ideologyhunter
Contributor
The great intensifier is the knowledge that in one generation, there will no longer be an American caucasian majority. Gone for good. Every Robert E. Lee that hits the dust reminds them.
-
Features
Perception vs. Reality
- Thread starter Trausti
- Start date
barbos
Contributor
It's been posted/discussed few times before. Data does not show that police is trying to exterminate black population any more than white population.
Because the data doesn't exist. As the report clearly stated, over two thirds of American law enforcement agencies refuse to provide any information on shootings. As well written and presented the report is, it's still fucking useless. Also, the report does point out that despite the limited amount of data available, blacks are being killed by cops at twice the proportion they represent.
A yet ironically, they elected the poster child for carpetbagging as President. Smart people.
The topic & my comment was about the disconnect from the actual numbers, not the actual numbers. As for your not happening any more, sure there isn't a government green light on the killing of black people any more than whites , but that does not mean rogue officers aren't doing it anymore.
Correction Edit underlined.
barbos
Contributor
You don't need full info. All you need is number of people arrested, how many had guns and how many ended up dead.
Do it for black and white and you will find out that there is nothing that suggests that blacks are treated systematically different.
That's what was discussed in one of the previous discussions.
That simple, huh? So why wasn't it done for this report?
I'll give you a hint - the why is explained in the report. All you need to do (sarcasm very much intended) is read it and then realise the report's limitations,
barbos
Contributor
We have been over this. Democrats elected Trump by not voting for Clinton enough.
barbos
Contributor
I was commenting your reply to my post, not OP report.
Doesn't change the fact that Trumpsuckers idolize the very thing they claim to despise; a real estate developer from New York City who has never done a hard days work in his life. And that was my fucking point. Way to miss it whilst charging head on towards it.
barbos
Contributor
No, it does not change that fact. It's just unites them more.
*sigh* Your exact words were "Data does not show that police is trying to exterminate black population any more than white population.".
I then pointed out that data doesn't exist so no one can prove, least of all you, if your assertion is correct or not.
You then replied, "It's easy. All you have to do..."
I then pointed out that your hand waving solution is not even remotely practical. I then pointed out the report that this entire fucking thread was created for backs up my argument.
As a rule, you do need data to back up one's arguments. Otherwise you're just talking out of your arse. I'm still waiting for you to provide a single instance that BLM protested against a justifiable shooting.
It's easy to prove me wrong. All you have to do is back up your claim.
EDIT:
How does that even fucking work? Firstly, rallying around the thing you claim to despise doesn't make any sense. That's like the Klan believing Obama is a good man is was the best President in history. That's a very hard sell. Also, Trump is hemorrhaging support. So Trump's base is hardly as united as you assert.
Jimmy Higgins
Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2001
- Messages
- 44,388
- Basic Beliefs
- Calvinistic Atheist
Much like the Civil Rights Act did.
Elixir
Made in America
T.G.G. Moogly
Traditional Atheist
One "report" neither represents nor documents an historical problem, data mining, sampling size and other critical information aside. One incomplete set of date from one year, 2019, sheesh...
Compared to what?
WAB
Veteran Member
Holy crap...
Just my new way of subscribing to a thread in PD, folks.
Carry on!
Just my new way of subscribing to a thread in PD, folks.
Carry on!
laughing dog
Contributor
The public's misconceptions and misapplications about statistics and risks is a well-known phenomenon even when the data is complete and accurate that goes well beyond this particular issue and partisan ideologies.
But the irony of a Trump supporter complaining about some people's ability to distinguish between reality and perception is overwhelming.
But the irony of a Trump supporter complaining about some people's ability to distinguish between reality and perception is overwhelming.
Can't address the OP, so just hand wave. Got it.
ronburgundy
Contributor
Others have raised critical points that largely invalidate the OP stats on numbers of blacks shot, and % of those shot who are black. Those points include the high % of departments that don't report this info, with those precincts with the greatest per capita disparities and least external oversight being the less likely to report. Also, there is absolutely no empirical support for the validity and reliability of police reports claiming a shooting suspect was armed. This is critical b/c all relevant behavioral theory predicts high levels of dishonesty in such reports, given the extremely high motive to lie/plant a weapon, etc. to avoid punishment, and the near zero probability of being caught for lying (given the well documented "Blue wall" culture where officers helps each other avoid reprimand). There is reason to thing such lying would be more common against unarmed black suspects, since that brings the potential for being investigated for a racism motivated shooting into play, and since actual racism would increase the number of unwarranted shootings that need to be lied about to avoid severe penalty.
But beyond the invalidity of the claimed actual numbers of unarmed blacks killed by police, there are other more complex methodological issue.
Let's look at the scale used for "# of unarmed blacks killed". Anyone trained in survey methodology knows that when you use a scale, very few respondents pay any attention the precised values on the scale, in part b/c they are not that interested, and in part b/c most times those values are completely arbitrary and don't related to real quantities (such as "How important is X, from 1 to 7?").
Most people just treat the values as relative. This is critical b/c these researcher made the very odd and unusual choice to put what they thought was the objectively correct answer as the lowest possible level. This heavily biases the scale to favor people who don't know the correct value and aren't even paying attention to the values but just mindlessly (or ideologically) choosing whatever the lowest value offered is. Many conservatives think cops killing unarmed black men is essentially non-existent (even when they see it with their own eyes, such as Floyd that many conservatives claim was really killed by an OD). So, they would have picked the bottom category, if that had been labeled "Zero". There is no room on the scale for most conservatives to be wrong, b/c the right answer is the lowest option offered. Not only does that invalidate the result, but it is such an obviously bad methodology and so unusual, that it suggest the researchers went out of their way to make such a decision to get a desired result.
As to the other question of "% of people killed who are black", there is a different issue. Both liberals and conservatives greatly over estimate the % of Americans who are black as being 32%, which is about 2.4 times what is really is. That means if they think that blacks are no more likely to be killed (which is false), they would answer 32%. If they think blacks are twice as likely to be killed and/or their % of those killed is about double their % of the population (which is true), then they would answer about 64%. So, based on the fact that libs and conservatives equally over estimate the black population to be over double what it is, liberals are combining that wrong belief with the correct belief that blacks are over represented by double among those killed by cops, while conservatives are combining that wrong belief with the also wrong belief that blacks are either no more likely to be killed or only about 50% more likely.
But beyond the invalidity of the claimed actual numbers of unarmed blacks killed by police, there are other more complex methodological issue.
Let's look at the scale used for "# of unarmed blacks killed". Anyone trained in survey methodology knows that when you use a scale, very few respondents pay any attention the precised values on the scale, in part b/c they are not that interested, and in part b/c most times those values are completely arbitrary and don't related to real quantities (such as "How important is X, from 1 to 7?").
Most people just treat the values as relative. This is critical b/c these researcher made the very odd and unusual choice to put what they thought was the objectively correct answer as the lowest possible level. This heavily biases the scale to favor people who don't know the correct value and aren't even paying attention to the values but just mindlessly (or ideologically) choosing whatever the lowest value offered is. Many conservatives think cops killing unarmed black men is essentially non-existent (even when they see it with their own eyes, such as Floyd that many conservatives claim was really killed by an OD). So, they would have picked the bottom category, if that had been labeled "Zero". There is no room on the scale for most conservatives to be wrong, b/c the right answer is the lowest option offered. Not only does that invalidate the result, but it is such an obviously bad methodology and so unusual, that it suggest the researchers went out of their way to make such a decision to get a desired result.
As to the other question of "% of people killed who are black", there is a different issue. Both liberals and conservatives greatly over estimate the % of Americans who are black as being 32%, which is about 2.4 times what is really is. That means if they think that blacks are no more likely to be killed (which is false), they would answer 32%. If they think blacks are twice as likely to be killed and/or their % of those killed is about double their % of the population (which is true), then they would answer about 64%. So, based on the fact that libs and conservatives equally over estimate the black population to be over double what it is, liberals are combining that wrong belief with the correct belief that blacks are over represented by double among those killed by cops, while conservatives are combining that wrong belief with the also wrong belief that blacks are either no more likely to be killed or only about 50% more likely.