Four Minneapolis officers fired after death of black man

[ArcadiaGP]

Please answer the question. It is a good one and if Chip is wrong, it would be worthwhile to understand why.

Because to be accurate, it requires a deeper dive into the numbers. So many factors that are being ignored, including the communities the numbers come from.

But yes, it is far easier to just simplify it, omit any detail, and say black = more crime. But that really doesn't have a great place in a higher-level discussion. Unless this is a low-level discussion, which, by all means... repeat some iconic numbers. Here's a few more - 13/52, 13/90. Not nearly as bad as, but edging close to 1488.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I just pulled the actual numbers for 2018 from FBI UCR. The numbers are reasonably close to what I originally said, and to what you claim to be a meme..

As far as the meme goes, the only part you left out was the word "despite". That's just a hilarious codeword on the internet. Just saying "despite"... someone usually comes along to fill in the rest because it's so well known.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Because to be accurate, it requires a deeper dive into the numbers. So many factors that are being ignored, including the communities the numbers come from.

But yes, it is far easier to just simplify it, omit any detail, and say black = more crime. But that really doesn't have a great place in a higher-level discussion. Unless this is a low-level discussion, which, by all means... repeat some iconic numbers. Here's a few more - 13/52, 13/90. Not nearly as bad as, but edging close to 1488.

So what are the more accurate numbers? I'm assuming you have them, or else how could you say the numbers presented are not accurate?

 

[ArcadiaGP]

So what are the more accurate numbers? I'm assuming you have them, or else how could you say the numbers presented are not accurate?

Are you looking for "technically true", or "truth, including nuance"? Because if you want to reduce it to the very basics, go ahead and use the number. You won't get a kind eye if you whip it out in public, though.

I don't have the answers, I just know the origin of the meme, and how iconic it is on the internet... often repeated for inflammatory or humorous effect.

 

[KittySlayer]

The news just reported that BBQ owner had GSR on his hands.

Maybe it's the seasoning he uses...

 

[chipbennett]

As far as the meme goes, the only part you left out was the word "despite". That's just a hilarious codeword on the internet. Just saying "despite"... someone usually comes along to fill in the rest because it's so well known.

The only one talking about a meme is you. I'm discussing actual statistics:

Current white pop%: 72.4
Current black pop%: 12.6

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_a..._United_States

2018 white violent crime, total, %: 199,533, 46.2%
2018 black violent crime, total, %: 187,123, 43.3%

https://crime-data-explorer.fr.cloud...d-states/crime

Relative white violent crime rate: 0.638
Relative black violent crime rate: 3.44

3.44 / 0.638 = 5.39

So, I revise my numbers. Based on 2018, the violent crime rate for black criminals is down to only five and a half times that of white criminals.

Blacks constitute 13% of the population, and commit 43% of all violent crime. Does it make you happy, now, to add some precision? Can we stop talking about memes now?

And I will also point out the context in which I referenced these numbers: the chart (which I don't seem to find a critique of, from you, yet) that "men of color are more likely to be killed by police", with a "lifetime risk" of approximately 95 per 100,000, compared to white men, who have a "lifetime risk" of approximately 40 per 100,000.

Why no criticism of that oversimplification? Why criticize relevant context applied to that oversimplification?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Are you looking for "technically true", or "truth, including nuance"? Because if you want to reduce it to the very basics, go ahead and use the number. You won't get a kind eye if you whip it out in public, though.

I don't have the answers, I just know the origin of the meme, and how iconic it is on the internet... often repeated for inflammatory or humorous effect.

I just want to know the basis for claiming they're not accurate. I'm not trying to start anything. But if you make the claim that "X is not accurate", then it follows that you should also be able to say, "Y is accurate, and here is why."

ETA: There are no "versions" of truth. Something is either true, or it is not.

 

[KellyinAvon]

I just pulled the actual numbers for 2018 from FBI UCR. The numbers are reasonably close to what I originally said, and to what you claim to be a meme.

And it is as much the "whole picture" as the chart previously posted was, about likelihood of death by police, by race. It is wholly justified to control police killings by violent crime rate (or even overall crime rate), because police officers almost exclusively interact with - much less, kill - people who are engaged in (violent) criminal activity.

Do you have the Table on that data?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Ugh. Is this going to devolve into another Coronavirus thread where we're arguing about arguing?

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Something, something, damn liars and statistics...

 

[KG1]

I guess you just can’t go by the numbers. It’s more nuanced. You have to dig deeper into the correlation of why the numbers are what they are. Or something like that.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

The only one talking about a meme is you. I'm discussing actual statistics

Because you repeated a meme. You may not acknowledge or like that it's a meme at this point, but it is.

Why no criticism of that oversimplification? Why criticize relevant context applied to that oversimplification?

Because I'm not following the thread all that much. I opened it, saw the meme, and pointed it out.

It's fine to have broad data to get an overview, but you should only use it for broad overviews. Broad overviews aren't all that helpful in conversation or in policy, especially in the hands of laymen.

When an agenda-driven outlet is passing data along, they usually use broad numbers like this for the shock value. Similar framing to the "male rapists" stat... feminists would say "99% of rapists are men!" without telling you that 99% of men aren't rapists.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

I just want to know the basis for claiming they're not accurate. I'm not trying to start anything. But if you make the claim that "X is not accurate", then it follows that you should also be able to say, "Y is accurate, and here is why."

ETA: There are no "versions" of truth. Something is either true, or it is not.

This is more about incomplete truths, or agenda-driven truths.

 

[jamil]

Update on the shooting of a black area businessman in Louisville during the curfew. A new video emerged which possibly showed him shooting a gun just outside the door of his business. The video is not conclusive but it kinda looks like he had a gun, stepped out the door, raised his arm as if to shoot, and then fell to the ground, presumably because return fire hit him.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

This is more about incomplete truths, or agenda-driven truths.

Neither of which are THE truth.

 

[printcraft]

We choose truth over facts. #hairyroachlegs

 

[Phase2]

Because you repeated a meme. You may not acknowledge or like that it's a meme at this point, but it is.



Because I'm not following the thread all that much. I opened it, saw the meme, and pointed it out.

It's fine to have broad data to get an overview, but you should only use it for broad overviews. Broad overviews aren't all that helpful in conversation or in policy, especially in the hands of laymen.

When an agenda-driven outlet is passing data along, they usually use broad numbers like this for the shock value. Similar framing to the "male rapists" stat... feminists would say "99% of rapists are men!" without telling you that 99% of men aren't rapists.

OK. Stipulated that most blacks aren't violent. You still aren't presenting an argument. What is wrong with the FBI's info that you've labeled a meme? You keep using that word as if memes are inherently incorrect. Please cite some facts.

 

[Alamo]

I don't know how to get these to embed in INGO.

https://streamable.com/rvrwil

https://streamable.com/sdjvfa


This is a fun one. Jerk sets himself on fire. Bad language.

https://streamable.com/w5wa8l

Much more here: https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/377481/#respond

 

[ArcadiaGP]

https://twitter.com/JackPosobiec/status/1267946736024256522

BREAKING: 2 crates filled with pipe bombs discovered near Korean War Memorial in DC after suspects spotted in bushes. Federal assets in pursuit

 

[MCgrease08]

Because you repeated a meme. You may not acknowledge or like that it's a meme at this point, but it is.



Because I'm not following the thread all that much. I opened it, saw the meme, and pointed it out.

It's fine to have broad data to get an overview, but you should only use it for broad overviews. Broad overviews aren't all that helpful in conversation or in policy, especially in the hands of laymen.

When an agenda-driven outlet is passing data along, they usually use broad numbers like this for the shock value. Similar framing to the "male rapists" stat... feminists would say "99% of rapists are men!" without telling you that 99% of men aren't rapists.

Swing and a miss on the analogy.

These are two completely different statements. There's no lack of nuance or confusion in this example. If someone reads, "99% of rapists are men" and thinks that means "99% of men are rapists" then they have a serious reading comprehension problem.