Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

Gunfight at the O.K. CorralFollow

#277 Aug 02 2016 at 9:56 PM Rating: Default
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
While I don't condone any negative behavior towards police officers, it is absurd to expect *criminals* to all act like angels. Good, bad or indifferent, there should be a standard on how to react to people with rules of engagement. If the RoE doesn't say "smack a person who disrespects you", then you can't decide on your own to do so.
#278 Aug 02 2016 at 10:14 PM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
But it's not like there isn't a ton of data on this sort of thing.
Huh, her two previous neurophysiological studies both found that "the participants were experiencing a greater threat response when faced with African Americans instead of white or Hispanic suspects." The new study of 80 patrol officers from the Spokane PD, 76 of which were white and 71 male, average age of 40 and with more than 14 years experience found that 96% of the officers demonstrated implicit racial bias, with 78% strongly or moderately associating blacks with weapons, and 0% associating whites with weapons on the Harvard Implicit Association Test.

What was that about "perception" again?

Edited, Aug 3rd 2016 12:16am by lolgaxe
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#279 Aug 02 2016 at 10:29 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
Almalieque wrote:
there should be a standard on how to react to people with rules of engagement.
There is, and gbaji is unaware of its existence.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#280 Aug 02 2016 at 11:26 PM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Too many Gulenists in the USA, no wonder there's so much violence.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2016 1:42am by Kavekkk
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#281 Aug 03 2016 at 7:22 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Too many Gulenists in the USA, no wonder there's so much violence.
Thanks Trump.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#282 Aug 03 2016 at 9:46 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
gbaji wrote:
It's just another possible explanation for the data. No way to know for sure how much this (or any other) factor plays in. The point though, is that there's a lot more to this than the ridiculously simplistic idea that cops are just racially biased towards blacks.
I'd imagine many people would agree there's more to it than just "bias against black people." That's more of a media simplification, or a soundbite that works for political purposes. You add in bias + poverty + cultural differences + other stuff and you get a situation where a bunch of compounding factors make a situation worse than any one would on its own.

gbaji wrote:
Ironically, the paper I linked a short while ago actually touches on this, although the paper researchers themselves didn't mention it. I would propose a fourth explanation for why the police in the study were more likely to associate black people with violence, but slower to react when presented with violence from black people in the simulation. Because they've become accustomed to a higher rate of "dangerous" seeming behavior from blacks than whites. As a result when a white person begins acting in a way that triggers the cops danger alarm, he's more likely to assume that person is actually about to do something like pull a gun on him. But he's more used to black people behaving that way, so he's going to wait longer to see if that's really a gun being pulled out.
For what it's worth I'll take it at face value that the cops were wary of the stereotype and simply were afraid of being one of "those cops who shot a black guy." Given the demographics and relatively high crime rate in Spokane, it's likely immediately associating white people with danger simply happens because most of the dangerous people they come across are white. In this case (and without further data) it's not hard to explain this as a very simple learned behavior. You get into a violent confrontation with a few white guys, and you learn to fear white guys. Maybe it's white guys with tattoos, or white guys dressed a certain way, etc. but that wasn't really addressed as much in this paper.

Again, it'd be nice to see this study done in different locations, with different demographics. It seems like an interesting methodology that has potential to shed some light on police decision-making. The novelty of it does make it hard to generalize the results though.

Edited, Aug 3rd 2016 8:47am by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#283 Aug 03 2016 at 4:39 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
someproteinguy wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Ironically, the paper I linked a short while ago actually touches on this, although the paper researchers themselves didn't mention it. I would propose a fourth explanation for why the police in the study were more likely to associate black people with violence, but slower to react when presented with violence from black people in the simulation. Because they've become accustomed to a higher rate of "dangerous" seeming behavior from blacks than whites. As a result when a white person begins acting in a way that triggers the cops danger alarm, he's more likely to assume that person is actually about to do something like pull a gun on him. But he's more used to black people behaving that way, so he's going to wait longer to see if that's really a gun being pulled out.
For what it's worth I'll take it at face value that the cops were wary of the stereotype and simply were afraid of being one of "those cops who shot a black guy."


That's the most obvious explanation. I'm just presenting an alternative that I think may have some merit.

Quote:
Given the demographics and relatively high crime rate in Spokane, it's likely immediately associating white people with danger simply happens because most of the dangerous people they come across are white. In this case (and without further data) it's not hard to explain this as a very simple learned behavior. You get into a violent confrontation with a few white guys, and you learn to fear white guys. Maybe it's white guys with tattoos, or white guys dressed a certain way, etc. but that wasn't really addressed as much in this paper.


I was talking about the rate though, not the raw number. If 10% of the white people you interact with behave in a threatening manner, but 50% of the black people you interact with do, you're going to see that type of interaction as more typical in the case of a black person and atypical of a white person. Then you toss in the false positive factor. If out of the 10% of white people who are threatening/belligerent 90% of them actually do take a swing at you, or attempt to resit arrest, or whatever, then you can accurately assess that if a white person is acting in that manner, there's a high probability that the situation will become violent, so you're going to be quicker to react (you're expecting it). On the other hand, if the higher base rate of threatening/belligerent behavior by blacks is because of an innate distrust in cops, but maybe only 20% of those result in actual violence, then you're more likely to dismiss the exact same initial behavior from a black person because it's less likely to escalate into violence (per incident anyway).

The result of that would be that a cop will wait a bit longer to be sure the situation is actually heading into violent territory before taking action. And I'm not trying to narrow the definition here. I can't say personally what behavior might trigger a "danger" reaction by the cops. However, I think we can all agree that there are going to be telltale signs, body language, verbal statements, etc, that will indicate to a cop that danger might be heading his way. It's entirely possible that blacks are more likely to give these signs off than whites, even when they have no actual intent to do any sort of violence to the cop.

Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members. Which, Um.... Is not going to go unnoticed by the cops. On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.

Quote:
Again, it'd be nice to see this study done in different locations, with different demographics. It seems like an interesting methodology that has potential to shed some light on police decision-making. The novelty of it does make it hard to generalize the results though.


Yeah. I actually followed a link from another article about the subject that mentioned that very fact. And a bunch of other stuff. It's an interesting read.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#284 Aug 04 2016 at 7:21 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
gbaji wrote:
On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.
You really are sheltered, aren't you.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#285 Aug 04 2016 at 8:05 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
There's tons of young white males trying to act tough or gangster*. Gbaji doesn't notice them because they're white and he's not threatened by their appearance. Confirmation bias.


*My own son leaves the house with in a pinstripe zoot suit and carrying a Tommy gun
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#286 Aug 04 2016 at 8:54 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
I had a white gangster friend like that once. It took a tremendous amount of force to embed them into any social situation. It's good they're really dull though I guess so they aren't so dangerous. I lost them after they wore blackface to a fancy dress party I threw them cleanly through the drywall where I could not recover them without tearing the whole wall open.
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#287 Aug 04 2016 at 8:57 AM Rating: Good
***
1,159 posts
Quote:
My own son leaves the house with in a pinstripe zoot suit and carrying a Tommy gun


Sounds like a pulchritudinous young gent to me. He takes after his father, I take it?
____________________________
Timelordwho wrote:
I'm not quite sure that scheming is an emotion.
#288 Aug 05 2016 at 6:18 AM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:
Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members. Which, Um.... Is not going to go unnoticed by the cops. On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.
Wearing a skirt doesn't make you sluht. There is a difference between "behaving like a sluht" and wearing a skirt. If you start labeling every woman that wears a skirt a sluht, then the problem is with you.

What you have done is demonstrated the ignorance and fear of the unknown. So, basically, you just admitted that ignorant and fearful police officers tend to overreact with Black Americans. Furthermore, only real proven white gangsters are targeted. However, all Black Americans that are "wearing skirts" are "sluhts", so therefore should be treated as such.
#289 Aug 05 2016 at 7:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members.

Take up the White Man’s burden—
Send forth the best ye breed—
Go send your sons to exile
To serve your captives' need
To wait in heavy harness
On fluttered folk and wild—
Your new-caught, sullen peoples,
Half devil and half child


Bonus points for using the conservative "thug" dog whistle. I bet Gbaji doesn't even know he was taught to do it.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#290 Aug 05 2016 at 7:53 AM Rating: Good
*******
50,767 posts
What was profiling called in the 1980s?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#291 Aug 05 2016 at 2:04 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Jophiel wrote:

Bonus points for using the conservative "thug" dog whistle. I bet Gbaji doesn't even know he was taught to do it.
His response came straight from Fox News, very Bill O'reilly like. Anyone who still brings up gangsta rap from the 90's is usually far removed from reality. While there are artists that might glorify that life, the genre has changed dramatically over the past twenty years.
#292 Aug 09 2016 at 2:23 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Anecdotally, I think we've all witnessed that blacks do tend to exhibit what we might view as "thuggish" body and verbal language, even when not actual thugs themselves. Part of this goes back to the whole higher poverty rate bit, where surviving in a poor high crime neighborhood sometimes requires a bit of urban camouflage. Add in the prevalence of rap and hip hop culture which tends towards idolizing the gangsta style, and you've got a heck of a lot of young black men actively trying to look like tough gang members. Which, Um.... Is not going to go unnoticed by the cops. On the flip side, there's not a lot of white men behaving this way unless they are actually in a gang and/or engaged in criminal behavior.
Wearing a skirt doesn't make you sluht. There is a difference between "behaving like a sluht" and wearing a skirt. If you start labeling every woman that wears a skirt a sluht, then the problem is with you.


Interesting that I didn't mention clothing style at all, but that's where you went anyway. I was talking specifically about behavior. Body and verbal language.

Quote:
What you have done is demonstrated the ignorance and fear of the unknown.


No. What I've demonstrated is an objective view of the subject matter at hand, absent the usual emotion laden need to conform to politically correct, but factually incorrect themes. The reality is that a far far higher percentage of black males exhibit external behavior that is specifically designed to mimic the behavior of gang members than white males do. I get that you're all *gasp* at this revelation, but if we're going to have a conversation about why police may stop and question black males more frequently than while males, it's maybe relevant to point out that even if the police are ignoring skin color entirely, and looking only at behavior, we're still going to see a statistical bias in the results vis-a-vis white versus black.

As I've been saying all along, you can make all the changes to police policies you want, but you're never going to eliminate this effect via that methodology. I'd argue you're probably never going to even put a dent in it. Hence, why I believe it's the wrong target to focus on.

Quote:
So, basically, you just admitted that ignorant and fearful police officers tend to overreact with Black Americans. Furthermore, only real proven white gangsters are targeted. However, all Black Americans that are "wearing skirts" are "sluhts", so therefore should be treated as such.


No. They react consistently to behaviors of people around them. I get that you want to paint this narrative in the color of emotion and whatnot, but that's just not what's happening. As the data in the study I linked to shows, if anything Cops are more cautious when dealing with a black person than with a white person. The problem is that the rate at which they have to interact with black males versus white males is so ridiculously skewed that no amount of them trying to avoid anything that might trigger racially aligned outrage still results in enough of such events to fuel movements like BLM.

And at the risk of repeating myself, it's not about clothing. It's about behavior. And yes, a far higher percentage of young black males behave like they're in a gang or engaged in some kind of criminal behavior than young white males. I get that this isn't PC to say, but it's absolutely true. And until that fact changes, nothing the police do will fix this problem. And certainly, doubling down on this behavior (which is what BLM seems to be promoting) is only going to make the problem worse, not better.

Which, again, if your objective is to increase anger and increase conflict, is a very good route to go.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#293 Aug 09 2016 at 2:39 PM Rating: Decent
The All Knowing
Avatar
*****
10,265 posts
Gbaji wrote:

Interesting that I didn't mention clothing style at all, but that's where you went anyway. I was talking specifically about behavior. Body and verbal language.
Are you saying that attire and appearance have nothing to do with the police stereotyping you as a gangster?


Gbaji wrote:
No. What I've demonstrated is an objective view of the subject matter at hand, absent the usual emotion laden need to conform to politically correct, but factually incorrect themes. The reality is that a far far higher percentage of black males exhibit external behavior that is specifically designed to mimic the behavior of gang members than white males do.


Gbaji wrote:
No. They react consistently to behaviors of people around them. I get that you want to paint this narrative in the color of emotion and whatnot, but that's just not what's happening. As the data in the study I linked to shows, if anything Cops are more cautious when dealing with a black person than with a white person. The problem is that the rate at which they have to interact with black males versus white males is so ridiculously skewed that no amount of them trying to avoid anything that might trigger racially aligned outrage still results in enough of such events to fuel movements like BLM.

And at the risk of repeating myself, it's not about clothing. It's about behavior. And yes, a far higher percentage of young black males behave like they're in a gang or engaged in some kind of criminal behavior than young white males. I get that this isn't PC to say, but it's absolutely true. And until that fact changes, nothing the police do will fix this problem. And certainly, doubling down on this behavior (which is what BLM seems to be promoting) is only going to make the problem worse, not better.

Which, again, if your objective is to increase anger and increase conflict, is a very good route to go.

Stop and Frisk statistics say otherwise.

#294 Aug 09 2016 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Jophiel wrote:

Bonus points for using the conservative "thug" dog whistle. I bet Gbaji doesn't even know he was taught to do it.
His response came straight from Fox News, very Bill O'reilly like. Anyone who still brings up gangsta rap from the 90's is usually far removed from reality. While there are artists that might glorify that life, the genre has changed dramatically over the past twenty years.


Yes. I'm aware of that. But that doesn't change the facts of what I'm talking about. You're zeroing in on one thing that you want to argue about (cause I happened to mention hip hop, so that's apparently the entire issue now), while ignoring the whole. You can bury your head in the PC sand all you want, but the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal. Period. Any objective person would make that assumption.

Defending the behavior because he wasn't actually breaking the law isn't the point. The behavior only has to be suspicious to draw attention. And it's that attention that affects the stats when it comes to rates of police stops.

I guess the problem I have with this entire issue is the sheer lengths people seem to be willing to go to protect the PC viewpoint on this. I mean, Martin? We could make some valid arguments about that. But Brown? Seriously? Guy's walking down the middle of the street, with stuff he just stole from a convenience store a few minutes earlier in his hands, and we're still going to put him in the stat category of "police unfairly profiling young black men"? You're kidding right? At what point is it ok for a police officer to stop a black man in your eyes then? Ever?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#295 Aug 09 2016 at 3:11 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Almalieque wrote:
Gbaji wrote:
Interesting that I didn't mention clothing style at all, but that's where you went anyway. I was talking specifically about behavior. Body and verbal language.
Are you saying that attire and appearance have nothing to do with the police stereotyping you as a gangster?


I'm saying that I am not talking about clothing. You're free to expound upon the possible relationship between various styles of attire and the exhibition of suspicious behavior which might draw a cop's attention, but that would be entirely your discussion. Again though, it's interesting how there seems to be a need among the PC crowd to talk about everything *except* behavior. Remember all the people wearing hoodies and holding skittles and cans of tea? That's making it about the clothes, or objects you were carrying, or anything at all, except the actual behavior that was what brought Martin to Zimmerman's attention.

Surely, you don't think a hoodie is "gansta" attire, right? So you kinda have your answer right there, don't you? It's about what you are doing, not what you are wearing. What clothes the person engaged in suspicious behavior may happen to be wearing may tell us something about his clothing choices, but it doesn't work in the other direction. Again, it's interesting that this is what you choose to focus on.


Quote:
Stop and Frisk statistics say otherwise.


No, they don't. We've had this conversation a number of times now. Stop and Frisk stats are perfectly consistent with the police profiling behavior, and not skin color. That this happens to result in disproportionate stop rates by skin color does not mean that the police are targeting people based on skin color. When you look past the surface level stats, you can see that there are behavior differences that affect the stats. Black drug dealers are more likely to be standing on a corner selling their wares than white drug dealers. Other black males, not themselves engaged in any criminal behavior, or carrying any contraband, are more likely to be standing on the same street corner hanging out with the drug dealer. So guess what happens? When the cop stops the group, there's one guy holding drugs and 8 guys not. When the cop stops the white drug dealer, it's just the one guy, and maybe one accomplice with him. The result? A lot more black guys stopped, and a lot more black guys stopped who didn't themselves do anything wrong (other than choosing to hang with the guy dealing dope). Get it? There's your stats right there.

We can wring our PC hands all we want over this, but the hard reality is that, for whatever reason, a higher percentage of black males are accepting of criminal behavior around them, and almost seem to idolize it and mimic it. This makes it very very hard for the cops to single out just the one black male in the crowd who's actually breaking the law. Add in the higher poverty stats (which almost certainly influences that behavior in the first place), and you have higher *actual* rates of criminal behavior, and more importantly, such behavior is more commonly and openly seen in the areas these young black men are growing up in, which in turn affects their own acceptance level. I linked to a source that mentioned this as a key difference between white and black poverty. White poor are far less likely to live in areas with a very high overall rate of poverty than black poor are. The makeup of the neighborhood itself affects the leaned behavior of those who grow up there. That's what needs to change, and the only way it's going to change is if we can figure out how to change the poverty stats. That's literally the start and end point to this issue.

Edited, Aug 9th 2016 2:18pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#296 Aug 09 2016 at 3:58 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Quote:
the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal.

So your argument is that walking down streets and meandering from fence to fence is "black male behavior"?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#297 Aug 09 2016 at 4:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,666 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal.

So your argument is that walking down streets and meandering from fence to fence is "black male behavior"?
Pokemon GO nerd, black person, potential thief, lost short guy... pretty much can lump them all into the same group of ne'er-do-wells anyway.

Edited, Aug 9th 2016 3:29pm by someproteinguy
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#298 Aug 09 2016 at 5:51 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
Stop and Frisk stats are perfectly consistent with the police profiling behavior, and not skin color.
Right. They were black people behaving like black people. Nothing to do with being black, though.Smiley: rolleyes


One day you may realize just how stupid your "logical" arguments sound.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

#299 Aug 09 2016 at 7:29 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Jophiel wrote:
Quote:
the reality is that black males exhibit behavior that is more likely to be seen as potentially criminal by a police officer walking by at a much higher rate than white males do. Heck. We saw this with the Treyvon Martin case. Desperate attempts (including an FCC violating edit to the police call by a major network) to make it entirely about race aside, the fact is that Zimmerman called the police, not because of Martin's skin color (which he could not see and did not know when he made the call), but because of his behavior. Walking down the street, meandering from one back yard fence to the next, and looking over said fences, is going to be viewed by an observer as someone looking in peoples yards for something to steal.

So your argument is that walking down streets and meandering from fence to fence is "black male behavior"?


No. I'm saying that it is suspicious behavior. It's equally suspicious whether a white male or a black male is doing it. However, I'm also saying that young black males are more likely to engage in that kind of behavior than young white men, and that this contributes to the kinds of stats we see with things like Stop and Frisk.

Way to get the logic backwards though. I get that you need to view this whole thing through the lens of race, but can you consider for just a moment that from the cops perspective, he's not looking at the skin color, but the behavior? Is that possible for you to wrap your brain around?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#300 Aug 09 2016 at 7:49 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Stop and Frisk stats are perfectly consistent with the police profiling behavior, and not skin color.
Right. They were black people behaving like black people. Nothing to do with being black, though.Smiley: rolleyes


One day you may realize just how stupid your "logical" arguments sound.


One day you may realize just how stupid your illogical arguments sound. You're starting out assuming race is the determining factor, and thus rejecting all others. Your starting assumption is your ending conclusion. Which is kinda problematic if you're actually trying to figure out how to generate a solution.

Let's use an example that's not race, since apparently there's a mental block on this. Let's imagine that we hire a group of observers to watch a city street and record every instance in which someone skips down the sidewalk. Imagine if, after collecting data about people skipping down the sidewalk, they realize that a disproportionate number of those who skipped were children. We could propose two explanations for this disproportionate ratio:

1. The observers are biased towards children, and for some reason are consciously or maybe even unconsciously focusing on watching the behavior of children on the street, and thus are allowing their observation bias to skew the results.

2. A higher percentage of children skip than adults.


One of these is a far better and more likely explanation, right? Certainly, in the absence of other evidence, explanation number 2 should be our starting assumption. And when we have other evidence that supports the idea that children skip more often than adults, it should reinforce that explanation. And additional studies of development patterns of children should support it even more, right?

Yet what we have is the equivalent of people insisting that the fact that a higher percentage of children are seen skipping proves that the observers are biased in their observation. Which I find to be completely irrational. That's the equivalent proof of racial bias in Alma's argument. Which, again, I find to be completely irrational. How can we even begin to solve a problem if we're unwilling to be honest about what the problem is? We have a mountain of evidence that the problem stems from black poverty, yet all anyone seems to want to talk about is police bigotry. I get that the second makes for much more anger and resentment and stirs people up. But is that actually productive if your goal is to fix the problem?

I don't think it is.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#301 Aug 09 2016 at 8:20 PM Rating: Good
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,957 posts
gbaji wrote:
We have a mountain of evidence that the problem stems from black poverty, yet all anyone seems to want to talk about is police bigotry. I get that the second makes for much more anger and resentment and stirs people up. But is that actually productive if your goal is to fix the problem?

I don't think it is.
Your problem is you are throwing out the possibility that there is any police bigotry (or very, very, very little) so it never enters your equation. Equally humoUrous is your blindness to the idea that bigotry might have quite a bit to do with the poverty problem.

I get that you are a virulent bigot, but all those words of yours really don't hide it.
____________________________
remorajunbao wrote:
One day I'm going to fly to Canada and open the curtains in your office.

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 321 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (321)