By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - BLM, police bias and what information to trust. Analysis by Zac Kriegman

RolStoppable said:
sundin13 said:

Is this satire?

No, it's not. Kriegman's appendix is first and foremost about explaining how to read statistics correctly when an actual bias against a specific race actually exists.

In the example you cited in your previous post, you said that violent crime reduced by 23% between the two timeframes you compared, but at the same time there was a 24% increase in the police killings of black people. What your numbers also show is that there was a 26% increase in police killings of white people, so these statistics do not support a claim that the police has been singling out black people specifically, but rather that police violence as a whole has increased regardless of the race they are dealing with (all groups are up by at least 10%). In other words, there's a general police problem, not a race-specific one. So the example you provided does not contradict Kriegman's article, but rather reinforces his findings.

Given how complex the subject here is, it's important that we all are on the same page regarding what Kriegman has been arguing. This is not about whether or not police reform is necessary, it's about whether or not the claims of BLM and its strong supporters are actually valid, that the police specifically targets the black population and is out for the demise of blacks. It's about the effects that the BLM movement has had, and the resulting reduction in proactive policing specifically in districts with high black populations has led to notably higher rates of homicides.

The error I see in BLM is that it tends to brush the whole police force with the same stroke instead of focusing on the bad apples. This must be why even the good police officers begin to hesitate to continue to do their job in pre-dominantly black communities, because too many people begin to view any police officer as an enemy and it becomes an incredibly ungrateful job. The lower presence of police force naturally invites more crime to occur in the affected districts.

The core idea of BLM may be good, but the way they go about may not bring good results. I think that's the entire point here. Police reform and work against systemic racism - such as the topic of the war against drugs which has resulted in many fatherless black families and creates a weak foundation for good and honest lives since generations - are issues that need to be tackled, but BLM at its core strikes me as a movement that divides rather than unites due to its hyperbole. As such, it would be more beneficial to address the problems without carrying the BLM banner.

Of course, as the timeframe between Ferguson and Minneapolis shows, doing nothing regarding police reform cannot be the answer. Ideally, a movement like BLM shouldn't exist, but as long as the people in charge keep doing nothing about police violence, a movement like BLM will be necessary to remind everyone that there's still a big problem in the USA. I am aware that the typical opponents of the BLM movement would like to see the problem solved by simply striking the movement down, but it should be clear that that is not my stance. Rather BLM will disband on its own once good police reform has taken place, because BLM is a consequence of police violence.

The stat to look at if you wish to see if police killings of black individuals is higher than the police killings of white individuals would be the mortality between races, not the mortality over time. You'll notice the mortality for black individuals is roughly 3 times higher than the mortality for white individuals in that chart. I'm not sure why you would use the change over time to try to make that distinction. I don't think anyone would try to argue that police bias didn't exist twenty years ago.

Again, it is a question of ensuring the data is fit to the argument. 

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure what to say about it. You say that BLM is wrong, but then you spend several paragraphs explaining why they are right. 

pokoko said:

The entire premise of BLM--that black lives "matter" less than other lives--is flawed. That it's presented as some kind of absolute truth is just another example that liberal media is just as garbage as conservative media, only more dangerous because it's more wide-reaching and insidious.

The truth is that poverty is the most meaningful factor in determining if someone "matters". The liberal media itself is a good example of this, as they wouldn't run a story on a poor white person being shot by the police if it happened right outside their own studios. The ratio for a poor white person being shot by police jumps dramatically above the average. Why are poor white people included together with well-off suburbanites? Why is this not even mentioned by the media?

It really should be a multi-ethnic economic issue but literals hate to acknowledge that poor white people even exist because it undercuts their rhetoric. Burn in hell, Bernie Sanders.

If the truth is "that poverty is the most meaningful factor in determining if someone 'matters'", should it not be noted that the history of the United States is largely a history of fighting to keep minorities impoverished?



Around the Network

"There are many more whites killed by police, even though whites account for a similar absolute number of violent offenders.  Thus, if the number of potentially violent encounters with police reflects the violent crime rates, then the raw statistics suggest that there is actually a slight anti-white bias in police applications of lethal force."

The problem with one off conclusions from data like these is that they never address the issue that a lot of crimes committed by white people are removed from the statistic of "violent crime." Either because they are not considered "violent crimes" or because said white people are socially protected and never are actually charged. For example, the biggest form of theft in the United States is not robberies, or even larcenies, but wage theft. Yet robberies and larcenies are policed far more often than wage-theft, which at most is enforced through fines or just totally disregarded in states with especially labor-unfriendly labor departments. 

When was the last time you've seen police go arrest a boss for stealing from his employees, even if he might have stolen more than they could ever steal? 

Yet whenever you see the mobs looting Walmart (one of the biggest thieves in this country), you'll have the reactionary right coming out cheering for the larcenists to be shot. 

One might argue "wage theft isn't a violent crime", but if I personally were to attempt to get my wages that were stolen because the institutions of law enforcement don't enforce my right to have what I earned, then I almost would certainly be met with violence, even though just like the property owner or multinational corporation I am defending my ostensible "right to property." Furthermore, not only would I be met with violence from the thief, but also from the state on the thief's behalf.  

Once you account for the selection bias that exists in the laws as well as the data-collection, it becomes much less clear that black persons are responsible for the same level of violence as white persons, in absolute terms. Sure this might be true of "violent crimes" but the category is quite arbitrary, indeed. This becomes even murkier when the U.S Department of Justice and other organizations pack drug crimes with violent crimes.

See, for example: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/drug-and-violent-crime

The problem with this is that drug laws are almost always and have almost always been enforced on the poor, who obviously are disproportionately BIPOC. And if drug crimes should be included with violent crimes, then I'd love to see wage-theft being coupled with them too. Oh wait, the violent actor in that scenario is mostly the state and its law-enforcement agents? Yeah, fat chance. 

"It’s worth taking a moment to put these numbers in perspective:

  • 18 unarmed blacks shot by police annually

  • 26 unarmed whites shot by police annually

  • 2500 (at least, but possibly well over 10,000) additional murders—mostly black—as a result of the de-policing prompted by BLM falsehoods

  • 8000 blacks murdered by criminals annually

It would take roughly 140 years for police to shoot as many unarmed black people as have been murdered as a result of BLM falsehoods in just the past few years."

Right because de-policing was caused by "BLM falsehoods", and not the fact that during the large-scale labor shortage and precarities of the pandemic, police found better jobs that paid more and gave less stress. And note, not stress caused by BLM, but stress induced by the gang mentality that prevents the so-called "good cops" from policing the so-called "bad apples" in these forces, stress caused by low compensation, stress caused by being overworked, etc. Anyway, if BLM is the cause of de-policing what has largely become a federation of police-states responsible for the criminalization of the population of what is considered "the freest country in the world", then I am quite happy for BLM's existence. I don't see mass policing and mass criminalization as freedom. It is bizarre to me that some people do. 

Last edited by sc94597 - on 21 February 2022

pokoko said:

The entire premise of BLM--that black lives "matter" less than other lives--is flawed.  

When has this ever been the premise behind BLM? I'm talking as a movement (we're separating the message from the media).



                                                                                                                                                           

faustian.empire said:
CGI-Quality said:

Because you're crossing lines now, I'd like a detailed explanation of this history you speak of. Then I'd also like for you to explain how the African American community "would love to become the ruling class"? Based on what? When has BLM ever expressed such a desire?

Because you're crossing lines now, I'd like a detailed explanation of this history you speak of.

ok,my bad.I will be more vigilant from now on.

About the History,Culture for different Religions,Ethnic groups,Racial groups differ in a country and around the world.You can see this in different Social norms,Religion,Wealth,etc.

Because of the Income Gaps between the White and Black Community and also divorces and Fatherless upbringing of children in the Black Community,the Children are not brought up with the right values which leads to drugs,gangs,unemployment,violence,etc - This would happen to any community going through these afflictions.Which is what builds the reputation of the community.The Stereotype reinforces itself and follows a negative loop

A similar situation can be seen in the middle east where,Terrorism leads to even more terrorism.Which built the reputation of the Middle East as an unsafe place.

Then I'd also like for you to explain how the African American community "would love to become the ruling class"? Based on what?

Well in Sociology relating to a multi-religious,multi-ethnic,multi-racial society.

There is always a fight between groups as to who will dominate.No multl-cultural society ever is EQUAL in history.there is always one group dominating the other group.

In America,White Europeans are the Ruling Class no matter what anybody says that it is an equal country for everyone.

According to Sociology,there can never be equality.

So in America,it can be either White dominating Hispanics and blacks,or the other way around.

You did not fulfill the major request. What historical event(s) within African American community justify the many police interactions with them? In regard to what statistics (and then how it compares to statistics with other races)? I'm not asking as a user, I'm asking as a moderator. Your posts are obviously offensive and to potentially avoid action taken against you, I need answers on how these things have justifications. What is the history, in the United States, regarding African Americans, in a nutshell.

That second part is also just a guess. Without another party having said "power", you will never know which side wants what. So, there is no point in making absolute statements based on "but one side has it, so all sides would want it". Beyond that, the United States is comprised of more than Black, Hispanic, and White.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 21 February 2022

                                                                                                                                                           

I view BLM as an overall positive movement due to bringing more awareness of police brutality, along with resulting in some real-world changes due to it.



Around the Network
CGI-Quality said:
pokoko said:

The entire premise of BLM--that black lives "matter" less than other lives--is flawed.  

When has this ever been the premise behind BLM? I'm talking as a movement (we're separating the message from the media).

I think that statement is accurate albeit poorly worded.

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is a protest or rebuttal against the idea that black lives are not treated as equally valuable in our society. It is to say "Society places less value on black lives, and we wish to fight against this". 

As for whether or not this is accurate assessment depends in part on the metrics you use to make that call, but through my experiences, it seems to be at least somewhat accurate. 



sundin13 said:
CGI-Quality said:

When has this ever been the premise behind BLM? I'm talking as a movement (we're separating the message from the media).

I think that statement is accurate albeit poorly worded.

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is a protest or rebuttal against the idea that black lives are not treated as equally valuable in our society. It is to say "Society places less value on black lives, and we wish to fight against this". 

As for whether or not this is accurate assessment depends in part on the metrics you use to make that call, but through my experiences, it seems to be at least somewhat accurate. 

BLM, as I understand it, is a black lives matter, too instead of black lives matter less theme. It's to cover the idea that, while black lives have mattered less (in the eyes of police interactions and other racially unequal truths), the movement to the forefront of consciousness is simply to state: "hey, we're humans too". 

Therefore, I take the premise of BLM as not that their lives matter less, but also. Yes, the historical piece is the idea that African Americans have seen inequality as a result of their race for many, many years, but they're taking a stand on it by stating: "all lives cannot matter until our lives matter as well". Thus, its birth as a result of the acquittal of George Zimmerman.

Last edited by CGI-Quality - on 21 February 2022

                                                                                                                                                           

CGI-Quality said:
sundin13 said:

I think that statement is accurate albeit poorly worded.

The phrase "Black Lives Matter" is a protest or rebuttal against the idea that black lives are not treated as equally valuable in our society. It is to say "Society places less value on black lives, and we wish to fight against this". 

As for whether or not this is accurate assessment depends in part on the metrics you use to make that call, but through my experiences, it seems to be at least somewhat accurate. 

BLM, as I understand it, is a black lives matter, too instead of black lives matter less theme. It's to cover the idea that, while black lives have mattered less (in the eyes of police interactions and other racially unequal truths), the movement to the forefront of consciousness is simply to state: "hey, we're humans too". 

Therefore, I take the premise of BLM as not that their lives matter less, but also. Yes, the historical piece is the idea that African Americans have seen inequality as a result of their race for many, many years, but they're taking a stand on it by stating: "all lives cannot matter until our lives matter as well". Thus, its birth as a result of the acquittal of George Zimmerman.

I feel like the distinction is largely a semantic one. 



sundin13 said:

The stat to look at if you wish to see if police killings of black individuals is higher than the police killings of white individuals would be the mortality between races, not the mortality over time. You'll notice the mortality for black individuals is roughly 3 times higher than the mortality for white individuals in that chart. I'm not sure why you would use the change over time to try to make that distinction. I don't think anyone would try to argue that police bias didn't exist twenty years ago.

Again, it is a question of ensuring the data is fit to the argument. 

As for the rest of your post, I'm not really sure what to say about it. You say that BLM is wrong, but then you spend several paragraphs explaining why they are right. 

I've only taken a quick look at the link you provided, but an important factor seem to be estimates as the study claims that around half of the crimes have been underreported or wrongly categorized or whatever. I guess this fits with the American thing of doing race classifications, so there are basically systems in place to fudge statistics in order to muddle or hide the truth.

Still, your study uses per capita figures for its mortality rates and when the same method is applied to crime incidents, then involvement of black people should also be around three times higher per capita than it is for white people. Or isn't that the case?

As for the rest of my previous post, I don't see what's hard to understand about the world not being binary. Just because BLM is wrong about police being out for the demise of black citizens doesn't mean that police violence hasn't gone overboard. All races have been affected by increasing police violence and killings. I think the reason why blacks specifically are so vocal about it while other races are not, is because they tend to be more disadvantaged than other races in other areas. Poverty is a main driver of losing faith in authorities or to distrust them to begin with.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Shipments

RolStoppable said:

Still, your study uses per capita figures for its mortality rates and when the same method is applied to crime incidents, then involvement of black people should also be around three times higher per capita than it is for white people. Or isn't that the case?

My post was literally a response to that idea.

tl;dr: If you only look at violent crime rates by race, you may be led to the assumption that this is a good alternate explanation of racially disparate police violence, however this fails to be a robust hypothesis because it does not correlate well as soon as you start breaking down the data (for example by comparing levels of police violence to historical violent crime rates).