "f*ck them." Sorry mate but that's a very childish attitude to have. I don't see how that kind of attitude begins to be helpful in any way. I don't think things are as binary as you see things.

Seriously? Right there on the Floyd murder. Other "good cops" just stood around and did nothing. It happens time and time again. The story of this black journalist, arrested for doing.... nothing. And tortured by one of the bad apples. And the other "good cops"? Did nothing. 

You are aware that complaints against cops are sealed, right? No-one has any access to them. That way nothing ever needs to be done by them. 

 

9 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

There are 3 bully cops in a team of 10. Those cops are tenured and control narrative the locker room. You have 7 other cops just trying to do their job and manage their own personal lives and 1 or 2 of those cops see some injustice. If they speak up, they fear repercussions of being bullied in the job, and work being more of a nightmare than it all ready is. This cop then chooses to look after his own choices and his own path and does good police work with the community the best he can. He just wants to pay his mortgage and see his wife at the end of the day. But by your own self-appointed standards "f*ck him, he's just as bad as bad guy." 

Yes. f*ck him. He's just as bad as the bad guy. In some ways, he's worse because he sees abuse and does nothing! He's no better than those Nazi soldiers who were just following orders. I see abuse in my workplace, I speak up. You don't? You're at best an accessory, at worst an accomplice. f*ck him. He chose this path. The moment he speaks up, he'll have my undying respect and acceptance. Until then? Just another enabler.

 

9 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

And you wouldn't think that perhaps some initiative to help cops in that situation call out this incidences where colleagues are doing wrong, would help? Just "f*ck em." Well, I don't think that's a productive or helpful attitude at all but that's just my opinion. 

These things already do exist. The cops can report other, bad cops. If they do, they lose their jobs, get reprimanded, get assigned sh*tty routes. If they don't, things stay peachy. Tells me all I need to know about the police force. 

 

9 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

There's no need to be so patronising, Tchuck. The whole police force didn't murder innocents. And the analogy of me referencing retail workers was help you see that police are human, and they their job is hard. Dealing with public, is hard. Can we agree on this? Dealing with the public in a criminal space, is extremely hard. It's not excuse for wrong-doing. It's was to bring you around to be compassionate. Because right now, you are very selective with your compassion. 

Yeah, their job is hard. So is a firefighter's job, so is an ambulance driver's job, so is a doctor's job, so is my job as a programmer. If police officers can be good, and some, I assume, are good people, then the bad officers must be held accountable for their actions. But they aren't. Because the whole system was built to give them complete immunity to do whatever they want. Remember when NYC cops went on "strike" and slowed down operations in 2015? And things actually improved for NYC citizens. Should also tell you something about how good a job and essential the police is.

 

9 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

I can display some understanding to black lives and black people but I can also extend that people working within the police force because people are human. In an earlier post, you were very empathetic to Floyd about his drug abuse and environment and rightly so, yet your level of empathy to good cops is at deeply inconsistent standard.

They're humans, and there's good people in the police force. But as long as they are allowing the bad seeds to get away with it, they can go f*ck themselves. If they do speak up, if they do act with zero tolerance, they have my complete empathy. It's a sh*tty job, and they're doing it right. If they don't speak up, if they allow these things to happen, no matter how "good" they are, they can go get f*cked. It's not that hard to understand, is it?

 

10 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

And maybe so, the police should be held at a high standard but if we're going to be empathetic to one person's drug abuse and criminal activity, surely don't hold Floyd's behaviour as representative of the black community, right? But then why should the actions of less than one % of the police force be the metric in which whole hold the whole police force? To me, that's illogical and inconsistent. 

Why illogical? One is a profession one chose, one is a race that one was born as. One faces a lifetime of hardship and difficulties by default for being born as they are, the other is a large factor in creating these hardships and difficulties. I see no lack of consistency there. And also no way how these comparisons hold any water or value. If Floyd was out there witnessing crimes and not speaking up, I'd have as much compassion for him as I have for "good cops". Pretty consistent, no?

 

10 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

If racist cops could kills with complete immunity wouldn't the stats for unlawful police killings be apparently clear. Wouldn't the the racist cops just going on killing sprees? You're being dishonest. Who has complete immunity to do whatever the hell they want? Why be so fictitious?  Why not look at the data in the study and try contest that with other data? 

Ever heard of qualified immunity? Read up on it. Killing sprees? Now you're being dishonest. The cops do have immunity to do their job, hence why they get placed on leave, hence why they get transferred, hence why they seldom go to jail unless in obviously wrong cases. This was my point, and it holds as you now know what Qualified Immunity is. The bad cops probably are a fraction of the police force. Which just makes it even more shameful that they still exist since if the majority of cops are good, they should have done something about it.

 

10 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

You realise that many of these shootings have been attributed to racism and people ignoring the fact 90-95% of them, the person was shot because they were about to shoot another civilian, or attacking the police officer. Again, going back to comparison of working in retail and then comparing that to working as a cop. It's a tough job. It would be nice if those stats were 100% but it's probably impossible to get any police force to operate with 100% perfection because it's so chaotic, dealing with armed and dangerous criminals. 

 

If you could at least be a little bit charitable and identify that, then that might be a start having a conversation about reformation in the police. Because it's not I'll admit the police aren't perfect and they've along way to go. But your views on US police are extremist, bigoted and often unsubstantiated and just opinion

I don't care. Being 95% right still means innocents will die. Even without the murder, there's the whole systematic racism in place inside the force, which governs how cops interact with people. Sivis has went at length about this in several posts. 

 

There's no reformation to be done. You can't reform a system built to be unfair. You just can't. What you can do, and some cities are considering, is disband the whole damn thing as is and build anew. Which is something I'm completely in favor of and hope gathers strength. 

 

Until then, ACAB.

 

10 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

800,000 police officers. Of those with wives, they are all wife-beaters. Let's even say half of that 400,000 are wife beaters? They are beating their children too? What other unsubstantiated claims to do you want to make today?

Close. 40% of them tend to experience domestic violence. Family violence is two to four times as likely in the force than in the general population. Could be even higher, as these women have very little recourse or people to turn to. Substantiated enough?

 

10 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

Good officers can't be good by doing good police work with communities but they can only be good when they call out police corruption?

No. If they see it happening and say nothing, they're sh*tty cops. If they see it happening and do something, they're good cops. If nothing has happened to their knowledge yet, decent cops. See, there's layers to this.

 

10 hours ago, Mister Pink said:

Ok, are you even willing to concede that a number of 800,000 that logically a percentage of those cops could be good people or are you just so staunchly rooted in your beliefs?   I'm going to do something more anecdotal as anyone can pick out one or example of good or bad in anywhere but Tchuck, do even think this black cop that helps out the community at Skid Row in LA is a bastard? I looked him up and by your own standards, he hasn't called out police corruption so therefore he is a bad cop and f*ck em? 

Sure, they can be good people. They can the pride of their community. If they witness wrongdoing and don't call it out, f*ck them. Black, white, yellow, red, their color doesn't matter. If they complicit in bad cop wrongdoings, f*ck them.

 

Those who wash their hands, do so on a basin of blood. That's all I have to say about cops.

[Burbalade]

3 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Very little care is paid to the types of candidates as well, leaving you with a highly dysfunctional and racist police force.

This right here is the issue, the confirmation bias. You assume the police are racist by default, and every time they interact with someone that's black, you see it as a confirmation. There's no path in what you just described that leads to racism.

Insufficient training? Maybe. But you don't know what their training includes or excludes, so you can't definitively stand on that either. And of course insufficient training doesn't make people racist. 

 

3 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Yeah, their job is hard. ... so is my job as a programmer.

No, your job as a programmer is not hard. If you get stumped, you can stop and think, or do research. You don't have to make a kill or be killed decision in under a second. 

The fact that you're trying to equate law enforcement and programming shows just how disconnected you are from the reality of what we're talking about here.

 

3 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Ever heard of qualified immunity?

Qualified immunity doesn't mean you get away with whatever you want, which is what you're implying. 

 

3 hours ago, Tchuck said:

there's the whole systematic racism in place inside the force, which governs how cops interact with people.

No, there's not. There's no system in place that governs the actions of officers differently depending on the race of the person they are interacting with.

 

3 hours ago, Tchuck said:

There's no reformation to be done.

Correct. Because there's no policy you can put in place that would appease those currently protesting and NOT treat people unfairly. To get the same output with a different input, you need to unfairly rig the system. 

The issue with those of you that don't live here is that you're seeing (part of) the output of the system on your news, and with your false assumption that the input is the same, you determine that the system must be unfair. 

 

3 hours ago, Tchuck said:

disband the whole damn thing as is and build anew. Which is something I'm completely in favor of and hope gathers strength. 

I don't think you're aware of how job markets work. If departments across the country disband and reform, they'll just be hiring the same officers back if they can even get them back with the kind of policy change you'd likely support.

[Clem Fandango]

1 hour ago, Burbalade said:

This right here is the issue, the confirmation bias. You assume the police are racist by default, and every time they interact with someone that's black, you see it as a confirmation. There's no path in what you just described that leads to racism.

Insufficient training? Maybe. But you don't know what their training includes or excludes, so you can't definitively stand on that either. And of course insufficient training doesn't make people racist. 

 

No, your job as a programmer is not hard. If you get stumped, you can stop and think, or do research. You don't have to make a kill or be killed decision in under a second. 

The fact that you're trying to equate law enforcement and programming shows just how disconnected you are from the reality of what we're talking about here.

 

Qualified immunity doesn't mean you get away with whatever you want, which is what you're implying. 

 

No, there's not. There's no system in place that governs the actions of officers differently depending on the race of the person they are interacting with.

 

Correct. Because there's no policy you can put in place that would appease those currently protesting and NOT treat people unfairly. To get the same output with a different input, you need to unfairly rig the system. 

The issue with those of you that don't live here is that you're seeing (part of) the output of the system on your news, and with your false assumption that the input is the same, you determine that the system must be unfair. 

 

I don't think you're aware of how job markets work. If departments across the country disband and reform, they'll just be hiring the same officers back if they can even get them back with the kind of policy change you'd likely support.

Does the police union pay you to do this or something?

 

The fact that people read let alone respond to your posts is amazing to me.

[Creed Bratton]

https://www.npr.org/2020/06/09/873278314/no-sign-of-antifa-so-far-in-justice-department-cases-brought-over-unrest

 

It's as if Antifa doesn't actually exist. Who knew...

[Awful Waffle]

we all know that Insane Clown Posse and the Juggalos are the real terrorists.

Antifa is just a smoke screen of crisis actors.

 

WAKE UP SHEEPLE

[Tchuck]

Quote

The single instance in which an extremist group is mentioned in court documents is a case against three Nevada men. Federal prosecutors allege the trio belong to the right-wing Boogaloo movement that wants to bring about a civil war. The men have been charged with plotting violence during Las Vegas protests.

Lol. Funny, innit? The single instance where there was any extremist group involved, it was the right-wing.

 

Quote

In an interview Monday with Fox News, Barr said the lack of cases against alleged antifa activists so far does not mean they haven't been involved in the violence.

Barr is a pathetic piece of sh*t.

 

2 hours ago, DareYokel said:

It's as if Antifa doesn't actually exist. Who knew...

No see the justice department is in on it! They teamed up with the FBI and the CIA to fund, train, and let these terrorists roam free! All so that they can try and destabilize Trump!

[Burbalade]

On 6/14/2020 at 9:01 PM, Tchuck said:

Lol. Funny, innit? The single instance where there was any extremist group involved, it was the right-wing.

By your own logic, this must mean the system is rigged against anyone right wing. Remember, your school of thought is that such discrepancies between groups should by default be assumed to be a result of a corrupt system, not a result of any differences the groups may or may not have. 

I can't imagine why you'd apply such contrasting logic to this situation, unless of course you've already made up your mind and rather than using logic to reach a conclusion are instead searching for whatever logic best fits your existing conclusion at the time. 

 

On 6/14/2020 at 9:01 PM, Tchuck said:

Barr is a pathetic piece of sh*t.

To be fair, Barr's stance here closely mirrors you and Sivi's stance on the discrepancy between white and black crime rates. 

Why is it okay to take this stance against white people, but not against antifa?

Why do you call someone applying logic you follow to a new situation a piece of sh*t? One could almost be forgiven for thinking you're calling your own logic sh*t. 

[sivispacem]

1 hour ago, Burbalade said:

By your own logic, this must mean the system is rigged against anyone right wing.

How do you come to that conclusion, save for completely misinterpreting the arguments you're attempting to counter?

 

1 hour ago, Burbalade said:

Sivi's stance

So not only did you roundly ignore a lengthy post made in explanation of why the statistical models I used were reasonable and why yours are intentionally misleading which actually outlined my stance in great detail, you're going to boil an argument you don't understand down to this reductionist drivel?

[Burbalade]

6 hours ago, sivispacem said:

How do you come to that conclusion

You used a discrepancy in output as evidence of a corrupt system while refusing to accept the mere possibility of the difference in output being caused by a difference in input.

 

6 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Statistical models I used were reasonable and why yours are intentionally misleading

You didn't use any models at all, you just implied that an analysis of data showing a difference in output could not be used to suggest a difference in input, but instead a bias in the system. You argued that cops are more likely to shoot a black suspect because they're racist, then when the numbers showed them more likely to shoot a white suspect you denied the numbers until suggesting that it's because white people are more violent with police. The articles you read supporting your stance were so misleading they convinced you that the exact opposite of what the data actually showed was true.

Edited June 16, 2020 by Burbalade

[sivispacem]

4 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You used a discrepancy in output as evidence of a corrupt system

Where?

 

4 hours ago, Burbalade said:

while refusing to accept the mere possibility of the difference in output being caused by a difference in input

I think you'll find that

 

On 6/10/2020 at 9:36 AM, sivispacem said:

There's absolutely no issue with raising the prospect of whether (violent) crime rates or murder amongst ethnic minorities are an explaining factor, and to what degree, in understanding the racial disparity in police killings. That's a perfectly sensible point of discussion.

Ironically, your own approach, using your own terminology, could be summarised as "identify a single difference in input and assert without evidence it must be the cause of the difference in output whilst ignoring a myriad of other differing inputs and unconsidered variables"

 

4 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You didn't use any models at all

 

4 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You argued that cops are more likely to shoot a black suspect because they're racist

Again, no I didn't. This is pure delusional fantasy on your part.

 

4 hours ago, Burbalade said:

then when the numbers showed them more likely to shoot a white suspect you denied the numbers

No, I explain in great detail why the specific model you used to show that police are "more likely to shoot a white suspect" doesn't actually do so.

This is all covered in the post you conveniently decided to roundly ignore.

 

4 hours ago, Burbalade said:

until suggesting that it's because white people are more violent with police. 

I don't think I did.

 

There seems to be an enormous, jarring disconnect between your interpretation of what other people say and what they actually say.

Go back and read the previous posts, then come back with a rebuttal that's not based on straw men.

[Tchuck]

Boy oh boy. Bolton's book has been leaked, and the revelations contained within, holy sh*t.

 

Trump didn't know that Britain was a nuclear power and inquired if Finland was part of Russia, according to John Bolton's bombshell memoir

Trump asked China president to help him win 2020 election, new Bolton book claims

Trump called journalists 'scumbags' who should be 'executed,' according to John Bolton's new book

Trump backed Xi over concentration camps for Uighur Muslims, ex-aide Bolton claims

Trump said it would be 'cool' to invade Venezuela because the country is 'really part of the United States,' according to John Bolton's new book

Trump was willing to halt criminal investigations as 'favor' to dictators, Bolton book says

 

This is absolutely incredible. Republicans are a cancer, as they knew of this and allowed it go on without any problems.

 

[Burbalade]

On 6/16/2020 at 10:28 AM, sivispacem said:

Where?

 

 

On 6/10/2020 at 4:36 AM, sivispacem said:

discriminatory practices that have been categorically demonstrated time and time again

Here's one example. The demonstrations you're referring to are your own misinterpretation of raw data and bias from watching filtered information your entire life, both of which would be considered outputs of their respective systems. You have not provided a single shred of evidence to suggest that the difference in output of the justice system is a result of discrimination within the system rather than a difference in input. 

 

 

On 6/16/2020 at 10:28 AM, sivispacem said:

your own approach, using your own terminology, could be summarised as "identify a single difference in input and assert without evidence it must be the cause of the difference in output whilst ignoring a myriad of other differing inputs and unconsidered variables"

It's perfectly fair to assume that a difference in input would result in a proportionate difference in output with an unbiased system. That's actually what any sane person would expect from an unbiased system. If you want to make the argument that a known difference in input is not the cause of the difference in output, then the burden of proof is on you and the mere fact that there is a difference in output cannot be considered proof.

 

Quote

there's no correlation between police killings and arrest rates, except for ethnic minorities being disproportionately represented in both

As your chances of being arrested increase, so does your chances of being killed by police. The correlation between those figures is quite strong, and seeing that hold true when broken down by race is extremely relevant to the discussion and further evidence of an unbiased system.

"No correlation" is an outright lie. "disproportionately represented" assumes equality of input, which there is no evidence of. If you use any semi relevant figure as the input (total percentage of the population is NOT a relevant figure for input since we both know there is a difference in input) then all of a sudden the numbers all become proportional, which they would not be if it were a biased system.

 

On 6/16/2020 at 10:28 AM, sivispacem said:

Again, no I didn't. This is pure delusional fantasy on your part.

Quote

Police are approximately twice as likely to shoot a black man than a white man.

You absolutely did say that officers are more likely to shoot a black suspect as seen here, and have implied throughout the entire discussion that it's a result of either personal racism on the part of the officers or systemic racism within the system. Not only have you provided no evidence to support your reasoning that couldn't also be used to support mine, but your statement is an outright lie from the beginning. 

 

On 6/16/2020 at 10:28 AM, sivispacem said:

No, I explain in great detail why the specific model you used to show that police are "more likely to shoot a white suspect" doesn't actually do so.

This is all covered in the post you conveniently decided to roundly ignore.

You didn't explain anything in great detail. You attempted to paraphrase an article you read and failed miserably because said article was attempting to make a point opposite of what the numbers actually showed. The first step to figuring out how likely the police are to shoot someone involves figuring out who the police actually interact with, or how many people they've shot. You made no attempt to find either of these numbers or find anything other than total percentage of the population to use as a stand in even though you know that to be a metric inaccurate to the discussion. There is a way to word the idea in your head so that it holds true given the numbers, but the fact that you have failed to word it correctly on multiple occasions shows you haven't looked at the raw numbers and have no intention on actually interpreting what those numbers mean. In short, you don't know what you're talking about and have shown that you don't care to learn. 

 

On 6/16/2020 at 10:28 AM, sivispacem said:

I don't think I did.

Well let's look at one of your alternatives to one of my models:

Quote

If black citizens are actually more likely to be compliant

If you really thought my interpretation to be wrong, surely you could come up with a more likely example to counter it.

 

On 6/16/2020 at 10:28 AM, sivispacem said:

There seems to be an enormous, jarring disconnect between your interpretation of what other people say and what they actually say.

Perhaps you feel this way because you've either forgotten or chosen to ignore half of what you've previously said?

 

I apologize for not replying right away, but work and learning a second language take priority. 

[Turan]

5 hours ago, Tchuck said:

Boy oh boy. Bolton's book has been leaked, and the revelations contained within, holy sh*t.

 

Trump didn't know that Britain was a nuclear power and inquired if Finland was part of Russia, according to John Bolton's bombshell memoir

Trump asked China president to help him win 2020 election, new Bolton book claims

Trump called journalists 'scumbags' who should be 'executed,' according to John Bolton's new book

Trump backed Xi over concentration camps for Uighur Muslims, ex-aide Bolton claims

Trump said it would be 'cool' to invade Venezuela because the country is 'really part of the United States,' according to John Bolton's new book

Trump was willing to halt criminal investigations as 'favor' to dictators, Bolton book says

 

This is absolutely incredible. Republicans are a cancer, as they knew of this and allowed it go on without any problems.

 

Kinda crazy that if this were any other president you might seriously doubt any of this was actually said. But with Trump it’s like.. yep, totally expected. Nothing surprising. 
 

Bizarre times we’re living in. 

[sivispacem]

5 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Here's one example.

One example that doesn't actually demonstrate what you claim it does.

 

5 hours ago, Burbalade said:

It's perfectly fair to assume that a difference in input would result in a proportionate difference in output with an unbiased system.

Which would be rational if:

• The difference in output was actually proportional to the difference in input, which it isn't, and;
• Only a single difference in input existed, which it doesn't.

It also ignores the notion that the differences in input may themselves be direct or indirect results of systemic discrimination, which is something I've covered multiple times now but which you always seem to ignore.

 

The "difference in input" is roughly proportionate to the "difference in output" if you solely cherry-pick statistics for black citizens, but not if you consider other demographics too, and in order for your model to work it must be uniformly applicable across racial groups.

 

For instance, your proposed model fails if the data set applied is native Americans, who exhibit a per-capita arrest rate approximately 20% lower than black citizens but exhibited a rate of per-capita police killing significantly (approx 12% across a 16 year data set according to CDC figures enclosed here https://edition.cnn.com/2017/11/10/us/native-lives-matter/index.html) higher than that of black citizens; this is even more jarring when violent crime arrest rates are taken into account (6.6% of all offenses plays 4.5% as per https://www.ojjdp.gov/ojstatbb/crime/ucr.asp?table_in=2)

 

5 hours ago, Burbalade said:

If you want to make the argument that a known difference in input is not the cause of the difference in output, then the burden of proof is on you

Methinks you fail to understand the concept of "burden of proof". You may have a point if I was presenting a counterargument containing claims that challenged the status quo but basically all I've done is pick apart your arguments.

Where is actually lies here is on satisfactorily demonstrating that you've considered and dismissed alternative hypotheses, and accounted for other factors (those differences in input you keep referring to), which you haven't thus far.

 

5 hours ago, Burbalade said:

As your chances of being arrested increase, so does your chances of being killed by police.

An entirely uncontentious statement, but one which ignores the fact that there discrepancies in treatment of different racial groups in the steps up to arrests being actioned which I've cited multiple times now.

 

5 hours ago, Burbalade said:

seeing that hold true when broken down by race is extremely relevant to the discussion and further evidence of an unbiased system

A failure to even consider other relevant influencing factors largely invalidates this assertion. This is a consistent issue with your model and one you seem completely oblivious to.

Despite it being raised multiple times now and despite you composing fairly lengthy responses aimed at rebutting responses to other aspects of your posts, you haven't addressed this fact at all; nor have you actually outlined a coherent syllogism for your position.

 

5 hours ago, Burbalade said:

If you use any semi relevant figure as the input...then all of a sudden the numbers all become proportional, which they would not be if it were a biased system.

This is an absolute howler.

• First, pick a premise you want to "prove"- in this case, parity in treatment between racial groups by police officers.
• Shoehorn a couple of statistics, one cherry-picked "input" and one "output", which are roughly proportional, into a model.
• Ignore all other ex ante inputs.
• Assert the single considered input is the sole cause of the output.
• Make a sweeping generalization unsupported by the evidence (that the system cannot be biased because the input and output are proportional)

It simply doesn't stand up to the merest scrutiny.

 

6 hours ago, Burbalade said:

You absolutely did say that officers are more likely to shoot a black suspect as seen here

What I didn't say, however, was that it was "because they're racist".

 

6 hours ago, Burbalade said:

The first step to figuring out how likely the police are to shoot someone involves figuring out who the police actually interact with

No, this is an post-hoc consideration, because it falsely asserts that the police cannot shoot someone they don't "interact with" when in actuality they can.

This is a perfect illustration of why your "crowbar model" of statistical analysis leads to logically invalid conclusions.

 

6 hours ago, Burbalade said:

your statement is an outright lie from the beginning. 

https://www.pnas.org/content/116/34/16793

 

 

 

There's also a question of semantics at play here which I suspect is what you're trying to allude to when you say:

 

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

There is a way to word the idea in your head so that it holds true given the numbers

The phrase "more likely to shoot a black suspect" has multiple interpretations:

• That a higher per capita proportion of black citizens are shot by police during interactions
• That a higher proportion of interactions involving black citizens result in a shooting by police

It is entirely possible for a) to be true whilst b) is false, because b) ignores the per-capita frequency of interaction for different demographics and looks solely at whether an interaction results in a shooting.

It is a) that I've been using throughout as my definition, and it appears that you've been arguing primarily from a point of b).

 

My contention with the concept of b) is that it ignores underlying factors which result in more encounters in the first place, which themselves may be indicative of discriminatory practices. I've already cited it once, but factors such as the disparity in approaches to different ethnic groups are an important consideration in determining whether or not endemic racial biases exist; 

 

Quote

In the period we examine, black and Hispanic civilians experience force at the hands of police 779,894 times. Using the approach in (Fryer, 2019), one would conclude that about 75,000 (10%) would not have occurred had those civilians been white. Using our bias-corrected approach, we found that in fact 301,000 cases (39%) were discriminatory. These underestimates persist across all force threshold analyses

 

6 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Well let's look at one of your alternatives to one of my models:

You're mistaking providing an example of a competing hypothesis that you haven't expressly considered with an "alternative" model.

 

7 hours ago, Burbalade said:

Perhaps you feel this way because you've either forgotten or chosen to ignore half of what you've previously said?

Or maybe its a case of interpretive bias?

In all three of the specific instances you stated I said particular things, the actual comments you quoted do not support your assertion.

• In one instance, you appended a justification ("because officers are racist") because you thought it was inferred from my previous comments.
• In one instance, you mistook an example of an alternative hypothesis designed to highlight data points you hadn't taken into account as a viable alternative model.
• In one instance, you misinterpret a comment that's actually referring to academic studies in disparity in approaches to ethnic minorities by police as explicitly concerning a data model entirely unrelated to it.

[Burbalade]

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

One example that doesn't actually demonstrate what you claim it does.

But it does. The output numbers you're referring to can only be used as evidence to support a biased system if the input is known to be equal, which we both know it is not. 

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Which would be rational if the difference in output was actually proportional to the difference in input

The only input you will acknowledge is the least accurate measure presented in the discussion. Of course it's not proportional if you use an input for your model that doesn't come close to the reality of the situation. But again, if you plug in any number that even attempts to be an accurate measure of the real input, there is a strong proportional correlation. 

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

• Only a single difference in input existed, which it doesn't.

The only other inputs you've brought up are based entirely on conjecture from the output numbers against your inaccurate representation of the input and you stereotyping law enforcement. 

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The "difference in input" is roughly proportionate to the "difference in output" if you solely cherry-pick statistics for black citizens, but not if you consider other demographics too, and in order for your model to work it must be uniformly applicable across racial groups.

The difference in input and output is proportional between black and white citizens which is what this entire discussion has been about. Every time I reference numbers for black citizens I also reference numbers for white citizens. If you ignore half of what I post, then that's on you. 

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Methinks you fail to understand the concept of "burden of proof". You may have a point if I was presenting a counterargument containing claims that challenged the status quo but basically all I've done is pick apart your arguments.

All you've done to pick apart my argument is claim the status quo is a non sequitur and misquote biased articles. 

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

Where is actually lies here is on satisfactorily demonstrating that you've considered and dismissed alternative hypotheses, and accounted for other factors (those differences in input you keep referring to), which you haven't thus far.

The alternative hypotheses you've presented have no evidence that supports them over mine, and challenge a logical analysis of the system. If you think there's proof, then find it.

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

An entirely uncontentious statement, but one which ignores the fact that there discrepancies in treatment of different racial groups in the steps up to arrests being actioned which I've cited multiple times now.

You haven't cited any data that suggests a racial discrepancy in treatment leading up to arrest that cannot simply be explained by a higher crime rate. How do we know the crime rate is higher? Look at murders. There is a massive discrepancy in murder rates that cannot be explained by cops too lightly or too heavily patrolling majority black neighborhoods and the charging is not up to the discretion of the officer. There is no plausible way for any discriminatory practices, polices, or feelings within the system to cause that discrepancy with this specific crime. Knowing that, you can not use total percentage of the population as a valid input because it is not remotely close to what officers in an unbiased system would be dealing with. 

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

A failure to even consider other relevant influencing factors largely invalidates this assertion. 

Other relevant influencing factors? The biggest factor here is crime rate, which the only model you will acknowledge is intentionally oblivious to. You can't make assertions about how police treat people based on the output numbers of the system if you don't have an accurate measure of the input, which is what the police are actually dealing with and is something you've intentionally refused to acknowledge throughout the entire discussion. 

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

• First, pick a premise you want to "prove"- in this case, parity in treatment between racial groups by police officers.
• Shoehorn a couple of statistics, one cherry-picked "input" and one "output", which are roughly proportional, into a model.

I didn't cherry pick any numbers based on what was proportional. I picked data points more relevant to the discussion than yours, and they happened to be proportional. What does that tell you?

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

What I didn't say, however, was that it was "because they're racist".

It's what you've implied throughout the entire discussion. Why even bother denying it?

"systemic discrimination" in regards to race is just another way to say "systemic racism"

You're not fooling anyone here.

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

No, this is an post-hoc consideration, because it falsely asserts that the police cannot shoot someone they don't "interact with" when in actuality they can.

This is a perfect illustration of why your "crowbar model" of statistical analysis leads to logically invalid conclusions.

THIS is cherry picking. How many people have the police shot that they have not interacted with? You think this is picking my arguments apart? It's few enough that it would be considered a statistical outlier and any accurate model would would ignore it, not cater to it. But you're not looking for accuracy so this is exactly the kind of behavior I've come to expect from you.

 

13 hours ago, sivispacem said:

The phrase "more likely to shoot a black suspect" has multiple interpretations:

Sure, you could look at total number of black and white citizens killed by police, or more accurately you could break it down per interaction. Either way, police are shown to be more likely to shoot someone that's white.

However, your personal likelihood of being shot by police is an entirely different metric. You dismissing factual accuracy as semantics is disturbing given that you're trying to come across as the authority on statistics. The number you were giving was factually inaccurate to the statistic you were referencing. Being clear about what your numbers actually mean is very important in statistics, and you've failed miserably here on a number or occasions.

 

14 hours ago, sivispacem said:

You're mistaking providing an example of a competing hypothesis that you haven't expressly considered with an "alternative" model.

A "competing hypothesis" is an alternative model. THIS is semantics. 

 

14 hours ago, sivispacem said:

• In one instance, you appended a justification ("because officers are racist") because you thought it was inferred from my previous comments.

Again, systemic discrimination in regards to race is the same thing as systemic racism. Semantics.

14 hours ago, sivispacem said:

• In one instance, you mistook an example of an alternative hypothesis designed to highlight data points you hadn't taken into account as a viable alternative model.

Again, an alternative hypothesis is an alternative model. Semantics. 

14 hours ago, sivispacem said:

• In one instance, you misinterpret a comment that's actually referring to academic studies in disparity in approaches to ethnic minorities by police as explicitly concerning a data model entirely unrelated to it.

No, I pointed out that you misinterpreted an article and attempted to paraphrase it in a way that made your statement factually inaccurate, then you dismissed that as semantics.

 

The only thing I've gained from days of discussion with you is learning that you're delusional. Every fallacy you inaccurately accuse me of using, you use in the same post. You have no cohesive argument, you just desperately want me to be wrong. You misrepresent numbers on nearly every occasion that you use them and you wont even stand behind points that you've been attempting to make both directly and indirectly for days. As intelligent as you try to act, you fail catastrophically at logical reasoning and statistical analysis. You've taken a particular disliking to me, trying to nitpick everything I post and yet failing even there. There's nothing for either of us to gain from further discussion, but I do hope you eventually grow up.

 

Ты наверное думали это испвнский.

Пока идиот.

[sivispacem]

Please forgive the relatively curt nature of my response, I'm pressed for time, though really not sure why I'm bothering at all given your insistence on insulting me as a sign-off for your post.

 

However, I cannot help but notice you still fail to address the vast majority of my core contentions with your claims.

It isn't lost on me that in your response you've selectively edited out every single instance in which I've used empirical data to highlight flaws in your assertions or models, and have addressed exactly none of them.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

The output numbers you're referring to can only be used as evidence to support a biased system if the input is known to be equal, which we both know it is not. 

You and I both know this is a gross misrepresentation of my actual position, especially given that the only "input" you seem able to consider is the one that conveniently aligns with your own (flawed) model.

For the sake of clarity, my position is:

• Ethnic minority citizens are proportionally much (in the order of 2-4 times depending on the minority in question) to be killed by police in the US than white citizens.
• Whilst a substantial proportion of this may be explained by differences in comparative crime, arrest or contact rates between ethnic minorities and police, this is not directly proportionate to killing rates; some minorities have far higher rates of fatal police shooting than their arrest rates would indicate.
• There exists a body of evidence which suggests that forces and individuals do exhibit discriminatory practices, including some I've already cited and some I haven't yet.
• Underlying socioeconomic factors, which themselves are often direct or indirect results of discriminatory practices, are likely to be a significant influence behind differences in crime, arrest and contact rates between minorities and police.

I don't think any of the above are particularly contentious.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

Of course it's not proportional if you use an input for your model that doesn't come close to the reality of the situation.

The issue here is that contrary to your belief, I'm not asserting police prejudice based solely on the disparity of per-capita kill rates.

 

The "reality" of the situation is that your model, which necessarily must be applicable to other ethnic groups in order to be viable, simply isn't supported by the data in these instances. There can only be three possible reasons for this:

1. The model is wrong and the data is right
2. The data is wrong and the model is right
3. The model and data are both right, but there are unconsidered contributory factors that explain the discrepancy but which you haven't accounted for.

Arguing 2. is going to be a tough ask unless you've got a magic wand, so we're left with 1. or 3. as viable options. Which is it?

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

The only other inputs you've brought up are based entirely on conjecture 

I didn't know peer-reviewed academic journals constituted "conjecture".

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

The difference in input and output is proportional between black and white citizens

Which is nice, but a model that only works with two of a multitude of possible data sets you can apply to it isn't a functional one.

I'm assuming here your intent was in fact to demonstrate a model which supports causal relationships between arrest rates police shooting rates, right?

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

If you ignore half of what I post

"Oho!" said the pot to the kettle; "you are dirty, and ugly, and black!
Sure no one would think you were metal, except when you're given a crack."

 

"Not so! not so!" kettle said to the pot; "'tis your own dirty image you see;
For I am so clean, without blemish or blot, that your blackness is mirrored in me."

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

The alternative hypotheses you've presented have no evidence that supports them over mine

Well, except for the cited academic studies you continue to ignore.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

You haven't cited any data that suggests a racial discrepancy in treatment leading up to arrest that cannot simply be explained by a higher crime rate.

Except, yet again, a peer-reviewed academic study which takes this into account in its methodology, and which you still point-blank refuse to address.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

Other relevant influencing factors? The biggest factor here is crime rate

Glossing over the interchangeability with which you use "crime rate" and "interaction rate" as the basis for your model, I don't recall ever suggesting otherwise. But "largest factor" does not mean "only factor", and nor does it discount the the notion of systemic discrimination.

Either way, building a model on a single factor in ignorance of others and asserting this "proves" an absence of racial discrimination is evidently illogical and unreasonable.

 

The statistically correct way of modelling the approach would be:

• Take raw per-capita police killing rates for a variety of ethnic groups;
• Adjust to take into account influencing factors- such as rates of police interaction or crime rates
• Assess whether or not there remains a discrepancy.
• Address the possibility of factors beyond the scope of the model.
• Reach a conclusion

The above is an entirely reasonable way of addressing the question at hand. Your approach is not.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

I picked data points more relevant to the discussion than yours, and they happened to be proportional. What does that tell you?

That correlation doesn't equal causation?

That the data points are only proportional if you ignore those that aren't, like Native Americans?

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

"systemic discrimination" in regards to race is just another way to say "systemic racism"

No, it's not. Systemic discrimination- such as socioeconomic discrimination which US LE are unequivocally guilty of- can and does disproportionately affect minorities- but isn't inherently to do with race at that point.  The practical impacts of policies and approaches that disproportionately affect the poor, also disproportionately affect minorities. The reasons for social and economic deprivation often have direct and indirect racial aspects, but they stretch far beyond this question and are not within the control of an individual officer or police department.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

How many people have the police shot that they have not interacted with?

Surely you must know the answer to this question if you're in a position to assert that it's enough of an outlier to be dismissed offhand? 

Do you have statistics for numbers of police interactions at all? There are the BJS PPCS statistics, but these are both representative small samples and don't really align with the notion of "interaction" you outline. So where are you getting numbers of interactions from in the first place?

 

Indeed, how are you defying "interactions"?

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

A "competing hypothesis" is an alternative model. THIS is semantics. 

This is absolutely not semantics; that you believe such belies a fundamental misunderstanding of terminology. 

A hypothesis is simply a supposition for further investigation, a model is a structured empirical analysis designed to determine the validity of a hypothesis. That you think they're interchangeable is quite concerning.

 

On 6/19/2020 at 2:04 AM, Burbalade said:

No, I pointed out that you misinterpreted an article

Which article? I genuinely don't know what you're talking about here because it certainly doesn't concern the article I cited.

 

[Laura91]

On 6/17/2020 at 10:47 PM, Tchuck said:

Boy oh boy. Bolton's book has been leaked, and the revelations contained within, holy sh*t.

 

Trump didn't know that Britain was a nuclear power and inquired if Finland was part of Russia, according to John Bolton's bombshell memoir

Trump asked China president to help him win 2020 election, new Bolton book claims

Trump called journalists 'scumbags' who should be 'executed,' according to John Bolton's new book

Trump backed Xi over concentration camps for Uighur Muslims, ex-aide Bolton claims

Trump said it would be 'cool' to invade Venezuela because the country is 'really part of the United States,' according to John Bolton's new book

Trump was willing to halt criminal investigations as 'favor' to dictators, Bolton book says

 

This is absolutely incredible. Republicans are a cancer, as they knew of this and allowed it go on without any problems.

 

It says a lot when someone like John Bolton didn't go smoothly with this administration. Once he was in, I was convinced that we would be at war with Iran within six months to a year. Once he was out of the picture, that blew me away. If someone like HIM can't work out for you as President, (especially when you consider what a bunch of warmongers we in the U.S. are), that speaks volumes on how ineffective and screwed-up that you are as a President. Not that I want a war with Iran. That is the last thing that we need.

Edited June 19, 2020 by Laura91

[Tchuck]

Bolton is also a massive piece of sh*t. He could, and should, have come forward with all of this during the impeachment hearings. Obviously, wouldn't have allowed him to profit off of it via this book.

 

But yeah, I cannot conceive still being a Trump supporter after all these revelations. And Trump's handling of covid. And everything else. It must be some form of mental issue.

[Awful Waffle]

2 hours ago, Tchuck said:

I cannot conceive still being a Trump supporter after all these revelations.

Mr Tchuck I love you. but I'm sick and tired of hearing this expression.

we've been saying this since 2015 and it's clearly meaningless. stop being surprised at what a Trump supporter is capable of.

 

those who will support this president will do so regardless of any tangible criticism - warranted or not - because it's less about the man Donald John Trump and much more about what he represents in the abstract.

and what he represents is a big middle finger to Libtards. that's essentially the only piece of rationale that carried him through the election and into the White House. in case you didn't notice or already forgot, the 2016 election was less about substance than it was about style. welcome to America, eh? people simply hated Hillary and her boring nature more than anything else. they hated the establishment body politic as it has become known to them. they hate the established candidates. even though a man like Trump is about as establishment as establishment can get.... they saw voting for him as their rejection of the entrenched establishment comprised of political 'royal families' like the Clinton's and the Bush's. Trump is their wrench to jam into the machine.

 

the only thing that Trump had to be was not Hillary and not an establishment member of the GOP.

that was his ticket to the Moon. literally nothing else matters.

 

if Trump's career could be sunk through the kind of traditional allegations that normally sink any other politician then it would have happened already.

if scandalous books by former staffers could bring down a crappy president they would have done so 3 years ago. his supporters don't care and never have. they are ride or die. Trump won the election by a tiny margin as it is. if people on the Left can't remember to show up to vote (lazy assholes they are) then the only way Don leaves the Oval Office is when he's placed in handcuffs with a federal marshal escort. and that's obviously not happening because the Justice Department is a neutered lap dog.

[Tchuck]

Mind you, coming from Brazil and watching the rise of Bolsonaro, one who is worse than Trump, I know not to be surprised. It's more of a statement of "wow. Things keep getting worse and people still support him."

 

And much like Brazil, nothing will be done. Trump has the full backing of Republicans who would rather have America torched to the ground rather than do something, whereas Bolsonaro is still being supported by the military and big business, as well as the center by promising them tons of jobs. What Trump has done, pales in comparison to what Bolsonaro has been doing. It's incredible.

[Zello]

Trump holding rallies. All those people are gonna catch COVID-19.

[Svip]

Fortunately, not that many showed up.

[Raavi]

The rotten cow up there with the absolute worst and most plainly unqualified of the Trump appointed judges strikes again. Elections have consequences, and so does packing the courts with über-conservatives hacks the that trade judicial independence for partisan politics. 

 

https://www.law.com/2020/06/24/divided-dc-circuit-orders-flynn-judge-to-dismiss-prosecution-at-trump-dojs-request/

 

If Trump isn't defeated in November, the US judiciary will be f*cked for decades to come. 

[Burbalade]

19 hours ago, Zello said:

Trump holding rallies. All those people are gonna catch COVID-19.

If tens of thousands aren't dropping dead from the protests, then it's a non issue.

[Raavi]

7 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

If tens of thousands aren't dropping dead from the protests, then it's a non issue.

It was a non-issue anyway because he didn't even manage to fill 1/3 of the venue. He couldn't even get more than 6200 to show up in redder than red Oklahoma. 

 

[Smith John]

Rally Attendances Matter *raises clenched fist 

[Raavi]

7 minutes ago, Smith John said:

Rally Attendances Matter *raises clenched fist 

It does if you boast about 1 million people being interested and only 6200 show up in a deep red state. 

[Smith John]

Let's be honest here, it's still likely 6000 more than a turnout for a prospective rally for the "you ain't black" groomer.

[Burbalade]

16 minutes ago, Smith John said:

Let's be honest here, it's still likely 6000 more than a turnout for a prospective rally for the "you ain't black" groomer.

I haven't paid much attention to the finger sucker's rallies but I recall seeing Hillary and Bernie rallies that could barely gather 100 people.

[TheGodDamnMaster]

43 minutes ago, Burbalade said:

I haven't paid much attention to the finger sucker's rallies but I recall seeing Hillary and Bernie rallies that could barely gather 100 people.

Once he sold out and started campaigning for her yes. But Sanders had 30,000 strong crowd in NYC after his return to the campaign trail this cycle.