|Community >> View Post|
Subj: Re: did you read the BBC article? read the conclusion.
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 11:11:46 am EDT (Viewed 1118 times)
Reply Subj: Re: did you read the BBC article? read the conclusion.
Posted: Tue Jun 27, 2017 at 01:05:46 am EDT (Viewed 1130 times)
Quote:So then avoid that tone in the future and the response won't be childish.
Quote:that and try to be more specific than "just read the article" when the article doesn't really support your ideas, or at least contains lots of data noting the opposite.
Quote:Hope this helps you for the future.:-)
You really have no idea do you?
You display a fair bit of willful lack of critical examination here on the discussion at had. You in turn change the topic to some babble about how it is my fault that I am a condescending guy. Whatever, that does not make much of a difference to me. I am frustrated about your throw away of various things in the thread.
You stated this to my example. Which is fair, but sort of underscores one problem I bring up. It is hard to say it is racist or not, as one could mask something potentially with another. Which is hard to figure out.
"Not sure if you can call this one racism. Cops do the same thing in my country. More poverty than race."
Fair enough. I mention a short blurb about the investigation into the area to which you respond
"really? How did they determine that? Do they not do this to poor whites? I think most districts have unofficial quotas. If cops arent giving out tickets it looks like they arent doing their jobs.
But I'll take your word on that (as I'm too lazy to check:-)"
Ok, again fair enough. Then after a bit you reach the following
"So what point would you give to counter Mr. Elders? I won't even ask you to back it up. What is your answer to "Give me an example of systemic racism?"
If you still want to."
Meaning you did not really consider anything I had said or glanced at the article. You do not have to, but I find this insulting if you ask, I provide something and then it is ignored. That bothers me alot.
You also make clear that anecdotal evidence is not acceptable and want some statistical evidence. Then go on to say that stats do not matter. During this, I point out the flaws in the nature of the data. This does not mean that everything is out the window but to be skeptical. I think I said as much.
You reply that he has statistics on his side. I point out somewhere in there as well that the numbers he is putting out there do not really prove in at least a few incidences what he thinks it is. For instance pointing. That he is making leaps of logic between two factoids that do not necessarily line up that way from the articles stated.
You keep asking for stats that support things, but accept at face value what the other guy is saying. My comments were mostly about being skeptical of individuals with ideological dogs in the fight. As cherry picking will happen. That is not controversial. You can tell that from the video. As he is calling out BLM, Obama and uniquely Democrats. This again does not make him wrong, but one should be skeptical.
Most based on your statement
"thats fine. But again, without stats in support of it, it really falls apart."
Meaning, everything I was saying and try to get across in terms of being cautious of bias was dismissed based on your initial assertions of the following
"I do feel there must be more to it that gut feelings and anecdotal evidence. But until it is demonstrated, I'll have to say Mr Elder has stats on his side. "
Which means, given that this was your conclusion throughout the thread until it broke down, that you were dismissing anything I linked to that reported numbers and tried to make some context of things.
You then say that the articles I link to do not provide statistics. Two of them did. The conclusion of one was that it is basically unclear at this point. The other had more statistics. However, if one is honest than it is hard to delve into things like intention.
From the counter point of view, we know from what is reported some things. Is there enough to say that police act in a racist manner? No idea, this is not my field. But I am trying to give you context at least. You pegged me into a corner regardless of what I provided you with. Basically saying it is not good enough.
The final article I linked to was specifically about institutional racism and had some numbers with it. It is not a literature review or anything, but at least gives a look. Again, dismissed because the whole thing went down the rabbit hole of police violence against minorities.
In sum total the only thing I said that to me is border line insulting would be the easily persuaded argument. However, given that you are willing to dismiss even my casual warnings out of hand about just believing numbers from somebody with a clear ideological dog in the fight, you dismissed it. Meaning, you were accepting the video pretty much by default.
Remember, this whole thing pretty much started with a discussion of institution racism. Which can include things like disproportionate arrest rates. Which is mentioned briefly in the BBC article I think. Why is that the case? Is institutional racism possible? Sure. Is it possible that African American's commit more crimes. Possibly. Is it possible that stereotyping is used by police departments at times? Seems at least plausible and likely. Is the later a form of racism or what have you? Yeah.
Numbers and statistics could be provided for each with rational. Does that make it ok?
I do not remember if it was this thread or not but I also note that police shootings are over sensationalized in addition to not all reported the same way. Meaning there are multiple kinds of bias in the numbers and analysis of them. Again, a reason to be skeptical of ideology. The level of reporting is likely disproportional to the acts.
However, we see videos of some instances where things are a bit disturbing. I do understand why people would be very upset. Statistics would not showcase that. Is perceived injustice or injustice limited by statistics? It seems like this is a numbers game. How much then is acceptable? Which way should the system error? How should individuals be held accountable if they are guilty?
Yes, I get frustrated when you ask for information and then keep falling back to a point that is flawed to begin with because somebody with an ideological dog in the fight is throwing out rapid fire numbers. This is a rhetorical tactic that is often used to make things harder in the first place. Or at least can be. I do not know if that is what he is going for but I have seen that used before in situations like this. One side shows up with loads of numbers against a non-technical expert and just beats them with it. It happens with climate change "skeptics" on news programs. Visually they come out looking good but that does not change that they just cherry picked and misrepresented many things.
I am honestly not sure if that is as clear here. But from my limited review, there is not a clear answer as of yet. So anybody claiming that there is, is somebody that should be questioned. Particularly one claiming that there is no basis for this stuff based on numbers. Which as I stated above are hard to relate to every situation. Nor would they excuse a given example in and of itself.
Does it seem to be as systemic a problem as some lead on. No, not from the articles I have seen, but that does not dismiss the instances where somebody dies for a minor offense. When there are reports of individuals not getting gunned down for similar or worse actions. Just in different economic or racial situations. From a law point of view, that one is still problematic.
I would have to delve deeper into what literature I can to see what way the field leans. As I am not convinced that many sources are non-ideological in the matter.
You annoyed me because of your attitude in this case. It very much comes off that you are asking to be shown counter points. Dismiss the points given as not sufficient and then ignore criticisms of your apparent over-reliance on statistics on an issue that is difficult to put numbers to in a meaningful way (cause and effect) from an ideological source and so on. Then change the subject to focusing on me.
For what it is worth, I think that enough studies do reach the conclusion about police shootings where at the least it is not clear or probably not racially motivated on a large scale. Meaning an exaggeration by political groups in areas. It still does not change much of what I laid out.
And going back to the start. Your original point was systemic racism. Of which I tried to give you some articles on. As they summarize it better than I would.
Look Raist bunnies...