NFL Disrespect.

Giant Reid

Billy86 wrote: »

There's a lot more than just committing more crime or not which have been talked about in quite a bit of depth in this thread. Black and white men in the US take drugs at similar levels yet black men are arrested much more often, on around a 3.5:1 ratio.

Probably because they live in poorer more crime ridden areas where cops are keeping a closer eye on them or again the issue more black men commit violent crimes causes a bias to occur with cops as they see them as more of a threat in general.

Poverty is the root of the whole problem, solve the issue of there being a disproportionate amount of black people living in poverty and everything will will flow upwards from there.Of course the problem is Americans despise poor people, don't like socialism or any politics like socialism so as a result you're always going to be very hard to solve the problem.

Outlaw Pete

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Haha... Your logic is wonderful.

Oh that ain't my logic, that's 'Black Lives Matter logic™'.

Was at Chris Rock tonight and he had a whole segment on Police Brutality in America. Said he wishes just once the Police would shoot one white youth, just ONCE, to make it make look like it wasn't all race fueled murdering. Lots of predictable whooping and applause. Then said it would be great if for a change there were white folks burying someone shot by the Police. More applause, only a little more muted thankfully.

Oh I know, he's just a comedian, it's just a routine, don't take it so serious etc etc.. but that just misses the point, tbf, which is that the public are swallowing this crap, they believe the false narrative being set by those with an agenda.

Sweetemotion

Billy86 wrote: »

No straw men there, if they're claiming the boos are for disrespecting the anthem then why are they booing a team that went out of their way to carry on standing for the anthem as they usually would?

They were booed for thinking their fans were stupid enough too believe. Hey if we kneel before the anthem to show solidarity with those who kneel during it. Maybe we can say it isn't about the anthem.

The fans weren't as stupid as they thought and booed for the hypocrisy they saw.

Sweetemotion

Billy86 wrote: »

There's a lot more than just committing more crime or not which have been talked about in quite a bit of depth in this thread. Black and white men in the US take drugs at similar levels yet black men are arrested much more often, on around a 3.5:1 ratio.

I am shocked those committing more crimes are caught with more drugs than those who are not. :eek:

WinnyThePoo

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Oh that ain't my logic, that's 'Black Lives Matter logic™'.

Was at Chris Rock tonight and he had a whole segment on Police Brutality in America. Said he wishes just once the Police would shoot one white youth, just ONCE, to make it make look like it wasn't all race fueled murdering. Lots of predictable whooping and applause. Then said it would be great if for a change there were white folks burying someone shot by the Police. More applause, only a little more muted thankfully.

Oh I know, he's just a comedian, it's just a routine, don't take it so serious etc etc.. but that just misses the point, tbf, which is that the public are swallowing this crap, they believe the false narrative being set by those with an agenda.

Nope it certainly is. If your offended by what Chris Rock said, maybe you could ask for a refund or something...

Sweetemotion

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Nope it certainly is. If your offended by what Chris Rock said, maybe you could ask for a refund or something...

Statistics and facts trump feelz.

If you are offended by that maybe you think why or something...

WinnyThePoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Statistics and facts trump feelz.

If you are offended by that maybe you think why or something...

Didn't know you where playing doubles. Why would I be offended?

Sweetemotion

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Didn't know you where playing doubles. Why would I be offended?

Because of your feelz.

You don't see the logic in why 62% of the population who are twice as likely to be killed by 12% population could hold prejudice.

WinnyThePoo

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Because of your feelz.

You don't see the logic in why 62% of the population who are twice as likely to be killed by 12% population could hold prejudice.

What 'Feelz' . I suppose you got a hold on to your special words.

Sweetemotion

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

What 'Feelz' . I suppose you got a hold on to your special words.

Yep that's my special word for today.:D

Why is there no logic in 62% of the population having a prejudice about 12% of the population that are more likely to kill them?

Where is the outcry for the 62%

vetinari

Giant Reid wrote: »

The protest started last year as a protest against killings of black men by the cops and unfair treatment of black men by the cops.

But when black men commit such a disproportionate amount of crime it's hardly unreasonable that more of them would get shot dead by the police and that they might suffer unfair treatment as the police would quite obviously be more suspicious of them.

Until this is accepted you won't have an progress on the issue as it's not simply a case of racism and only racism being at play. If it was it might be an easier issue to fix.

From that same document, it says males commit 75% of all homicides. Would a police officer be justified then in being jumpy and suspicious about every male he encounters at a traffic stop?

You're also pawning the usual comment about it being about economics and not racism. That line of thinking has been debunked by countless studies. Look up any stuff to do resume testing where they switch the name from a white sounding name to a black sounding name. They do the same with apartment rentals.

To be honest, people who parrot the homicide line or the "it's all economics line" have no interest in calling anything racist. Nothing is race related in your opinion.

Giant Reid

vetinari wrote: »

From that same document, it says males commit 75% of all homicides. Would a police officer be justified then in being jumpy and suspicious about every male he encounters at a traffic stop?

You're also pawning the usual comment about it being about economics and not racism. That line of thinking has been debunked by countless studies. Look up any stuff to do resume testing where they switch the name from a white sounding name to a black sounding name. They do the same with apartment rentals.

To be honest, people who parrot the homicide line or the "it's all economics line" have no interest in calling anything racist. Nothing is race related in your opinion.

Absolutely he'd be justified in being more suspicious of men than women.The cops are obviously going to distrust men more than women and be more wary around them.

pitifulgod

Sweetemotion wrote: »

Yep that's my special word for today.:D

Why is there no logic in 62% of the population having a prejudice about 12% of the population that are more likely to kill them?

Where is the outcry for the 62%

Tbh, it seems that certain users are using stats as an excuse to justify racism. They've sidestepped the behaviour of the police, for example the Bennett story which included certain users giving a half assed justification of his treatment.

mattser

Samaris wrote: »

Mod: Deftlefthand is having a break from the thread, so let's leave this and move back to the topic again. Don't respond to his posts for now, as he cannot reply.

And calling the President of the United States of America a " nitwit " is allowed ? Lovely.

Samaris

mattser - Then report my post please rather than derailing the thread. Obviously I cannot do anything about it, since it is my post you are highlighting. As it is, you're just bringing up mod actions on a poster in-thread, which is not allowed. (I stand by that Trump's a nitwit, but if a mod decision goes the other way, I'll take my lumps!)
_________

Regarding the questions people are asking, well then. Are blacks genetically predispositioned to commit more crime? Is that the argument?

Poverty begats crime, in all races. If you have a population, or a couple of populations, that are systemically more likely to be in poverty-stricken areas, you will get more crime amongst that population. If, when shooting the poor because they're criminals, you shoot a lot more black people than white, and it travels up and out to shooting more black people who are not involved in crime (the Philandro Castille case was pretty awful in terms of how many times the guy was stopped before he was eventually shot dead in front of a three year old child), people will start to notice.

None of this is surprising, but the argument eventually comes down to either a) blacks are predispositioned to commit more crime and therefore should be shot more (which seems an unlikely conclusion to come to once the stats are studied more) or b) crime and poverty tend to be found together and more blacks are trapped in poverty than whites. Given whites are also likely to commit crimes under the same conditons, this seems a more likely explanation to me. (Note - place of poverty is also important. You'll again get more crime where people are all crammed together in a city rather than poverty-stricken countryside with a lower population density.)

(Missing data - May need to find stats for well-off middle-class black and white crime-rates to prove the point, although not certain how to find them split by class. I'll lay a bet now that the results are much closer to even though.)

This is then an issue. And it is even more of an issue when black parents are honestly worried for their sons being out after dark in case a misunderstanding leads to them being shot. That is the problem that people are focussed on - if an entire population has to be brought up on the understanding (correct or not) that they cannot trust the police, that will help neither crime rates nor poverty, nor peace.

Chestcams should always be on, imo, with harsh penalties if a stop is carried out and there is no video evidence. If there is no video evidence because everyone's cams have mysteriously gone off at once and there's a corpse or a badly injured person, that should be grounds for an immediate investigation. But when police are routinely released without charge even when the case seems ridiculous, that causes unrest and appears to prove the point.

Outlaw Pete

Word.

Do Facts Matter?

NFL player Colin Kaepernick, who started the protests, did so over the supposed widespread instances of police brutality against blacks. Kaepernick said, "I am not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and people of color. ... There are bodies in the street and people getting paid leave and getting away with murder." According to the Centers for Disease Control, since 1968 police killings of blacks have declined nearly 75 percent. According to The Washington Post, almost 500 whites were killed by cops in 2015, an average of more than one a day. Two hundred fifty-nine blacks were killed by the police. Most suspects killed by police had a weapon.

Now for some perspective.

Do you know anyone who has been struck by lightning? Neither do most people. Yet each year an average of about 300 Americans are killed or injured by lightning. That's approximately 40 more than the number of blacks killed by the police in 2015. Is there an "epidemic" of Americans being struck and injured by lightning?

Out of the 965 people killed by the police in 2015 (as of Dec. 24), the Post reported (on Dec. 26) that "less than 4 percent" involved an unarmed black man and a white cop, the fact pattern most commonly referred to by anti-police activists like Black Lives Matter. Last year, The Washington Post put the number of unarmed black men killed by the police at 17, less than the number of blacks likely struck by lightning.

Twenty-two unarmed whites were killed by the police. Any death that results from police misconduct is one death too many, but the point is that police killing of a suspect is rare, no matter the race of the suspect or the cop. And a police shooting of an unarmed black male is still more rare.

According to Philippe Lemoine, writing in National Review, a white person is, on average, more likely to have interactions with the police in any year than a black person, 20.7 percent vs. 17.5 percent. It is true that a black person is more likely to have multiple contacts with the police. But according to the data, multiple contacts with the police are rare, as well. Lemoine writes that 1.2 percent of white men have more than three contacts with the police in a year versus 1.5 percent of black men.

Recently, in Illinois, in a kids' 8-and-under football league, the entire team, which appeared to be all black, including the coach, took a knee during the national anthem. Asked why, one third-grade player parroted Kaepernick, saying, according to the coach, "Because black people are getting killed, and nobody's going to jail."

Facts don't matter. The coach, presented with a teachable moment, fumbled it away.

mattser

Samaris wrote: »

mattser - Then report my post please rather than derailing the thread. Obviously I cannot do anything about it, since it is my post you are highlighting. As it is, you're just bringing up mod actions on a poster in-thread, which is not allowed. (I stand by that Trump's a nitwit, but if a mod decision goes the other way, I'll take my lumps!)
_________

Regarding the questions people are asking, well then. Are blacks genetically predispositioned to commit more crime? Is that the argument?

Poverty begats crime, in all races. If you have a population, or a couple of populations, that are systemically more likely to be in poverty-stricken areas, you will get more crime amongst that population. If, when shooting the poor because they're criminals, you shoot a lot more black people than white, and it travels up and out to shooting more black people who are not involved in crime (the Philandro Castille case was pretty awful in terms of how many times the guy was stopped before he was eventually shot dead in front of a three year old child), people will start to notice.

None of this is surprising, but the argument eventually comes down to either a) blacks are predispositioned to commit more crime and therefore should be shot more (which seems an unlikely conclusion to come to once the stats are studied more) or b) crime and poverty tend to be found together and more blacks are trapped in poverty than whites. Given whites are also likely to commit crimes under the same conditons, this seems a more likely explanation to me. (Note - place of poverty is also important. You'll again get more crime where people are all crammed together in a city rather than poverty-stricken countryside with a lower population density.)

(Missing data - May need to find stats for well-off middle-class black and white crime-rates to prove the point, although not certain how to find them split by class. I'll lay a bet now that the results are much closer to even though.)

This is then an issue. And it is even more of an issue when black parents are honestly worried for their sons being out after dark in case a misunderstanding leads to them being shot. That is the problem that people are focussed on - if an entire population has to be brought up on the understanding (correct or not) that they cannot trust the police, that will help neither crime rates nor poverty, nor peace.

Chestcams should always be on, imo, with harsh penalties if a stop is carried out and there is no video evidence. If there is no video evidence because everyone's cams have mysteriously gone off at once and there's a corpse or a badly injured person, that should be grounds for an immediate investigation. But when police are routinely released without charge even when the case seems ridiculous, that causes unrest and appears to prove the point.

Done.

Samaris

Do you know anyone who has been struck by lightning? Neither do most people. Yet each year an average of about 300 Americans are killed or injured by lightning. That's approximately 40 more than the number of blacks killed by the police in 2015. Is there an "epidemic" of Americans being struck and injured by lightning?

What's that got to do with anything? Take the chicken scandal in Britain at the moment (2Sisters farm). More British die each year from road accidents than from food poisoning (at a guess, tbh). Therefore, there is little point complaining about the risk of food poisoning from shoddy industrial practices because you'll probably be hit by a car anyway. No, that's not how risk works. The lightning is beyond irrelevant.

Out of the 965 people killed by the police in 2015 (as of Dec. 24), the Post reported (on Dec. 26) that "less than 4 percent" involved an unarmed black man and a white cop, the fact pattern most commonly referred to by anti-police activists like Black Lives Matter. Last year, The Washington Post put the number of unarmed black men killed by the police at 17, less than the number of blacks likely struck by lightning.

Twenty-two unarmed whites were killed by the police. Any death that results from police misconduct is one death too many, but the point is that police killing of a suspect is rare, no matter the race of the suspect or the cop. And a police shooting of an unarmed black male is still more rare.

What this actually says is that very few people stopped by the cops are unarmed. That is because this is America and practically everyone is armed. Now, this argument indicates that 4% of black people were unarmed when stopped and killed. Don't have the data for % of whites.

So, having a gun, a right by the law, means that you are more likely to be shot and treated as not being innocent due to that fact of having a legally-owned firearm. Those stats make the implication that only the unarmed are definitely innocent, not whether the gun was drawn, loaded or fired.

Why are the gun rights activists not up in arms about this?

According to the Centers for Disease Control, since 1968 police killings of blacks have declined nearly 75 percent. According to The Washington Post, almost 500 whites were killed by cops in 2015, an average of more than one a day. Two hundred fifty-nine blacks were killed by the police. Most suspects killed by police had a weapon.

Now for some perspective.

By the way, the visuals of using Centre for Disease Control to report on a decline in black shootings vs the WaPo for white shootings is partly amazing for just that, but also a highly misleading stat. He is comparing apples to oranges and blatantly at that. For a start, why did he choose a rate of change for black killings vs a flat number for one year for white shootings? Why on earth would he choose 1968 for the start of black killings, unless it's to inflate the number drastically and ensure that the current number appears low in contrast. Is he really trying to argue that the situation is the same as it was in the late 1960s in all other regards so his number has any relevance and if he is, how in heaven's name is that proving his point? It rather tells the opposite. That is blatantly dishonest methodology. He did at least include a second absolute number, which I missed in initial reading, which balances it up a bit more. The 1968 bit is a bad red herring though.

According to Philippe Lemoine, writing in National Review, a white person is, on average, more likely to have interactions with the police in any year than a black person, 20.7 percent vs. 17.5 percent. It is true that a black person is more likely to have multiple contacts with the police. But according to the data, multiple contacts with the police are rare, as well. Lemoine writes that 1.2 percent of white men have more than three contacts with the police in a year versus 1.5 percent of black men.

Can't check his numbers, although it didn't really prove a point in relation to the rest of the script.

Word.

Yes, but the word is dishonest in context.

weldoninhio

Billy86 wrote: »

No straw men there, if they're claiming the boos are for disrespecting the anthem then why are they booing a team that went out of their way to carry on standing for the anthem as they usually would?

They are booing them for using a sporting event for political protest. The fans have paid big money to watch a game, not a party political broadcast. Players should protest on their own time.

WinnyThePoo

weldoninhio wrote: »

They are booing them for using a sporting event for political protest. The fans have paid big money to watch a game, not a party political broadcast. Players should protest on their own time.

That onion article maaaan.

Billy86

Sweetemotion wrote: »

They were booed for thinking their fans were stupid enough too believe. Hey if we kneel before the anthem to show solidarity with those who kneel during it. Maybe we can say it isn't about the anthem.

The fans weren't as stupid as they thought and booed for the hypocrisy they saw.

The mental gymnastics in order to try and get offended at something is glorious, if not a little snowflake-ish. Not one single person kneeled during that anthem for the express reason of not being disrespectful trying to show unity against the gobsh*te so eager to get attention away from his colluding with Russia and have his fragile ego stroked that he sh@t all over the US constitution in encouraging NFL owners to sack their employees. That's why about every NFL owner, including the seven that donated significant money to Trump's small inauguration and those like Bob Kraft who have for years called themselves friends of Trump, came out and openly criticised him for it.

Had the idiot in the White House not come out and made those comments, these widespread protests would not be occurring. The players and owners taking part in the last week are protesting that, as much as anything else. It's just another incompetent mess from the most incompetent mess of a government the US has ever seen.

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I am shocked those committing more crimes are caught with more drugs than those who are not. :eek:

I am shocked you of all people were so eager to get yourself a little 'zinger' in there that you either failed to read a one sentence post correctly, or purposely chose to ignore what it said! :eek:

Black people commit the crime of taking drugs at similar levels to white people, yet get arrested at a 3.5:1 ratio for it.

Billy86

Giant Reid wrote: »

Probably because they live in poorer more crime ridden areas where cops are keeping a closer eye on them or again the issue more black men commit violent crimes causes a bias to occur with cops as they see them as more of a threat in general.

Poverty is the root of the whole problem, solve the issue of there being a disproportionate amount of black people living in poverty and everything will will flow upwards from there.Of course the problem is Americans despise poor people, don't like socialism or any politics like socialism so as a result you're always going to be very hard to solve the problem.

Good post!

The first part is and isn't one of the causes, because poor black people are more likely to live in urban areas there is a much higher congestion of police officers which in turn means if you break a light or go over the speed limit you're likely to be. By contrast poor white people often live in rural areas where you might have one small station covering a huge area (and far less security/traffic cameras, etc) meaning something like breaking a light or going over the speed limit has a huge chance of never being caught doing it. That doesn't explain the whole difference at all of course and it's not racism, just a logistical glitch; it's an interesting thing that gets overlooked by both sides as best I can see.

But there are also other issues such as black people having considerably higher conviction rates, and considerably higher rates of being given a prison sentence if convicted. If 1,000 people get arrested for felony drug crimes in the US, on average about 350 will be black - it's hard to point to how much racism or bias plays into that, but what does raise an eyebrow is that of these 350, on average 181 would be convicted and 82 would get a prison sentence. Of the 650 others, only around 190 would be convicted, and of them 72 would be convicted. So ignoring arrest rates for a moment (again, re logistic issues like rural/urban) and even assuming all police are completely honest and consistent, black people would be deemed to have made up 35% of arrests, yet would make up 47.8% of conviction and 52.5% of those getting sent to prison. That's a pretty huge disparity.

You're pretty much spot on in the second paragraph, and a tricky one there is that a lot of black people have for years had no faith in government in either direction - that's something they need to find a way to fix too, because the #1 way to make politicians and such pay attention to you is to have a powerful voting bloc. Black areas do often find themselves 'peculiarly' restricted when it comes to voting days which also needs amending, frankly they need to move their voting day to a Saturday or call the second Tuesday of November a national holiday (every second year to include midterm elections), but they also need to find a way to motivate their communities as a whole to mobilise to voting booths more often.

I also find it interesting how much the original Cold War 'broke' America psychologically to the point where anything with the word 'social' (like socialised health care which would be a ridiculous improvement on what they currently have or had prior or it) is viewed as evil and a curse word even by many of the same people it would benefit. In my opinion their best ever president was Franklin Roosevelt, whose own vice president was a heavy believer in a number of socialist policies (he actually endorsed the Communist party in the 1948 elections, which is probably what ultimately buried his long term career when McCarthyism came in) and just while we're on the subject of racial equality too, I'd advise you to see how he lost out to/got robbed by Truman in their primaries to be FDR's VP in his final term that it was pretty clear the president was never going to live out, it's a really interesting of background actors successfully wanting a puppet of sorts in office for them to manipulate.

Billy86

weldoninhio wrote: »

They are booing them for using a sporting event for political protest. The fans have paid big money to watch a game, not a party political broadcast. Players should protest on their own time.

1. Yeah...

2. They don't want it made political, hence the anthem, the flag, the heavy presence of and reverence to the military throughout. Not buying that.

3. If they don't want politicians involved, they need to take that up with politicians like the president of the US that involved himself by shouting about how NFL owners need to fire their employees. The fans paid big money to watch a game, they don't want to watch the Steelers without Ben, Bell and Brown because Trump said to fire them.

Ken.

Mod-To all concerned. Samaris has been taken out the back, soundly beaten and shot in the back of the head. Her head will be on display on top of the spire for 2 days before being sent to 1600 Pennsylvania avenue as proof so that the nitwit doesn't attempt to bomb us or worse, take away his sh!tty hotel in Clare.

Now please stand for our national anthem in memory of our fallen mod.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RZ2oXzrnti4

pitifulgod

Conspectus wrote: »

Mod-To all concerned. Samaris has been taken out the back, soundly beaten and shot in the back of the head. Her head will be on display on top of the spire for 2 days before being sent to 1600 Pennsylvania avenue as proof so that the nitwit doesn't attempt to bomb us or worse, take away his sh!tty hotel in Clare.

Now please stand for our national anthem in memory of our fallen mod.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=krZEfzKAhD4

And now for the angelus...

VinLieger

TotalReality wrote: »

He was disrespecting everything America stands for.

So you are saying america doesnt stand for freedom of belief, freedom of speech and freedom to protest peacefully?

Captain Obvious

Surely the issue of police brutality is a bit moot at this stage. The majority of people aren't protesting police brutality, they are simply showing solidarity with those that are being punished for a perceived insult made while protesting.

Billy86

Captain Obvious wrote: »

Surely the issue of police brutality is a bit moot at this stage. The majority of people aren't protesting police brutality, they are simply showing solidarity with those that are being punished for a perceived insult made while protesting.

Funny you say that, there might be a split of sorts with those protesting Trump doing so before the anthem and those protesting police brutality etc doing so during the anthem. Miami Dolphins are playing the New Orleans Saints in London and while only three knelt during the anthem, every player on the Saints did before it for the coin toss.

It was hard to tell if the Dolphins knelt on the coin toss or if any Saints players knelt during the anthem - I think the answer to both is 'no' but FOX are doing the coverage for this game and not surprisingly did their best to keep the cameras away from anyone kneeling at any time. God Save the Queen came after as it is in London and in a long shot down the Dolphins sidelines near the end of it, it looked like everyone was standing. I think Wembley have had that woman do the anthem for NFL games before, she absolutely nails it.

https://twitter.com/DMoutonWWL/status/914482458032316416

Someone nailed it in the response and I'd actually be more surprised to not see someone try and tot this out with a straight face over the next few days (esp if more teams follow suit): "Are the Saints disrespecting the president on the coin?"

Sweetemotion

Billy86 wrote: »

The mental gymnastics in order to try and get offended at something is glorious, if not a little snowflake-ish. Not one single person kneeled during that anthem for the express reason of not being disrespectful trying to show unity against the gobsh*te so eager to get attention away from his colluding with Russia and have his fragile ego stroked that he sh@t all over the US constitution in encouraging NFL owners to sack their employees. That's why about every NFL owner, including the seven that donated significant money to Trump's small inauguration and those like Bob Kraft who have for years called themselves friends of Trump, came out and openly criticised him for it.

Had the idiot in the White House not come out and made those comments, these widespread protests would not be occurring. The players and owners taking part in the last week are protesting that, as much as anything else. It's just another incompetent mess from the most incompetent mess of a government the US has ever seen.


I am shocked you of all people were so eager to get yourself a little 'zinger' in there that you either failed to read a one sentence post correctly, or purposely chose to ignore what it said! :eek:

Black people commit the crime of taking drugs at similar levels to white people, yet get arrested at a 3.5:1 ratio for it.

I knew it was those pesky Russians and you say I'm doing mental gymnastics as for the snowflake comment.:pac:

I'll put this simply for you ok. Is it a crime to take drugs or to be caught in possession of drugs the crime?

So you have two groups of people taking drugs at a similar levels but one of those groups are committing more crimes and therefor getting arrested more than the other group. Isn't it bloody obvious the group getting arrested for more be caught with drugs than those who get arrested less.

Or do you just think that cant be and American police are just searching 4 random black dudes for every one white person for drugs.

Outlaw Pete

Samaris wrote: »

What's that got to do with anything?

He told you:

"Now for some perspective."

But yet you said:

Take the chicken scandal in Britain at the moment (2Sisters farm). More British die each year from road accidents than from food poisoning (at a guess, tbh). Therefore, there is little point complaining about the risk of food poisoning from shoddy industrial practices because you'll probably be hit by a car anyway. No, that's not how risk works.

This spectacularly misses the point.

Elder was not saying 'the number is low, so stop complaining'. In fact he said:

Any death that results from police misconduct is one death too many...

The point he was making was that unarmed blacks getting shot is so rare that is a joke to set up a fcuking movement in response to it and that not only is it a joke in that regard, but it is racist / narcissistic also given that more unarmed whites are shot by cops each and every year in comparison to blacks shot. Police brutality is an issue which Americans of all cultures and backgrounds have to contend with, even those considered to be inherently privileged by virtue of their skin colour.

Yes, but the word is dishonest in context.

No it wasn't. Again, it's all about perspective.

What if the UK wing of BLM had appealed to the Government today asking for a ban on chicken being sold to black people and said that these chicken suppliers were deliberately putting black lives in danger, in ways they never would with whites. Wouldn't you think that was absurd? Well, it is equally as absurd in the context of Police Brutality as cops are no more shooting black people disproportionately, than food foodborne bacteria is infecting them disproportionately.

If you have proof to the contrary.... love to see it.

kunst nugget

Samaris wrote: »

Poverty begats crime, in all races. If you have a population, or a couple of populations, that are systemically more likely to be in poverty-stricken areas, you will get more crime amongst that population. If, when shooting the poor because they're criminals, you shoot a lot more black people than white, and it travels up and out to shooting more black people who are not involved in crime (the Philandro Castille case was pretty awful in terms of how many times the guy was stopped before he was eventually shot dead in front of a three year old child), people will start to notice.

None of this is surprising, but the argument eventually comes down to either a) blacks are predispositioned to commit more crime and therefore should be shot more (which seems an unlikely conclusion to come to once the stats are studied more) or b) crime and poverty tend to be found together and more blacks are trapped in poverty than whites. Given whites are also likely to commit crimes under the same conditons, this seems a more likely explanation to me. (Note - place of poverty is also important. You'll again get more crime where people are all crammed together in a city rather than poverty-stricken countryside with a lower population density.)

(Missing data - May need to find stats for well-off middle-class black and white crime-rates to prove the point, although not certain how to find them split by class. I'll lay a bet now that the results are much closer to even though.)

Some interesting statistics in this piece - https://inequality.org/research/black-wealth-exists/

Not even black families themselves are dealing with the hard financial realities of our times. The National Association of Real Estate Brokers 2016 report, The State of Housing in Black America, put the current home ownership rate for blacks at a 20-year low of 41.7 percent, a lower home ownership rate than during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

In fact, if you deduct the family car and other depreciating assets from net worth, half of all black American households hold less than $1,700 in wealth. The net worth of the median white family remains near $100,000, using the same method of accounting.

Yet African Americans dream on. Even the white poor have more money than most black families. Princeton University sociologist Dalton Conley has found that white families living near the poverty line have a net worth exceeding $10,000.

A recent study by the Institute for Policy Studies and the Corporation For Economic Development notes that it would take 228 years for the average black family to amass the same level of wealth the average white family holds today. This gap will never close if America stays on its current economic path. According to the Institute on Assets and Social Policy, for each dollar of increase in average income that African American households saw between 1984 and 2009 just $0.69 in additional wealth was generated, compared with the same dollar in increased income creating an additional $5.19 in wealth for a similarly situated white household.

Billy86

Sweetemotion wrote: »

I knew it was those pesky Russians and you say I'm doing mental gymnastics as for the snowflake comment.:pac:

I'll put this simply for you ok. Is it a crime to take drugs or to be caught in possession of drugs the crime?

So you have two groups of people taking drugs at a similar levels but one of those groups are committing more crimes and therefor getting arrested more than the other group. Isn't it bloody obvious the group getting arrested for more be caught with drugs than those who get arrested less.

Or do you just think that cant be and American police are just searching 4 random black dudes for every one white person for drugs.

This post is pretty glorious. you accept that both commit the crime of possession of drugs at similar levels. You also accept that one race is arrested for possession at a much higher level. Yet then you turn around and claim that despite accepting the fact both commit the crime at a similar level, that black people must be committing it at a higher level.

Some logical, non-racist reasons for disparities have already been given, but they do not come close to leveling up the difference or explaining the conviction/prison disparity rates either.

Here we go

Billy86 wrote: »

This post is pretty glorious. you accept that both commit the crime of possession of drugs at similar levels. You also accept that one race is arrested for possession at a much higher level. Yet then you turn around and claim that despite accepting the fact both commit the crime at a similar level, that black people must be committing it at a higher level.

Some logical, non-racist reasons for disparities have already been given, but they do not come close to leveling up the difference or explaining the conviction/prison disparity rates either.

I taught his point was more if you accept drug taking was on par in both communities and the police don't know what's in a
Persons pocket the only way they would be a disparagy is if there was other reasons thy came into contact with police bit like Ireland if we say as many people in d4 do drugs as in ballymin for example but if there's more anti social instantances in Bally mum then d4 then your more likely to find more people stoped there and so more likely to find those people who do have drugs

Copper_pipe

https://twitter.com/vp/status/917074120084516865


Flies to game. Sees players kneeling and leaves. Trip cost approximately 250k USD.

Trump says he asked him to do it

gimli2112

Copper_pipe wrote: »

https://twitter.com/vp/status/917074120084516865


Flies to game. Sees players kneeling and leaves. Trip cost approximately 250k USD.

Trump says he asked him to do it

Could have saved all that taxpayer money by watching it on tv and switching channel when he got offended.

Christy42

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000858857/article/jerry-jones-players-who-disrespect-flag-wont-play

Jerry Jones will stop anyone who disrespect the flag from playing. Here's hoping Dez takes the knee and makes him eat those words

Copper_pipe

Christy42 wrote: »

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000858857/article/jerry-jones-players-who-disrespect-flag-wont-play

Jerry Jones will stop anyone who disrespect the flag from playing. Here's hoping Dez takes the knee and makes him eat those words

Did Jerry Jones not already take the knee ?

Hande hoche!

Copper_pipe wrote: »

https://twitter.com/vp/status/917074120084516865


Flies to game. Sees players kneeling and leaves. Trip cost approximately 250k USD.

Trump says he asked him to do it

I wonder did he prefer Hamilton?

mattser

gimli2112 wrote: »

Could have saved all that taxpayer money by watching it on tv and switching channel when he got offended.

His call. Fair play to him.

WinnyThePoo

mattser wrote: »

His call. Fair play to him.

Ah pence is a bit of nit wit though.

kunst nugget

Copper_pipe wrote: »

Did Jerry Jones not already take the knee ?

Before the anthem. There were pages of argument on this thread over the technicalities of that.

Hande hoche!

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Ah pence is a bit of nit wit though.

Better than Palin anyway.

kunst nugget

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Ah pence is a bit of nit wit though.

Pence is the true expression of the rise of the Far Right in America, not Trump. I wouldn't call him a nit wit in way, shape or form. My real fear is that Trump gets ousted and Pence takes over.

Nettle Soup

Copper_pipe wrote: »

https://twitter.com/vp/status/917074120084516865


Flies to game. Sees players kneeling and leaves. Trip cost approximately 250k USD.

Trump says he asked him to do it

What an utter gobshíte.

America will never get over this presidency embarrassment. The whole world is laughing at them.

mattser

WinnyThePoo wrote: »

Ah pence is a bit of nit wit though.

You're well on your way to becoming a boards mod

Ursus Horribilis

Nettle Soup wrote: »

What an utter gobshíte.

America will never get over this presidency embarrassment. The whole world is laughing at them.

The sort of Americans who voted for this lot wouldn't be able to find the rest of the world on a map, let alone care what they think.

Billy86

San Francisco 49ers safety Eric Reid calling out Pence's stunt for what it really was; Trump & Pence seem a bit desperate to keep this story in the news probably to help keep others out. Trump, fool that he is, has even come out and said it was planned from the get-go, make the decision to leave as soon as players kneel.

“So this looks like a PR stunt to me. He knew our team has had the most players protest. He knew that we were probably going to do it again,” Reid said.

“This is what systemic oppression looks like. A man with power comes to the game, tweets a couple of things out and leaves the game with an attempt to thwart our efforts. Based on the information I have, that’s the assumption I’ve made.”

Now that's how to disrespect the anthem, flag and constitution - well done Mike Pence!

Outlaw Pete

Two Dallas Cowboy players gave black power salute during anthem last game but looks like that won't be tolerated from now on.........


https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/917568245854605313

cfuserkildare

How come there is NO public outcry for all the White people killed by police in USA?
Is it only Newsworthy if the victim is Black?

elefant

cfuserkildare wrote: »

How come there is NO public outcry for all the White people killed by police in USA?
Is it only Newsworthy if the victim is Black?

You're the hero white America has been waiting for.