Simplifying the concept of 'group'.

Hi, 557.

I've chosen to respond to but one of your comments to avoid confusion, It's that shown in bold above.

My division was intended, among other things, to ensure that I do not live a life colored by fear and hatred. Now in my 90th year, I've no time for either. It's not possible for me to fear or hate either of the two groups. They're just too nebulous.

This is not, to repeat, to say that I do not abhor some actions by some of the people in each group. Pollyanna-ism plays no role here. My primary purpose was, and is, to blunt the tendency we h. sapiens seem to have to slowly take the actions of some and spread them to a defined group.

Regards, bast wishes to you and yours.

 

They do! They show that there is disproportionate use of force by cops against black people.

But you wouldn't know that this is the conclusion if you only read the headline.

 

Yes!!! ZERO! I'm not talking about the headline. I'm talking about the study. A study not finding something is not "evidence" of anything. Either that it exists, or that it doesn't. Especially when I have provided multiple studies that DO find a defintive disproportionate number of black people shot.

What this study DOES show is that there is disproportionate VIOLENCE used by cops against black people. Clearly that means that, even if in these 10 precincts and in this time period that didn't happen, it's likely that violence in other areas will turn into shootings. And this is CONFIRMED by the studies I showed.

 

The central premise is civil rights, how should explain the disparities in police action among variant groups?

 

Based on the killing of blacks by blacks, I would expect that a black man is seven time more likely to be killed by police than a white man. However, a black man is only three times more likely to be killed by police. It appears that the police may actually be more lenient towards blacks than whites.

 

Now you are moving the goalpost.

My claim, which you said there is zero studies that back up, was that "unarmed blacks are [not] being shot by police in disproportionate numbers due to racism."

You said there were no studies that make that claim. I showed you one, and now you want to pretend as if the topic was violence used by police instead of being shot. Of course you changed that goalpost because the study found nothing disproportionate about shootings which was the topic, and now you are trying to pretend like the topic was not shootings and was instead looking at other police actions.

You said zero. You are wrong. Demonstrably.

Now you are trying to move the goalpost to PRETEND like you were not just proven wrong.

 

How do you explain the disparities in violent crime committed by various races?

I ask that question because it illustrates the reality that not every disproportionate outcome is due to racism. Surely the reality that over 50% of violent crime is committed by less than 13% of the population is not lost on you? Or are you one that is going to try to pretend like this is fake and that blacks only commit 13% of violent crimes but are just arrested at a disproportionate rate making it look like they commit 50% + of violent crime when in reality it is only 13%?

 

A black man is over thirty times more likely to be killed by another black man than by the police.

 

Clearly you don't agree that black lives matter.

 

No. My claim is that no study SHOWS that white men are shot by police as often as black people. This study does NOT conclude that. But you have to read the conclusion. Not the title of a newspaper article.

What claims a study make is irrelevant. The only relevant thing is what they conclude. And ALL studies that have a conclusion about this point conclude that they are. And I have provided multiple references. Even the study YOU provide concludes something similar in that cops have a tendency to act more violently against black people than against white people.

But you read a headline, and decided that was the conclusion. And my original statement holds: denying reality... FACTS... (irrespective of the number of studies) to justify a position to not agree with the central premise of BLM (that black people are disproportionately killed by cops) is very very close to "hate".

You try to justify your position on me saying the word "zero". That's even worse. Forget that if you want! Let's say there is one article.... let's say there are a handful of articles that do not conclude anything either way (like this one) about shootings. Look at ALL the studies that DO conclude something, and tell me what logical conclusion the FACTS are pointing to.

BTW, shooting is not the only way in which cops kill black people. George Floyd, Freddy Gray....come to mind.

 

I’m more confused now. Can you clarify so there is no misunderstanding? Your above post seems to say the only two groups you create for yourself are cut from a nebulous whole. Also, it’s impossible to fear either group cut from the nebulous whole. And furthermore, the two groups were cut from the nebulous whole in an attempt to avoid fear (which is impossible) of groups cut from the nebulous whole. Is that accurate?

 

All things considered, and reputation, the graph is really not that bad..

 

I have disproven what you have written here. My original claim that you disagreed with and said that there is not any studies to back up was that "unarmed blacks are [not] being shot by police in disproportionate numbers due to racism". I provided you with a Harvard study that concluded "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." Yet somehow you are trying to pretend this does not support my claim.

My statement has been more than adequately proven. Just because you constantly move the goalpost and throw around sand so that no one can see does not change this reality. I am more than happy to let the record of this conversation speak for itself.

I have been around you enough to know that you will never stop obfuscating, no matter how thoroughly your words have been refuted, thus I am careful to always keep you at arm's length.

 

You are the one who was claiming that ten precincts was not enough to come to a conclusion.

 

Not finding something does not indicate that it either exists or that it doesn't. Which is no detriment to the study, because you can't expect a serious study to prove a negative. But I provided references to no less than a dozen studies (and I could provide many more) that DID find that there are racial differences. And there are dozens more. However your original statement was that denying that the life of black people matter as much as the life of white people (BLM's central principle) is not "hate". There are dozens of studies proving that they have every reason to be concerned. Denying it is very similar to "hate".

 

My point has been proven. I have no need to continue, just to watch you keep doing your patented "intellectual dishonesty shuffle".

 

Yeah. Problem is, your point is not what you thought it was. It's exactly the opposite of what you wrote on your first post.

 

Hi again, 557.

I'll try to take it from the top. Again, as a secular humanist, I think of us as a single species, each member worthy of consideration. The 'whole' is our species. It is not at all nebulous. We h. sapiens are quite real.

We find it worth while to carve out groups from our species. Often, the reason's a good one. We also carve out groups simply based upon a shared property. These groups include linguistic groups, national groups and racial groups. Mischief occurs when we assign additional characteristics to certain groups that are not shared by all members of that group. We then can do a little mental sleight of mind in which all members of a group are assigned a characteristic which not all of them share.

So far, so good.

People who are demagogues and certain others find it worth their while to use our perceived characteristics of groups to either heighten existing or create new fears of and hatreds for those groups. This is generally perceived as not a good thing.

I've tried to inoculate myself against the attempts to generate fear and hate in me by creating a grouping of our species into two groups: those I've met and know and those I haven't met yet. Doing this provides a bit of mental insulation from fixating on a group being attacked. I try to remember that that group is simply some folks already included in my two main groupings. This buys me a bit of mental time from an immediate emotional reaction to the attempt. I can use that time to apply logic to the material presented.

It's a way for me to make sure that if I hate or fear something, that something is an action as opposed to a group of people.

Regards, stay safe 'n well.

 

Yes, it’s worthwhile to carve out groups sometimes. That was my point with my reference to science being observation of groups. I suppose that’s why the opening sentences of your OP created two groups in violation of your later premise you only subscribe to two other non related groupings. It’s literally unavoidable if one wishes to function in reality.

I’m in compete agreement with the dangers of stereotyping.

I guess your second set of groups is just an arbitrary choice, no different than grouping folks into those who enjoy amusement rides and those who don’t. It’s just a distraction or device to avoid the tendency to stereotype based on other more “controversial” groupings. I mistakenly understood your chosen groupings had meaning in and of themselves, not just as placeholders to direct your attention in a positive direction.

 

Hi again, 557.

Yup!

You've got it. Just a device to help me avoid the fear and hate messages directed at this or that group by this or that person or group. For me, it works. It buys my rational mind some time to get into gear.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.

 

I think you would have liked this site 10+ years ago. There were several mods who regularly started threads on current topics that were intelligent and informative and who always modelled the sort of behavior that promoted intelligent conversation and never allowed themselves to get distracted by those who wanted to drag the threads into the mud. It was always refreshing to read their threads and watch them in action. And posters in their threads learned to rise to the occasion and engage with the topic.

 

Hi, Surfer Joe.

Thank you for taking time to post.

It takes a bit of time, but I've pretty much narrowed down those who post something which advances a rational discussion from those who have other fish to fry. The latter seem to far outnumber the former.

Regards, best wishes to you and yours.