|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On July 09 2016 01:01 kapibara-san wrote:
still questioning the value of statistically finding racial bias in extrajudicial killings when the overall rate of extrajudicial killings seems to be the main issue to me
There is *always* value in more data. If there are resistances to the collection of data, they need to be addressed. And what if the data shows we haven't been doing things right or we don't actually understand the issue? Data can be used to guide us when we aren't really sure where we are. It can even be really helpful when we are SURE where we are. It adds credibility, provides detail, and allows for a method of tracking changes over time by comparing to previous data.
|
On July 09 2016 01:03 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
Well the Paul Ryan just did the moment of silence for the Dallas shooting, expect that to be it.
now back to your regularly scheduled (i) gridlock and (ii) hillary clinton fishing expedition (iii) totally supporting donald but not his actions and words
|
Because of the incredibly nebulous nature of the subject matter, I'd rather not speculate through prolonging a line of argumentation that inevitably relies on some degree of experiential, faith-based inference. I'm pretty sure that black and Hispanic folks in this country are treated far worse than their white counterparts, but until I have access to good data, I don't see the point in getting bogged down in unendingly disputable debates that always wind up dividing along partisan lines. Collecting good data and increasing transparency are the keys.
That said, I think it's extremely telling that those on one side of the equation also happen to be the most opposed to the collection of data related to solving that equation.
|
|
|
On July 09 2016 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe we blew up one of Dallas the guys with a robot.
We just used a little Jihadi robot to take down a BLM extremist. This is the most politically relevant killing ever, lol.
Or to anyone not trying to project their narrative.
You used a robot to take out a terrorist with minimal loss of life
But whatever floats your boat.
|
On July 09 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe we blew up one of Dallas the guys with a robot.
We just used a little Jihadi robot to take down a BLM extremist. This is the most politically relevant killing ever, lol. Or to anyone not trying to project their narrative. You used a robot to take out a terrorist with minimal loss of life But whatever floats your boat.
think u read too much seriousness into his post, because the amount there was 0
|
On July 09 2016 01:12 farvacola wrote:
Because of the incredibly nebulous nature of the subject matter, I'd rather not speculate through prolonging a line of argumentation that inevitable relies on some degree of experiential, faith-based inferences. I'm pretty sure that black and Hispanic folks in this country are treated far worse than their white counterparts, but until I have access to good data, I don't see the point in getting bogged down in unendingly disputable debates that always wind up dividing along partisan lines. Collecting good data and increasing transparency are the keys.
That said, I think it's extremely telling that those on one side of the equation also happen to be the most opposed to the collection of data related to solving that equation.
Fair enough. I will lay out what I believe are the possibilities:
1. Black crime/arrest rates are exaggerated by conservatives
which leads to
A. the # of killings of blacks are not as disproportionate low to the # of arrests/crimes committed by blacks.
Response: Going by the numbers, crime rates would have to be something like 5-6x exaggerated.
2. Police killings of blacks are under-reported.
which leads to A.
Response: The killings data were independently collected by WaPo and Guardian through journalistic resources. They are not perfect but are the best available. Dismissing the data because it's unofficial detracts from the argument. Unless you can make a justified accusation that the numbers would be significantly different.
I'm pretty sure that black and Hispanic folks in this country are treated far worse than their white counterparts
I think so too, and nowhere did I argue against that. This is about whether or not blacks are killed by the police at a greater rate compared to other races.
I don't see the point in getting bogged down in unendingly disputable debates that always wind up dividing along partisan lines.
I do not believe police reform is a partisan issue. You wanted to make it so.
|
On July 09 2016 01:17 kapibara-san wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe we blew up one of Dallas the guys with a robot.
We just used a little Jihadi robot to take down a BLM extremist. This is the most politically relevant killing ever, lol. Or to anyone not trying to project their narrative. You used a robot to take out a terrorist with minimal loss of life But whatever floats your boat. think u read too much seriousness into his post, because the amount there was 0
I tought his post was disgusting to joke about that issue in the first place but whatever.
|
On July 09 2016 01:25 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:17 kapibara-san wrote:On July 09 2016 01:17 Gorsameth wrote:On July 09 2016 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I can't believe we blew up one of Dallas the guys with a robot.
We just used a little Jihadi robot to take down a BLM extremist. This is the most politically relevant killing ever, lol. Or to anyone not trying to project their narrative. You used a robot to take out a terrorist with minimal loss of life But whatever floats your boat. think u read too much seriousness into his post, because the amount there was 0 I tought his post was disgusting to joke about that issue in the first place but whatever.
americans have an overdeveloped sense of humor because developing a sense of humor is a natural reaction to psychological pain
|
On July 09 2016 01:12 farvacola wrote:
Because of the incredibly nebulous nature of the subject matter, I'd rather not speculate through prolonging a line of argumentation that inevitably relies on some degree of experiential, faith-based inference. I'm pretty sure that black and Hispanic folks in this country are treated far worse than their white counterparts, but until I have access to good data, I don't see the point in getting bogged down in unendingly disputable debates that always wind up dividing along partisan lines. Collecting good data and increasing transparency are the keys.
That said, I think it's extremely telling that those on one side of the equation also happen to be the most opposed to the collection of data related to solving that equation.
You're being ridiculous. He's offering data, and you're throwing out baseless accusations that the data is meaningless simply because the data doesn't fit with the narrative that you want to believe.
|
On July 09 2016 01:33 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:12 farvacola wrote:
Because of the incredibly nebulous nature of the subject matter, I'd rather not speculate through prolonging a line of argumentation that inevitably relies on some degree of experiential, faith-based inference. I'm pretty sure that black and Hispanic folks in this country are treated far worse than their white counterparts, but until I have access to good data, I don't see the point in getting bogged down in unendingly disputable debates that always wind up dividing along partisan lines. Collecting good data and increasing transparency are the keys.
That said, I think it's extremely telling that those on one side of the equation also happen to be the most opposed to the collection of data related to solving that equation. You're being ridiculous. He's offering data, and you're throwing out baseless accusations that the data is meaningless simply because the data doesn't fit with the narrative that you want to believe.
If you think it's ridiculous to discard conclusory reasoning based on incredibly unreliable data that is purposefully made incomplete by an interested party, then I hope to see you on the other side of the aisle in court some day. The reasons offered for why the data is unreliable are undisputed and have literally nothing to do with my own viewpoint. Unless, of course, you think that police departments and prosecutors are being totally upfront with their stats. I don't think you're that naive though.
|
On July 09 2016 01:37 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2016 01:12 farvacola wrote:
Because of the incredibly nebulous nature of the subject matter, I'd rather not speculate through prolonging a line of argumentation that inevitably relies on some degree of experiential, faith-based inference. I'm pretty sure that black and Hispanic folks in this country are treated far worse than their white counterparts, but until I have access to good data, I don't see the point in getting bogged down in unendingly disputable debates that always wind up dividing along partisan lines. Collecting good data and increasing transparency are the keys.
That said, I think it's extremely telling that those on one side of the equation also happen to be the most opposed to the collection of data related to solving that equation. You're being ridiculous. He's offering data, and you're throwing out baseless accusations that the data is meaningless simply because the data doesn't fit with the narrative that you want to believe. If you think it's ridiculous to discard conclusory reasoning based on incredibly unreliable data that is purposefully made incomplete by an interested party, then I hope to see you on the other side of the aisle in court some day.
Attacking the integrity of the data isn't going to get you very far in court if you misrepresent the limited point for which the data is being offered. =)
|
The Obama administration on Thursday finalized rules that will require companies to have strict safety and environmental protection plans in place before they drill for oil or natural gas in the Arctic Ocean.
The new regulations do not expressly prohibit drilling in the Arctic, but they require companies to submit detailed plans for how they will drill safely and respond to oil spills and other emergencies. In part because of an extended slump in global oil prices, and also because of major setbacks to prospects for drilling in the Arctic, the industry has largely steered clear of plans to drill in the area recently.
But that doesn’t mean companies won’t seek to drill there in the future. Thursday’s rules specifically cover drilling in the Chukchi and Beaufort Seas, to the northwest and north of Alaska, respectively.
Among other measures, they require companies to have oil spill response plans, ice and weather forecasting capabilities, and to have a relief rig on hand to drill a relief well in the event of well problems.
“The unique Arctic environment raises substantial operational challenges,” said Abigail Ross Hopper, director of the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM), in a statement accompanying the release of the new rules. “These new regulations are carefully tailored to ensure that any future exploration activities will be conducted in a way that respects and protects this incredible ecosystem and the Alaska Native subsistence activities that depend on its preservation.”
The real question, however, is which companies will now want to operate under these regulations.
Royal Dutch Shell had already suspended its plans for drilling in the fragile Arctic region late last year after an unsuccessful attempt at one exploratory well in the Chukchi Sea, citing costs as well as a “challenging and unpredictable federal regulatory environment.” Shortly afterwards, so did the Norwegian oil giant Statoil, at least for the Alaskan Arctic.
Source
|
On July 08 2016 23:57 NukeD wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 23:54 kapibara-san wrote:On July 08 2016 23:51 NukeD wrote:On July 08 2016 23:40 kapibara-san wrote:On July 08 2016 23:39 NukeD wrote:On July 08 2016 23:02 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2016 22:32 kapibara-san wrote:On July 08 2016 22:29 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2016 22:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That Americans see themselves as individual Rambos i.e. The Government is after them etc.
Which isn't far from the truth if you think about it. The government is after you is from the right side of the aisle. The cops are after you is from the left side of the aisle. nah the left side is just "cops are prone to shooting unarmed black people and we need to reform them to not do that as much" thats not the kind of reasoning that leads people to shoot cops nearly as much as "the state's out of control" You couldn't have been more clear. The left thinks that COPS are prone to shooting unarmed black people. That's an amount of agreement I was not expecting. I wonder what kind of atmosphere you create when you only cite victims of police shootings as "unarmed black people?" When you connect cop-hate to a generic hate of government, you're letting your own partisan worldview be the primary constructor of your conclusions. It's as predictable as Obama pointing to the power of the weapons and gun control overtones in his first address following the attack. This is how you ensure minority votes if you are a liberal. By creating a hysteria in media and dividing people. pretty sure trump's been doing more of that and you've got the causation backwards, the minorities (which you're unfairly generalizing, it's literally just blacks in this case) start "causing hysteria" over their feeling of victimization (which doesn't seem entirely unjustified) and liberals seem to respond in a more supportive way than conservatives do. the people have always been divided. the liberals are not the ones doing the dividing. but why am i arguing the realities of american culture with a croatian Just an outsider perspective. I do think the media played a huge role in all that is happening to day and that they did favor a biased approach as to how blacks are treated in the USA. you aren't wrong, black issues are disproportionately represented in the media relative to their population and media culture distorts things. but this isn't a concerted effort by liberals to drum up support for themselves. conservatives who dislike "black culture" have ages-old memes of "black on black violence kills way more than police on black" to divert things back to their own narrative too everyone has their memes to redirect conversation to exactly how they wanna talk about things and nobody actually ends up talking with each other, just repeating their memes to reinforce their own positions Yes that is why we have to look at facts. Like is this narative of cops being prone to killing innocent and unarmed black people true to reallity or not? I did see in a lot of places that according to numbers, this is not the case. You've hit upon the central point. The frame and narrative gets great screen time and it's preached like religious doctrine. Especially in the case, nay recent high-profile cases, when the lives of cops are threatened but not by firearms.
On July 08 2016 23:10 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 23:02 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2016 22:32 kapibara-san wrote:On July 08 2016 22:29 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2016 22:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That Americans see themselves as individual Rambos i.e. The Government is after them etc.
Which isn't far from the truth if you think about it. The government is after you is from the right side of the aisle. The cops are after you is from the left side of the aisle. nah the left side is just "cops are prone to shooting unarmed black people and we need to reform them to not do that as much" thats not the kind of reasoning that leads people to shoot cops nearly as much as "the state's out of control" You couldn't have been more clear. The left thinks that COPS are prone to shooting unarmed black people. That's an amount of agreement I was not expecting. I wonder what kind of atmosphere you create when you only cite victims of police shootings as "unarmed black people?" When you connect cop-hate to a generic hate of government, you're letting your own partisan worldview be the primary constructor of your conclusions. It's as predictable as Obama pointing to the power of the weapons and gun control overtones in his first address following the attack. I think that is a problem created by the lack of transparency in the use of force by police. When they shoot an unarmed white kid, that death gets lost in the shuffle and swept under the rug. But when an unarmed black kid or man gets shot, there is a community and culture around resisting the police abuse that rallies around victim. Sometimes, in rare cases, support is misplaced. So rather than try to blame the left for not sticking up for the unarmed white people killed by police, we should try to understand why that is. It is because the community around those victims cannot get the attention of the media or simply don’t know how to. Because I refuse to believe the support wouldn’t be there. It is just that people are not aware of the victims. I can get behind letting cooler heads prevail and seek more information. Be aware of more victims than race-hyped cases, understand real police problems hidden behind the racist narrative. My biggest wish is more involvement in sit-and-talk meetings between local police and communities. Hear homeowners and renters present their real fears, whether drugs traded openly on the street corner or young loiterers lighting up in the apartment lobby (NY examples). I knows cops and administration are more wary of patrolling inner cities to protect law-abiding citizens since nobody cares about minority blacks feeling safer walking around, but everybody pounces if there's a questionable confrontation. A good read on the case is The War on Cops by Heather McDonald speaking to low violence from economic downturns but increases when cops have backed off of common policing since the hostility towards cops has skyrocketed. Everyone suffers.
On July 08 2016 23:11 Wegandi wrote:Show nested quote +On July 08 2016 22:29 Danglars wrote:On July 08 2016 22:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
That Americans see themselves as individual Rambos i.e. The Government is after them etc.
Which isn't far from the truth if you think about it. The government is after you is from the right side of the aisle. The cops are after you is from the left side of the aisle. Who do you think carries out the Government (ie. politicians) edicts? Cops are the arm of the Government, and the "right" is fucking stupid to hold those mercs up as some paragons of virtue. Another false dichotomy that plays people off each other. It's not going to be the FBI that will be confiscating your weapons, it'll be your local county/sheriffs doing this. Part of me just wants the day to come and watch how compliant the loudest will be. They'll always defer to Government authority, because that's where their principles lay. Of course, there are the true believers out there, but we're not considered right or left, but I fully expect those of us will be targeted most forcefully by the "right" because they can't handle any resistance to the "true" authority. The real "fucking stupid" people call cops "mercs" and confuse the executors of the law to the lawgivers, courts, and groups of lawless politicians and administrators that have different issues. The easiest takeaway you give is to demand cops resist lawfully passed bills by their own volition, a kind of courage I doubt you yourself would show in whatever work environment you operate in, if you are gainfully employed. You're tunnel visioning the most conspicuous law enforcers, when the wider variety of the "right" fight legislatively, judicially, and the powers held at the higher rings of power. It's insanely idiotic to expect cops to take constitutional stands on gun confiscation when courts declare unconstitutional laws as constitutional and they're under financial pressure to faithfully execute their duties. You're way off the mark; the right generally trusts cops, the left generally trusts the government powers above them.
|
On July 09 2016 01:40 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On July 09 2016 01:37 farvacola wrote:On July 09 2016 01:33 xDaunt wrote:On July 09 2016 01:12 farvacola wrote:
Because of the incredibly nebulous nature of the subject matter, I'd rather not speculate through prolonging a line of argumentation that inevitably relies on some degree of experiential, faith-based inference. I'm pretty sure that black and Hispanic folks in this country are treated far worse than their white counterparts, but until I have access to good data, I don't see the point in getting bogged down in unendingly disputable debates that always wind up dividing along partisan lines. Collecting good data and increasing transparency are the keys.
That said, I think it's extremely telling that those on one side of the equation also happen to be the most opposed to the collection of data related to solving that equation. You're being ridiculous. He's offering data, and you're throwing out baseless accusations that the data is meaningless simply because the data doesn't fit with the narrative that you want to believe. If you think it's ridiculous to discard conclusory reasoning based on incredibly unreliable data that is purposefully made incomplete by an interested party, then I hope to see you on the other side of the aisle in court some day. Attacking the integrity of the data isn't going to get you very far in court if you misrepresent the limited point for which the data is being offered. =)
The point being made is not limited and is directly related to the sufficiency of the data being referred to.
|
Veteran "upset about blm" and "wanted to kill white people, especially white officers".
|
|
|
So one way to argue against the data is to say the urban police's broken window theory policies greatly increases blacks' encounters with the police. Then one would need to cite numbers broken down by race, and go through individual encounters to see which of them were justified and how much the policies distorts the official numbers. I don't know if such a study exists but I'd be interested to see how exaggerated the official arrest rates are.
Otherwise, moving on, the media has blood on their hands. When the Castille story broke, I was disappointed to see it as the headline at every source I subscribe to (except for drudge). Meanwhile the only case of a white police killing that received national attention, that I can remember, was Kelly Thomas who was not shot, but beaten to death, and was homeless and mentally ill. The lead cop was Hispanic I believe.
|
Clearly you didn't even read the article you posted.
|
On July 09 2016 02:06 heliusx wrote:
Clearly you didn't even read the article you posted.
I stand corrected. I missed the second quote due to reading it on my phone. I apologize.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
