"If Michael Bennett wants to sit for anthem..."

[StoneCold]

I'd get behind it if they were protesting something legitimate. Their protest is supported only by the feelings generated by a manipulative media and is not supported by any statistical data. All they are doing is sowing division and harming an American institution enjoyed by millions (the NFL) while perpetuating the false media narratives being spoon fed to them.

Agree 100%.

And facts don't care about one's feelings.

I can see that continuing this discussion will be fruitless. I will continue to use my spoon and you can use yours.

 

[RockHawk]

if you want to state that it's a false narrative, maybe provide data from legitimate sources to do so? There's plenty of statistical & circumstantial evidence to support the point of their protests (systemic police brutality). I also find it a bit naive for a white male to judge if systemic racism exists against ethnic groups.

I would think the onus is on the accuser to present said evidence (of systemic police brutality). Your comment is based on the premise that systemic police brutality is a given, which tells me you're simply parroting the mainstream narrative.

Yale study:

The results obtained using these data are informative and, in some cases, startling. Using
data on NYC’s Stop and Frisk program, we demonstrate that on non-lethal uses of force – putting
hands on civilians (which includes slapping or grabbing) or pushing individuals into a wall or onto
the ground, there are large racial differences. In the raw data, blacks and Hispanics are more
than fifty percent more likely to have an interaction with police which involves any use of force.
Accounting for baseline demographics such as age and gender, encounter characteristics such as
whether individuals supplied identification or whether the interaction occurred in a high- or lowcrime
area, or civilian behaviors does little to alter the race coefficient. Adding precinct and year
fixed effects, which estimates racial differences in police use of force by restricting to variation
within a given police precinct in a given year reduces the black coefficient by 19.4 percent and the
ogy, to study questions such as whether police treatment of citizens impacts the broader public opinion of the police
(Miller et al., 2004).
3
Hispanic coefficient by 26 percent, though both are still statistically larger than zero. Including
more than 125 controls available in the data, the odds-ratio on black (resp. Hispanic) is 1.173 (resp.
1.120).
Interestingly, as the intensity of force increases (e.g. handcuffing civilians without arrest, drawing
or pointing a weapon, or using pepper spray or a baton), the probability that any civilian
is subjected to such treatment is small, but the racial difference remains surprisingly constant.
For instance, 0.26 percent of interactions between police and civilians involve an officer drawing a
weapon; 0.02 percent involve using a baton. These are rare events. Yet, the results indicate that
they are significantly more rare for whites than blacks. In the raw data, blacks are 21.3 percent
more likely to be involved in an interaction with police in which at least a weapon is drawn than
whites and the difference is statistically significant. Adding our full set of controls reduces the
racial difference to 19.4 percent. Across all non-lethal uses of force, the odds-ratio of the black
coefficient ranges from 1.163 (0.036) to 1.249 (0.129)

https://law.yale.edu/system/files/area/ ... _fryer.pdf

A study by a University of California, Davis professor found “evidence of a significant bias in the killing of unarmed black Americans relative to unarmed white Americans, in that the probability of being black, unarmed, and shot by police is about 3.49 times the probability of being white, unarmed, and shot by police on average.

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/articl ... ne.0141854

An independent analysis of Washington Post data on police killings found that, “when factoring in threat level, black Americans who are fatally shot by police are, in fact, less likely to be posing an imminent lethal threat to the officers at the moment they are killed than white Americans fatally shot by police.” According to one of the report’s authors, “The only thing that was significant in predicting whether someone shot and killed by police was unarmed was whether or not they were black. . . . Crime variables did not matter in terms of predicting whether the person killed was unarmed.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/ ... es-but-no/

There are hundreds more.

 

[hawk45]

Thanks Rock. I want to limit myself to police shootings of unarmed suspects for the moment. I actually do agree that there seems to be better data around non-lethal force racial disparities. But the data around lethal force is (inexplicably IMO) nowhere near good enough, and this is important to me because the notion that unarmed blacks are being gunned down is the most emotionally-charged club being wielded at the moment, in my opinion.

The non-profit RTI published a study in 2015 which found that police departments reported only around 50% of police shootings between 2003-2009, and in 2011.

https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ardpatr.pdf

That is why even the University of California study you cite, which looks like it went to some lengths to weed out factors which might skew their results, isn't considered by many to be conclusive.

This lack of data was - I think - what prompted the Washington Post to collect its own data on fatal shootings beginning in 2015.

The Washington Post collected reports on fatal shootings from 2015 to 2016. A study "Fatal Shootings By US Police Officers in 2015: A Bird’s Eye View" was conducted on this data, and then cited by the Post to bolster the claims of *systemic* racial disparity of lethal force on unarmed suspects.

The entire study - because it was limited to fatal shootings - only covered 93 shootings, which in itself is a very small sample set to be generalizing from. Why limit to just fatal shootings? That only serves to cut the sample size down to near uselessness. IMO, if lethal force was used on an unarmed suspect, that's what matters.

Further dispiriting is that you wouldn't even be aware of the questionable categorizations used in the study unless you downloaded the CSV data records and googled the individual cases as I did.

"Unarmed" turns out to mean "no knife or gun", so Alfredo Rials-Torres for example is classified as unarmed despite wielding a metal pole and slashing an officer's face. 11 such "unarmed" suspects were armed with vehicles, rocks, chemical sprays, even handguns. 11 other "unarmed" suspects were fighting with the officer for their gun. 5 other data points were bystanders accidentally shot.

That WaPo cited the study utterly uncritically without mentioning any of these issues is evidence of just how dishonest the reporting and even the science itself is around this issue.

 

[Mindsink]

[studies]

There are hundreds more.

I was looking for evidence of systemic police brutality, not studies on racial disparity related to police encounters. But since you went there...

Those studies show the resultant effects of the propensity of blacks to commit more crimes.

If blacks commit more crimes, then of course they will represent a larger percentage of those who are stopped & frisked, killed by police, and put behind bars.

 

[Mindsink]

I will continue to use my spoon and you can use yours.

I don't even know what that means.

 

[hawk45]

[studies]

There are hundreds more.

I was looking for evidence of systemic police brutality, not studies on racial disparity related to police encounters. But since you went there...

Those studies show the resultant effects of the propensity of blacks to commit more crimes.

If blacks commit more crimes, then of course they will represent a larger percentage of those who are stopped & frisked, killed by police, and put behind bars.

The Washington Post article Rockhawk link doesn't discuss crime rate aside from vague references to crime variables, so it's not readily apparent that this is factored in, but the link in the story takes you to an article which does discuss what variables the study considered and crime rate in the neighborhood was one of them. So in predominantly black neighborhoods with high crime rates, that would be considered, thus helping to account for the propensity of the black population to commit more violent crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...381214de1a3_story.html?utm_term=.8bc17fa289d9

What they found was that per capita, an unarmed black was 7 times more likely to be fatally shot than an unarmed Caucasion. When adjusted for other variables including crime rate of the neighborhood, that dropped down to 2 times more likely.

The flaw in the study wasn't that they didn't account for crime rate. The flaw was the tiny sample size leading to them drawing conclusions from 93 fatal shootings. Also, that the study's categorizations were highly questionable as to what "armed" and "unarmed" represented.

IMO the assertion that unarmed blacks are being shot more by police remains dubious. However, the studies involving non-lethal force, also adjusted for crime rate the race, are more compelling.

 

[SmokinHawk]

if you want to state that it's a false narrative, maybe provide data from legitimate sources to do so? There's plenty of statistical & circumstantial evidence to support the point of their protests (systemic police brutality). I also find it a bit naive for a white male to judge if systemic racism exists against ethnic groups. I find the argument that those things can't exist because these players are millionaires frustrating. They are doing this because, as StoneCold said, nobody would listen to or hear the voice of the average African American crying out these same issues.

Isn't that a political topic? Believe me, I would *love* to do a deep dive on this subject right here and now, drawing upon the FBI's own statistics to prove definitively that this protest is misguided bullshit, but that doesn't appear to be in keeping with forum rules.

Let's just say that it looks like the NFL players and their union have forged a pact with the devil, George Soros, a ruthless billionaire who literally wants to destroy our country by crashing our economy, profiting while he does.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/nfl-players-union-teamed-george-soros-fund-leftist/

Looks like I'm officially done with the NFL, folks. Soros is an evil piece of shit who has greatly contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe, destabilized governments, crashed the British Pound, and funded radical extremist/separatist groups globally, including the Ukrainian Neo-nazi "Svoboda" party.

Peace.

 

[Mindsink]

[studies]

There are hundreds more.

I was looking for evidence of systemic police brutality, not studies on racial disparity related to police encounters. But since you went there...

Those studies show the resultant effects of the propensity of blacks to commit more crimes.

If blacks commit more crimes, then of course they will represent a larger percentage of those who are stopped & frisked, killed by police, and put behind bars.

The Washington Post article Rockhawk link doesn't discuss crime rate aside from vague references to crime variables, so it's not readily apparent that this is factored in, but the link in the story takes you to an article which does discuss what variables the study considered and crime rate in the neighborhood was one of them. So in predominantly black neighborhoods with high crime rates, that would be considered, thus helping to account for the propensity of the black population to commit more violent crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...381214de1a3_story.html?utm_term=.8bc17fa289d9

What they found was that per capita, an unarmed black was 7 times more likely to be fatally shot than an unarmed Caucasion. When adjusted for other variables including crime rate of the neighborhood, that dropped down to 2 times more likely.

The flaw in the study wasn't that they didn't account for crime rate. The flaw was the tiny sample size leading to them drawing conclusions from 93 fatal shootings. Also, that the study's categorizations were highly questionable as to what "armed" and "unarmed" represented.

IMO the assertion that unarmed blacks are being shot more by police remains dubious. However, the studies involving non-lethal force, also adjusted for crime rate the race, are more compelling.

Why do blacks commit more crimes? Because they are more likely to grow up in fatherless homes than their racial counterparts? Because there is something culturally ingrained that glorifies gun violence? Is it (*gasp*) a biological predisposition for violent behavior? I feel that it's a multi-factored and very complicated issue.

We need to focus on these things, have honest conversations, and if possible, take steps forward to address it and fix it.

Or we can continue to blame white people, slavery, and racism, and get nowhere like we've been doing since the 60s.

I think that is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to have an honest conversation about, for fear of being labeled racist. Studies like this tip-toe around the elephant and show statistical racial disparity, then declare, "Racism. Told you so." It amounts to lots of well thought out research followed with lazy analysis and it does nothing to help the issue.

 

[hawk45]

The Washington Post article Rockhawk link doesn't discuss crime rate aside from vague references to crime variables, so it's not readily apparent that this is factored in, but the link in the story takes you to an article which does discuss what variables the study considered and crime rate in the neighborhood was one of them. So in predominantly black neighborhoods with high crime rates, that would be considered, thus helping to account for the propensity of the black population to commit more violent crime.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...381214de1a3_story.html?utm_term=.8bc17fa289d9

What they found was that per capita, an unarmed black was 7 times more likely to be fatally shot than an unarmed Caucasion. When adjusted for other variables including crime rate of the neighborhood, that dropped down to 2 times more likely.

The flaw in the study wasn't that they didn't account for crime rate. The flaw was the tiny sample size leading to them drawing conclusions from 93 fatal shootings. Also, that the study's categorizations were highly questionable as to what "armed" and "unarmed" represented.

IMO the assertion that unarmed blacks are being shot more by police remains dubious. However, the studies involving non-lethal force, also adjusted for crime rate the race, are more compelling.

Why do blacks commit more crimes? Because they are more likely to grow up in fatherless homes than their racial counterparts? Because there is something culturally ingrained that glorifies gun violence? Is it (*gasp*) a biological predisposition for violent behavior? I feel that it's a multi-factored and very complicated issue.

We need to focus on these things, have honest conversations, and if possible, take steps forward to address it and fix it.

Or we can continue to blame white people, slavery, and racism, and get nowhere like we've been doing since the 60s.

I think that is the elephant in the room that nobody wants to have an honest conversation about, for fear of being labeled racist. Studies like this tip-toe around the elephant and show statistical racial disparity, then declare, "Racism. Told you so." It amounts to lots of well thought out research followed with lazy analysis and it does nothing to help the issue.[/quote]

If the study concerning use of force controls for the criminality of the race in question, that separates out how much more likely race X is to commit a crime and its impact on use of force. It eliminates it as a variable.

I won't disagree there is a pointed lack of focus on (or even mention of) the deterioration of the black family and the obvious role that plays in leading to that population being more violent. But that is an entirely separate discussion than use-of-force when criminality has been controlled for. That is what "controlled for" means. Scrutinizing the methods of control is perfectly appropriate, but circling back to causes of criminality is misdirection.

 

[Mindsink]

if you want to state that it's a false narrative, maybe provide data from legitimate sources to do so? There's plenty of statistical & circumstantial evidence to support the point of their protests (systemic police brutality). I also find it a bit naive for a white male to judge if systemic racism exists against ethnic groups. I find the argument that those things can't exist because these players are millionaires frustrating. They are doing this because, as StoneCold said, nobody would listen to or hear the voice of the average African American crying out these same issues.

Isn't that a political topic? Believe me, I would *love* to do a deep dive on this subject right here and now, drawing upon the FBI's own statistics to prove definitively that this protest is misguided bullshit, but that doesn't appear to be in keeping with forum rules.

Let's just say that it looks like the NFL players and their union have forged a pact with the devil, George Soros, a ruthless billionaire who literally wants to destroy our country by crashing our economy, profiting while he does.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/nfl-players-union-teamed-george-soros-fund-leftist/

Looks like I'm officially done with the NFL, folks. Soros is an evil piece of shit who has greatly contributed to the migrant crisis in Europe, destabilized governments, crashed the British Pound, and funded radical extremist/separatist groups globally, including the Ukrainian Neo-nazi "Svoboda" party.

Peace.

Maybe I'm wrong, but I think this sub forum is an exception due to the political nature of these topics.

 

[Osprey]

Let's just say that it looks like the NFL players and their union have forged a pact with the devil, George Soros, a ruthless billionaire who literally wants to destroy our country by crashing our economy, profiting while he does.

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/oct/5/nfl-players-union-teamed-george-soros-fund-leftist/

As much as I agree Soros is a POS, $5K a pop donation is more along the lines of stop bugging me for donations than an alliance.

I'm more curious to see what happens with the funds raised by the Hawk's Equality Justice Fuzzy Bunny Unicorn fund. Will they take direct action or funnel to other organizations like Soros is notorious for doing.

 

[KitsapGuy]

Isn't this supposed to be about Michael Bennett? :229031_confused2:

 

[hawk45]

Isn't this supposed to be about Michael Bennett? :229031_confused2:

I suppose my thinking was that "If Michael Bennett wants to sit for the anthem" is going to generate opinions on whether this form of protest is useful and warranted, and that discussion takes us into how dire the issue being protested actually is.

If we say "yeah I'm all for it" or "boo, sit down", getting into why we hold that opinion seems inevitable (and useful) to me.

 

[RockHawk]

Yes, sorry, let's get back to the Bennett topic. In my efforts to try and argue the reason for the protests, it certainly drove into political even though I purposely stated and posted only factual and validated data for this reason.

Smokin': we can go to PM on this reply, but I'm not sure why posting false, or at least wildly deceptive stuff like the Soros connection and citing a news source with extreme bias like Washington TImes is helpful. I'd say the same if someone said the opposite and cited Huffington Post. Thus, why I posted the sources I did that are considered unbiased.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

Sorry everyone, carry on.

 

[kidhawk]

Yes, sorry, let's get back to the Bennett topic. In my efforts to try and argue the reason for the protests, it certainly drove into political even though I purposely stated and posted only factual and validated data for this reason.

Smokin': we can go to PM on this reply, but I'm not sure why posting false, or at least wildly deceptive stuff like the Soros connection and citing a news source with extreme bias like Washington TImes is helpful. I'd say the same if someone said the opposite and cited Huffington Post. Thus, why I posted the sources I did that are considered unbiased.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

Sorry everyone, carry on.

I was going to pm this, but as you posted it in public, this needs to be said in public.

You call the Washington Times as "extreme bias" yet your site posted in the same paragraph only calls them right-center. That's not extreme. All news sites nowadays have some bias, because that's what it's come to. If we call all sites with some bias as off limits, we could never post.

Here's a sampling of Left Center Biased sites that would not be allowed if we don't allow Right Center Biased sites....

ABC News
BBC
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
Denver Post
LA Times
MSN
NBC News
New York Times
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Time
Washington Post

 

[seahawkfreak]

Yes, sorry, let's get back to the Bennett topic. In my efforts to try and argue the reason for the protests, it certainly drove into political even though I purposely stated and posted only factual and validated data for this reason.

Smokin': we can go to PM on this reply, but I'm not sure why posting false, or at least wildly deceptive stuff like the Soros connection and citing a news source with extreme bias like Washington TImes is helpful. I'd say the same if someone said the opposite and cited Huffington Post. Thus, why I posted the sources I did that are considered unbiased.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

Sorry everyone, carry on.

I was going to pm this, but as you posted it in public, this needs to be said in public.

You call the Washington Times as "extreme bias" yet your site posted in the same paragraph only calls them right-center. That's not extreme. All news sites nowadays have some bias, because that's what it's come to. If we call all sites with some bias as off limits, we could never post.

Here's a sampling of Left Center Biased sites that would not be allowed if we don't allow Right Center Biased sites....

ABC News
BBC
CBS News
Chicago Tribune
Denver Post
LA Times
MSN
NBC News
New York Times
Seattle Post Intelligencer
Time
Washington Post

Relative to news organizations and or media that is a seriously small sample.

 

[kidhawk]

Relative to news organizations and or media that is a seriously small sample.

Missing the point I think. The site he linked listed the site he called extremely biased as right center. I listed only some of the main media sites they list as left center which is subjectively equal to the rating they give the site he's denouncing as extreme. I doubt anyone would say it's wrong to post links from any of the sites I listed. BTW that was just a small percentage of the list. I used them to make the point. No need to post every one

 

[Rocket]

I f we can't talk politics why were we talking about the relative bias of media sources vis-a-vis George Soros and his efforts to effect change, so to speak... in the same post, even.

I'm really confused now. I don't confuse easily.

 

[seahawkfreak]

Relative to news organizations and or media that is a seriously small sample.

Missing the point I think. The site he linked listed the site he called extremely biased as right center. I listed only some of the main media sites they list as left center which is subjectively equal to the rating they give the site he's denouncing as extreme. I doubt anyone would say it's wrong to post links from any of the sites I listed. BTW that was just a small percentage of the list. I used them to make the point. No need to post every one

I know I was just being a smart aleck.

 

[SmokinHawk]

Yes, sorry, let's get back to the Bennett topic. In my efforts to try and argue the reason for the protests, it certainly drove into political even though I purposely stated and posted only factual and validated data for this reason.

Smokin': we can go to PM on this reply, but I'm not sure why posting false, or at least wildly deceptive stuff like the Soros connection and citing a news source with extreme bias like Washington TImes is helpful. I'd say the same if someone said the opposite and cited Huffington Post. Thus, why I posted the sources I did that are considered unbiased.
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-times/

Sorry everyone, carry on.

There is nothing false or deceptive about it. It's pretty sickening how the knee jerk reaction from people, when presented with a source that does not hide its conservative bias, is to condemn the source, claim it's misleading or false. Every single major news outlet has a strong political bias these days and there are three to four times as many that hold the leftist view. I don't immediately condemn them for that bias, but rather I analyze the facts while rejecting the narrative and bias. That can be done here as well.

What I see is this:

- NFL Players Association proactively reached out to Soros' organization(s) seeking to forge a relationship.

- NFL Players Association is philosophically aligned with Soros and his organizations.

- NFL players are willingly acting as useful idiots for a Soros agenda.

That alone is enough for me to say to hell with the NFL. George Soros engages in explicitly anti-American actions, seeking to destabilize our country. Remember the debacle in Charlottesville? Guess who was involved in funding it?

When Michael Bennett kneels for the anthem, this is who he is working for. When Michael Bennett makes the "black power" sign after a sack, this is who he is working for. After all, Soros funds Black Lives Matter as well. The "black power" sign is symbolic of black supremacy and separatism. It is fundamentally the same thing as a nazi salute, but somehow it's tolerated. Why? Why do we accept this folks? If a player threw up a nazi salute they would be rightfully cut before the end of the game, but we are expected to be completely accepting of Bennett's black power salute as he stands over the white QB he just turfed.

I don't know about you guys, but I watch football and other sports to be entertained, not to be propagandized. This shit just isn't ok.