5 ms·

What are the verifiable facts again? Do you have alternative statistics because they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying. T

What are the verifiable facts again? Do you have alternative statistics because they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying. The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. I hate to be stone cold but that's my understanding of what unfolded. We witnessed something similar in 2015.

me_me_me 6y ago
> they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view
- trident5000 6y ago
  "You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s" what is the context of this joke Im not following. I stated a fact (FBI statistics) and then an opinion. Are we allowed to do that on the internet?
  - hanniabu 6y ago
    The context of that joke is that you, just like him, stated a claim with no source.
    - me_me_me 6y ago
      Don't waste your time, stuff like that goes over their head and they never see the irony :)
dylan-m 6y ago
I should add a caveat around "the BLM movement is about." One of its problems (like many progressive movements) is everyone has a different idea what it is about, and the mainstream media does not help with that in the slightest. So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true. There are no statistics to worry about for that one and there don't need to be: just look at a handful of publicized cases and be angry. But of course, people do like statistics. You can't be angry without statistics. (Truly, you shouldn't. It's unhealthy). Also, that framework makes a terrible export. (Which is unfortunate because Canada loves importing protests from the States instead of making its own). So, various other progressive movements globbed on to the name, as they do, but fortunately it's a more visceral thing than, say, Occupy Wall Street, so they are at least mostly on topic. I think the real problem, which is the source of most of the recent anger (see the equally badly named and easily co-opted slogan "Defund the police"), is that police are killing a lot of people for stupid reasons. It is still important to emphasize that black lives matter, because they do, and it's infuriating that that makes people uncomfortable. But the root cause is the United States has an unreasonable approach to policing in general, which creates as many problems as it solves. And I think if you talk to most BLM supporters, they aren't going to tell you about racial sensitivity training or hiring more black cops: they're going to tell you how the police in a developed country shouldn't act as if they're expecting a war.
- vimy 6y ago
  >So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true. Is it though? Seems to me you're advocating feelings matter more than facts. I believe it would be more accurate to say "police in the United States are killing people for stupid reasons, which is true." while keeping in mind that those incidents are the exception, not the norm. >This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_anal... >We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings. https://archive.is/Xppla https://archive.is/Xppla >In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. https://archive.is/MIoYJ https://archive.is/MIoYJ
nitwit005 6y ago
> The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. So, Trump was behind it, so he could run on a law and order platform? Because he certainly did take advantage of it. I'm afraid the boring truth was that ordinary people got angry during a time of high unemployment, with protests and rioting being a predictable result. It's not as though large protests over police shootings are new.
nonce42 6y ago
> The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election I noticed that that the BLM protests happened a few months before the 2016 election and then vanished. Then the same thing happened before the 2020 election. To make this quantitative, here's a Google Trends link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&gprop=news&q=black%20lives%20matter https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...
- germinalphrase 6y ago
  To be specific, the data shows Google search interest - not number of protest events. Protests are not necessarily “newsworthy”; however, that search interest would track media stirring up news before elections seems likely. Further, (and I say this as a Minneapolitan) the significant protests of this summer were very clearly and obviously precipitated by real world events, not astroturfed protest crowds.
  - philwelch 6y ago
    One question is why and how certain specific real-world events go viral and others get memory-holed. I would surmise that a lot of the protests this summer were, emotionally, a consequence of the stress, economic uncertainty, and way-too-online cabin fever of the early stages of the COVID epidemic.
    - trident5000 6y ago
      You wouldnt believe how sophisticated the firms are that the dem party hires. They have their own versions of Cambridge Analytica which are more than capable of amplifying messages.
      - philwelch 6y ago
        I'd believe it. It would certainly explain a lot.

me_me_me 6y ago

> they're actually on the FBI website and contradict everything you're saying You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s When you make a claim put some effort into it, instead of hearsay. And made up statements to support your point of view

trident5000 6y ago
"You are actually on CIA website marked as terrorist. \s" what is the context of this joke Im not following. I stated a fact (FBI statistics) and then an opinion. Are we allowed to do that on the internet?
- hanniabu 6y ago
  The context of that joke is that you, just like him, stated a claim with no source.
  - me_me_me 6y ago
    Don't waste your time, stuff like that goes over their head and they never see the irony :)

dylan-m 6y ago

I should add a caveat around "the BLM movement is about." One of its problems (like many progressive movements) is everyone has a different idea what it is about, and the mainstream media does not help with that in the slightest. So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true. There are no statistics to worry about for that one and there don't need to be: just look at a handful of publicized cases and be angry. But of course, people do like statistics. You can't be angry without statistics. (Truly, you shouldn't. It's unhealthy). Also, that framework makes a terrible export. (Which is unfortunate because Canada loves importing protests from the States instead of making its own). So, various other progressive movements globbed on to the name, as they do, but fortunately it's a more visceral thing than, say, Occupy Wall Street, so they are at least mostly on topic. I think the real problem, which is the source of most of the recent anger (see the equally badly named and easily co-opted slogan "Defund the police"), is that police are killing a lot of people for stupid reasons. It is still important to emphasize that black lives matter, because they do, and it's infuriating that that makes people uncomfortable. But the root cause is the United States has an unreasonable approach to policing in general, which creates as many problems as it solves. And I think if you talk to most BLM supporters, they aren't going to tell you about racial sensitivity training or hiring more black cops: they're going to tell you how the police in a developed country shouldn't act as if they're expecting a war.

vimy 6y ago
>So, the original idea there is police in the United States are killing black people for stupid reasons, which is true. Is it though? Seems to me you're advocating feelings matter more than facts. I believe it would be more accurate to say "police in the United States are killing people for stupid reasons, which is true." while keeping in mind that those incidents are the exception, not the norm. >This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force, blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities. On the most extreme use of force – officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account. https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_anal... >We create a comprehensive database of officers involved in fatal shootings during 2015 and predict victim race from civilian, officer, and county characteristics. We find no evidence of anti-Black or anti-Hispanic disparities across shootings, and White officers are not more likely to shoot minority civilians than non-White officers. Instead, race-specific crime strongly predicts civilian race. This suggests that increasing diversity among officers by itself is unlikely to reduce racial disparity in police shootings. https://archive.is/Xppla https://archive.is/Xppla >In 2019 police officers fatally shot 1,004 people, most of whom were armed or otherwise dangerous. African-Americans were about a quarter of those killed by cops last year (235), a ratio that has remained stable since 2015. That share of black victims is less than what the black crime rate would predict, since police shootings are a function of how often officers encounter armed and violent suspects. In 2018, the latest year for which such data have been published, African-Americans made up 53% of known homicide offenders in the U.S. and commit about 60% of robberies, though they are 13% of the population. The police fatally shot nine unarmed blacks and 19 unarmed whites in 2019, according to a Washington Post database, down from 38 and 32, respectively, in 2015. The Post defines “unarmed” broadly to include such cases as a suspect in Newark, N.J., who had a loaded handgun in his car during a police chase. In 2018 there were 7,407 black homicide victims. Assuming a comparable number of victims last year, those nine unarmed black victims of police shootings represent 0.1% of all African-Americans killed in 2019. By contrast, a police officer is 18½ times more likely to be killed by a black male than an unarmed black male is to be killed by a police officer. https://archive.is/MIoYJ https://archive.is/MIoYJ

nitwit005 6y ago

> The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election via amplification of convenient (and unfortunate/terrible) imagery to turn out voters. So, Trump was behind it, so he could run on a law and order platform? Because he certainly did take advantage of it. I'm afraid the boring truth was that ordinary people got angry during a time of high unemployment, with protests and rioting being a predictable result. It's not as though large protests over police shootings are new.

nonce42 6y ago

> The riots were most likely political AstroTurf before an election I noticed that that the BLM protests happened a few months before the 2016 election and then vanished. Then the same thing happened before the 2020 election. To make this quantitative, here's a Google Trends link: https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&geo=US&gprop=news&q=black%20lives%20matter https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

germinalphrase 6y ago
To be specific, the data shows Google search interest - not number of protest events. Protests are not necessarily “newsworthy”; however, that search interest would track media stirring up news before elections seems likely. Further, (and I say this as a Minneapolitan) the significant protests of this summer were very clearly and obviously precipitated by real world events, not astroturfed protest crowds.
- philwelch 6y ago
  One question is why and how certain specific real-world events go viral and others get memory-holed. I would surmise that a lot of the protests this summer were, emotionally, a consequence of the stress, economic uncertainty, and way-too-online cabin fever of the early stages of the COVID epidemic.
  - trident5000 6y ago
    You wouldnt believe how sophisticated the firms are that the dem party hires. They have their own versions of Cambridge Analytica which are more than capable of amplifying messages.
    - philwelch 6y ago
      I'd believe it. It would certainly explain a lot.