Trump

[jdmee]

To be more concise:

If we look at all the traffic stops of blacks, and all the stops of whites, and pull 1 million random samples from each pool, and if each sample comes back with an equal number of folks getting shot by police (which is a stat some here are claiming to be true), then the left has been wildly missing the mark with much of their protesting in recent years, and blacks should not feel any less safe than whites when they see the flashing lights behind them.

It could even be taken one step further, how the interactions with the cops happen is an important part of the issue. If blacks are more likely to defy a cops requests and act in a more threatening manner than whites, and thus are shot by police more often then it is more to do with the interaction than the race.

[shockmonster]

It could even be taken one step further, how the interactions with the cops happen is an important part of the issue. If blacks are more likely to defy a cops requests and act in a more threatening manner than whites, and thus are shot by police more often then it is more to do with the interaction than the race.

There is also speculation that crime in the inter-cities is going up partially because police are not wanting to engage with the crime because if something happens, they are already being branded racist and blamed regardless of what happens (or the facts appear to be). Who knows for certain, because it's almost impossible to KNOW the motives of the situation. Those police want to go home to their families as much as you, I or jdshock does.

[wufan]

Your second sentence doesn't follow from your first. Yes, intersectionality is interested in systemic oppression. I mean, that's kind of the point. It looks at how different people might experience prejudice in different ways.

I don't believe there is anything about value being placed on "an experience as viewed by the oppressed." Admittedly, there's a great deal of weight given to subjective experiences in terms of describing prejudice. But that, also, is kind of the point. A white male has a different experience from a black female has a different experience from an Asian male with physical disabilities. It's helpful to hear perspectives from other points of view. I'd do a really bad job describing the experience of a black female growing up in a big city.

Intersectionality frames all interactions and all institutions within the context of bias/predjudice/oppression. It is the starting point of the discussion. In what way does this person's group experience make (unconscious microagression warning) HIM the victim or oppressor?

Here's an article from the inventor of white fragility that says, "I was taught to treat everyone the same. I think that’s probably the number one white racial narrative. But that’s not actually humanly possible. We make meaning of the world through the cultural framework we were socialized to make meaning of it through. And it’s infused with biases and assumptions." http://crosscut.com/2017/04/white-fr...diangelo-race/

That's intersectionality. It says white people are bias and don't understand.

Here's a gal that, according to her bio is, "writing at the edge of intersection." She's sick of all the "whitesplaining." https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/ma...-need-to-stop/

Under intersectionality, the framework/cause is oppression and the answers come from the oppressed. The answers should come from the most deserving regardless of group. Humans DO have empathy. It's real. Empathy is what allows understanding without experience. It's what gives value to all human opinions.

Even you stated that there is "a great deal of weight given to subject experience". Weight and value are the same.

[wufan]

I do not understand why intersectionality is involved in the discussion at this point. You either believe black people face prejudice in society or you don't, but you do not have to subscribe to intersectionality to believe that. In fact, intersectionality was created with the intent of getting rid of phrases like "white people oppress black people" because other characteristics can help inform discussions of oppression.

"This framework, it is argued, can be used to understand how systemic injustice and social inequality occur on a multidimensional basis.[3] Intersectionality holds that the classical conceptualizations of oppression within society—such as racism, misogyny, classism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and belief-based bigotry—do not act independently of each other. Instead, these forms of oppression interrelate, creating a system of oppression that reflects the "intersection" of multiple forms of discrimination."

Using intersectionality framework to word the question: "why did that racist cop shoot that oppressed person?" The framework of intersectionality answers every question with "because oppression". Certainly you don't need intersectionality to believe that racism exists, but if you ascribe to intersectionality, then the conclusion to any bi-racial interaction is "because racism".

[wufan]

This sentence suggests the fact that someone was shot by a cop is evidence that they were a criminal resisting arrest. That specifically cannot be evidence of that fact. If a cop is accused of wrongfully shooting someone, you don't get to respond "but, he was shot... so obviously he did something wrong."

The statistics show that black people are much more likely to get shot by cops than white people. If you're right about the premise behind natural law, then that means you can't accept that the cause of these statistics should be investigated.

I used that sentenance as a specific example of a problem with Natural Law. Natural Law assumes that good decisions result in good ends and that bad decisions are met with justice. You picked up on it.

As to the stats; stating that more whites are killed by cops than blacks is clearly insufficient do to population differences. Why though would anyone stop at group size without looking at opportunity? The argument against using shear numbers is specifically that whites are killed more often due to more opportunity. When you look at opportunity, the shootings occur at a statistically insignificant difference. That is the opposite of a racial incidence, and would be one item that would discredit intersectionality with regards to "a framework of institutionalize do oppression."

[Aargh]

Trump had a great day. MSM was totally focused on OJ.

[BOBB]

Trump had a great day. MSM was totally focused on OJ.

I turned on the news and all 24-hour channels were on the hearing. I thought I was having deja vu from 1995. I was looking for Kato.

[WstateU]

[jdshock]

But clearly this distinction matters greatly. Are the interactions more dangerous, or are they simply more numerous? Either way, there might be a problem, but they would be totally different problems.

If the numbers say that "blacks get shot at a higher rate than whites, per interaction", then yes, the problem is likely cops with a preconceived notion that blacks are more dangerous, and thus, a little quicker trigger finger any time a black person is involved.

If the numbers say this is purely a "more interactions, more shootings" issue, then the argument the left is always making about how fearful blacks are (and supposedly should) be when they get pulled over is baseless. Given these numbers, once pulled over, a black or white person has the EXACT SAME statistical chance of being shot.

I'm not claiming to have any special insight on what the actual statistics are. I'm happy to read new statistics as they become available. I'm just saying that these two different baselines lead to significantly different conclusions. If the stats say this is an interactions issue, maybe we need to evaluate why blacks have more interactions, and whether there is some racism leading to a higher interaction rate. However, in that case, all the screaming from the left about how cops "shot him because he was black... wouldn't if he were white" would not be backed by the numbers.

I see what you're saying, but I think there at least needs to be some recognition that you dilute the number of stops with this methodology.

For example, let's assume a perfectly racist society: white people are only ever stopped for legitimate reasons and shot at some X% per stop. Black people are only ever stopped for illegitimate reasons and are shot at the same X% per stop.

A black person in this society would justifiably be wary of cops since 0% of the police shootings would be "justified." Now, that's obviously not anywhere close to our present society, and I think you make a valid point. I just also think if what you're testing is "Are cops discriminating against black people in the amount of police shootings?" it doesn't make that much sense to dilute the denominator with what--under the scenario you're testing--would be additionally racist stops.

But... this isn't really a police shootings argument. I'm literally just defending intersectionality as a theory. I put forth the numbers--which everyone agrees with--that a larger percentage of black people are shot by police officers than white people are shot by police officers. Someone else said those numbers don't tell the whole story. I posted another source stating that violent crime doesn't explain the disparity, etc. That source got called biased (despite posting their full dataset on the very website I linked to). No one, as far as I can tell, has posted new data suggesting that per stop is identical. Like I said, I have a problem with that methodology, but someone should at least post the stat if everyone is going to defend it.

[jdshock]

Intersectionality frames all interactions and all institutions within the context of bias/predjudice/oppression. It is the starting point of the discussion. In what way does this person's group experience make (unconscious microagression warning) HIM the victim or oppressor?

Here's an article from the inventor of white fragility that says, "I was taught to treat everyone the same. I think that’s probably the number one white racial narrative. But that’s not actually humanly possible. We make meaning of the world through the cultural framework we were socialized to make meaning of it through. And it’s infused with biases and assumptions." http://crosscut.com/2017/04/white-fr...diangelo-race/

That's intersectionality. It says white people are bias and don't understand.

Here's a gal that, according to her bio is, "writing at the edge of intersection." She's sick of all the "whitesplaining." https://thebodyisnotanapology.com/ma...-need-to-stop/

Under intersectionality, the framework/cause is oppression and the answers come from the oppressed. The answers should come from the most deserving regardless of group. Humans DO have empathy. It's real. Empathy is what allows understanding without experience. It's what gives value to all human opinions.

Even you stated that there is "a great deal of weight given to subject experience". Weight and value are the same.

We obviously disagree on huge portions of this, and we're not really going to get to a resolution.

Most fundamentally, though, we disagree on the definition of the word intersectionality. Intersectionality is not "white people are biased and don't understand." Even the portion you quote is not intersectionality.

Later in the article, she says

I do want to add that because I grew up poor, I had a very deep sense of shame and otherness growing up. And I could have told you all about it, and I’m female and I could just tell you all the ways that I had never had an advantage. But I had never looked at how, where in my life did I have an advantage? And where might I have been actually benefiting from the oppression of somebody else?

That is intersectionality. I believe it is only related at the fringe (as in, they both discuss prejudice, power, etc.) to what you're proposing.

[jdmee]

I see what you're saying, but I think there at least needs to be some recognition that you dilute the number of stops with this methodology.

For example, let's assume a perfectly racist society: white people are only ever stopped for legitimate reasons and shot at some X% per stop. Black people are only ever stopped for illegitimate reasons and are shot at the same X% per stop.

A black person in this society would justifiably be wary of cops since 0% of the police shootings would be "justified." Now, that's obviously not anywhere close to our present society, and I think you make a valid point. I just also think if what you're testing is "Are cops discriminating against black people in the amount of police shootings?" it doesn't make that much sense to dilute the denominator with what--under the scenario you're testing--would be additionally racist stops.

But... this isn't really a police shootings argument. I'm literally just defending intersectionality as a theory. I put forth the numbers--which everyone agrees with--that a larger percentage of black people are shot by police officers than white people are shot by police officers. Someone else said those numbers don't tell the whole story. I posted another source stating that violent crime doesn't explain the disparity, etc. That source got called biased (despite posting their full dataset on the very website I linked to). No one, as far as I can tell, has posted new data suggesting that per stop is identical. Like I said, I have a problem with that methodology, but someone should at least post the stat if everyone is going to defend it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.html

A new study confirms that black men and women are treated differently in the hands of law enforcement. They are more likely to be touched, handcuffed, pushed to the ground or pepper-sprayed by a police officer, even after accounting for how, where and when they encounter the police.

But when it comes to the most lethal form of force — police shootings — the study finds no racial bias.

In shootings in these 10 cities involving officers, officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.

The study does talk about other uses of force and blacks being targeted more than whites.

Moreover, the results do not mean that the general public’s perception of racism in policing is misguided. Lethal uses of force are exceedingly rare. There were 1.6 million arrests in Houston in the years Mr. Fryer studied. Officers fired their weapons 507 times. What is far more common are nonlethal uses of force.

And in these uses of force, Mr. Fryer found racial differences, which is in accord with public perception and other studies.

In New York City, blacks stopped by the police were about 17 percent more likely to experience use of force, according to stop-and-frisk records kept between 2003 and 2013. (In the later year, a judge ruled that the tactic as employed then was unconstitutional.)

[jdmee]

For example, let's assume a perfectly racist society: white people are only ever stopped for legitimate reasons and shot at some X% per stop. Black people are only ever stopped for illegitimate reasons and are shot at the same X% per stop.

A black person in this society would justifiably be wary of cops since 0% of the police shootings would be "justified."

I disagree with your logic at this point. 0% of the black stops would be justified but that does not mean that 0% of the shootings were justified. i.e. If I am pulled over for no reason and shoot at the cop, the cop shooting back is justified.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

@jdshock, I appreciated your overall post, and I agree that the police shootings topic is a bit of a rabbit trail.

Just one comment that I wanted to address though:

I just also think if what you're testing is "Are cops discriminating against black people in the amount of police shootings?" it doesn't make that much sense to dilute the denominator with what--under the scenario you're testing--would be additionally racist stops.

Black people having more interactions with cops does not *necessarily* mean the cops are racist. It could mean that, but it also might not. This is a very complex issue, and as you have mentioned, we could use some more good data. But with that said, I don't think a hypothetical is without value here. IF, and yes, that is a big IF, the higher rate of interactions was explainable outside of racism, then yes, the rate of shootings *per interaction* would be exponentially more valuable than the raw rate of blacks getting shot.

I think a good case could be made that blacks commit more crimes and are poorer (on average) than whites because we are still feeling the effects of white on black racism from decades, even centuries, ago. Inner cities being largely poor and black has nothing to do with genetics. Yet it is reality, and it is not surprising, rather, I'd say it would actually be expected, based on everything we know about demographics, wealth, living conditions, etc., to expect that there would be a higher rate of *justified* police interactions with blacks than with whites.

Personally, I think it is a little bit of both. I think racism still exists (though it fades more and more each decade). I also think police face more legitimate need to interact at a higher rate with blacks. I think both of these factor into the higher rate of shootings. The problem is less than what BLM claims it to be, but more than what those who wrongly claim racism is extinct might think.

[shockfan89_]

Jdmee - Thanks for posting. These studies are pretty much common knowledge and anyone that takes a real look at the data will quickly determine there is little basis for the BLM argument. They take one stat that on the surface supports their theory and they run with it.

jdshock - Sorry for taking the page on a tangent. I just saw the 2 1/2 times stat that is over-reported and used to further the BLM lies. In reality, a black person is more likely to die from falling down the stairs than they are from being killed by a police officer (if they are unarmed). There is absolutely no reason for any parent to have their top concern when their child leaves the house that they are going to be shot by police for the color of their skin. There may be a concern if you child is breaking the law, resisting arrest, or gets in armed confrontation with police, but that seems pretty avoidable.

I am not one that loves police or thinks they do no wrong, in fact, I am pretty critical of police most of the time and think they escalate things and like to prove they are in charge regardless of the law. With that being said, I think they have a very difficult job, made even more difficult by the reckless statements of our previous President, and I think we need to focus on facts rather than emotion.

[pinstripers]

http://ijr.com/2017/07/925756-rand-paul-trumps-presidency-wake-every-day-say-hillary-clinton/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Owned&utm_term=ijamerica&utm_campaign=ods&utm_content=Politics

back to Trump