[RD] George Floyd and protesting while black

[H4run]

Yes. I think you are right. Still, the idea of police refusing to perform their assigned duties seems kind of scary. But I saw this OP/ED in the NY Times that I think pretty much hits the nail on the head. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/05/opinion/police-riots.html.

Garry it's subscription block, I'm really sorry, but is it possible if you provide just a small paragraph to gives me the idea regarding "The Police Are Rioting" which is mentioned in the article?

 

[cardgame]

The idea is the police are the rioters.
definition: a violent disturbance of the peace by a crowd. Protesters are peacefully just standing there, chanting, walking, doing their protest thing, and the police disturb that peace with violence. They've been seen looting things from stores as well

 

[Modder_Mode]

Thoroughly.

You're being awfully cryptic...

About what? Whether people should have the right to live in a society and not get discriminated or abused on the basis of who or what they are?

But isn't that what you regularly do here? Are you aware of it? Your implicit bias? I get it, fellow members won't call you out on it, you probably are literally unaware of it.

 

[Gary Childress]

Garry it's subscription block, I'm really sorry, but is it possible if you provide just a small paragraph to gives me the idea regarding "The Police Are Rioting" which is mentioned in the article?

Cardgame is essentially right in his or her synopsis. I'd like to ask you something, though. Why did you put an extra "r" in my first name? Some people seem to do that repeatedly on this forum. Is there a reason for it or is it some sort of honest misreading? It's kind of annoying to me.

And I apologize. I didn't realize it was a subscription page. I don't recall subscribing to the NYT but perhaps I did.

 

[H4run]

Why did you put an extra "r" in my first name? Some people seem to do that repeatedly on this forum. Is there a reason for it or is it some sort of honest misreading? It's kind of annoying to me.

Because that's how I pronounced your name in my mind, it's the sound that I recall not the text.

 

[Gary Childress]

Because that's how I pronounced your name in my mind, it's the sound that I recall not the text.

OK. I see. Just curious. Some people seem to do it.

 

[H4run]

OK. I see. Just curious. Some people seem to do it.

This is the first time I pronounce your name, and I generalized the pronounced with how I pronounced Kasparov first name, no harm intended just the way my mind categorized name, but I make sure to use only one "r", but if I do somewhat miss it keep in mind I don't meant it as an insult.

 

[Yeekim]

It sounds incorrect to me. According to the FBI, there were 48 police officers killed in the line of duty in 2019 from felonious activities. Also, according to https://mappingpoliceviolence.org/ in 2019 there were approximately 264 black people killed by police. I'm sure it's pretty similar for other years as well. How anyone could arrive from that to the conclusion that a police officer is 18 times more likely to be killed by a black person than it is for a black person to be killed by a police officer, would be a mystery to me. It sounds highly unlikely. Are you sure you heard or read them correctly? Otherwise, it sounds like a false rumor.

Well the source appears to be this : https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Imprimis_April16.pdf (thanks @Estebonrober for helping me find it)

Spoiler :

The number of police officers killed in shootings more than doubled during the first three months of 2016. In fact, officers are at much greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from the police. Over the last decade, an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black has been 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop

She does not explain how she calculated this, but "unarmed" seems to be the key qualifier here - and one that very much changes the meaning of this particular ratio, since chances of an unarmed civilian being killed by police should be infinitely close to zero anyway.

 

[Gary Childress]

This is the first time I pronounce your name, and I generalized the pronounced with how I pronounced Kasparov first name, no harm intended just the way my mind categorized name, but I make sure to use only one "r", but if I do somewhat miss it keep in mind I don't meant it as an insult.

OK. No worries. I had my name mocked a lot when I was a kid so it sort of brings back bad memories a bit. Thank you for the explanation.

 

[H4run]

OK. No worries. I had my name mocked a lot when I was a kid so it sort of brings back bad memories a bit. Thank you for the explanation.

Glad to know the background so I can sympathized and understand the tense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

You're being awfully cryptic...

You aren't. You have been pretty obvious since your first post.

 

[Gary Childress]

Well the source appears to be this : https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Imprimis_April16.pdf (thanks @Estebonrober for helping me find it)

Spoiler :

The number of police officers killed in shootings more than doubled during the first three months of 2016. In fact, officers are at much greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from the police. Over the last decade, an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black has been 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop

She does not explain how she calculated this, but "unarmed" seems to be the key qualifier here - and one that very much changes the meaning of this particular ratio, since chances of an unarmed civilian being killed by police should be infinitely close to zero anyway.

I see. I guess that could make sense, then.

 

[Estebonrober]

Because the very thing you claim that happens to black people and other minority groups you are actively doing right here on these very forums, it's not not useful or constructive to the discussion.

wait you think you are being oppressed like what happens to minorities on this forum?

 

[Estebonrober]

But isn't that what you regularly do here? Are you aware of it? Your implicit bias? I get it, fellow members won't call you out on it, you probably are literally unaware of it.

No. I'm not going to call her out on it because it is stupid. Her implicit bias is one of inclusion and disdain for those who seek to harm others for little more than political gain or the powerful feeling of hurting the weak.

Your implicit bias seems to be minimizing minority rights.

 

[H4run]

She does not explain how she calculated this

It's a huge assertion, with huge social consequences, with nothing to back it up.

"unarmed" seems to be the key qualifier here - and one that very much changes the meaning of this particular ratio, since chances of an unarmed civilian being killed by police should be infinitely close to zero anyway.

That's explain the bad intention..

 

[Estebonrober]

Well the source appears to be this : https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Imprimis_April16.pdf (thanks @Estebonrober for helping me find it)

Spoiler :

The number of police officers killed in shootings more than doubled during the first three months of 2016. In fact, officers are at much greater risk from blacks than unarmed blacks are from the police. Over the last decade, an officer’s chance of getting killed by a black has been 18.5 times higher than the chance of an unarmed black getting killed by a cop

She does not explain how she calculated this, but "unarmed" seems to be the key qualifier here - and one that very much changes the meaning of this particular ratio, since chances of an unarmed civilian being killed by police should be infinitely close to zero anyway.

Yea some of my point of finding a source for the stat is that the source is a tainted paid for right wing propaganda outlet.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire/

The daily wire has never even made money afaik. Its completely bank rolled by Shaprio's props (Koch Family).

 

[Cloud_Strife]

But isn't that what you regularly do here? Are you aware of it? Your implicit bias? I get it, fellow members won't call you out on it, you probably are literally unaware of it.

Yes, I do have an implicit bias against bigots and those that would aggress against the already vulnerable; don't you? And if not, why not?

And why do you think having a bias against them is in anyway comparable to what they do to the vulnerable? Why are you defending these people, where is your humility?

 

[Moriarte]

Why are you defending these people, where is your humility?

Institution is the last barrier between liberal kids with asthma and rapists, murderers, drug dealers. Burn the institution to the ground is a nice slogan (maybe) that comes to mind of a 16 y. old, but unrealistic. You need these cops, while they need a job. So you’ll have to compromise, look for a solution. Or we can talk for another 20 pages how you have implicit bias against bigots. It’s getting repetitive and unproductive.

 

[JohannaK]

Institution is the last barrier between liberal kids with asthma and rapists, murderers, drug dealers.

Is this the real life or just a fear campaign?

 

[Zardnaar]

You're being awfully cryptic...



But isn't that what you regularly do here? Are you aware of it? Your implicit bias? I get it, fellow members won't call you out on it, you probably are literally unaware of it.

You should use a VPN Patine.