Current Events > The last 4 minutes 'Last Week Tonight' lots of places won't air.

(+) Yeah! (+)

nemu posted...

If you give up and cry at the mere mention of taking a look at data, then your argument isn't very strong. Working from state by state data, you can see if it's an all around problem for the entire country, or a more localized issue affecting certain much more than others. If people don't want to consider the implications of data, then all we'll get at the end of the day is a bunch of weak willed gestures that will go nowhere and change nothing.

https://youtu.be/KRB-iHGHSqk
---

nemu posted...

The primary issue of my argument comes from people who cannot even formulate a thought on how many cops are actually bad. Then UR jumped in with his usual shtick.

The inability to diagnose the severity of a problem leads to issues when trying to correct it. The extremes of no bad cops vs all bad cops muddles issues. While general policy changes will help, you need to have specific goals as well, or it will just all fall apart. If the goal is less people being killed by police, we're likely not going to see that much of a decrease because most of these deaths are down to individual issues. So even if things do change over the next year, what will be the difference when another innocent person dies? Are we going to have national riots forever? Or will they stop so long as we have better chains of accountability?

I'm going to break this down into bullet points for ease of discussion-
1) You've stated "primary issue of my argument comes from people who cannot even formulate a thought on how many cops are actually bad" before, and people have pointed out ANY and MANY problems in the world/society can still be worked on without having concrete numbers. Your follow up statement (The inability to diagnose the severity of a problem leads to issues when trying to correct it) is also a logical fallacy, as having SOME idea is very different from "being unable to diagnose". There are whole fields of research based around the former when the latter is unavailable/difficult to collect.
2) Again, WHY do you need to have specific goals? It seems you are creating additional "problems" so you/we don't do anything at all. When they increased the drinking age to 21, the broad goal was to reduce alcohol related driving fatalities (as 18 to 21 was the largest group). Fatalities were reduced without having to have further specific goals - similarly the broad goal of "reduce unnecessary police fatalities" could be addressed by UR's steps.
3) You ducked the question about them completely - are you stating URs steps wouldn't work?
4) "we're likely not going to see that much of a decrease because most of these deaths are down to individual issues" - do you have a source for this? Because this statement makes it seem you've made up your mind that the percentage of bad police is already small, which means your argument about "We just need to know how many bad cops first!!!!!" was made in bad faith.
5) "So even if things do change over the next year, what will be the difference when another innocent person dies?"
I'm not sure - but you seem to be saying we have to not to ANYTHING till you get your numbers. What if we never get them? Do we hold off on doing anything forever?

The priority of actual goals is to sort through whiny internet slacktivists who don't have a damn idea of what they want changed, or possess unrealistic solutions that won't solve the issues. This is not much different then the gun debate. There are plenty of gun control laws that in general will help things, but they alone will not cut to the core of the mass shootings or areas with disproportionately high gun murder rates. Decent proposals get lost in the midst of "muh guns" and "ban all guns" insanity.

There are realistic and implementable changes that can be made to the current system to help overall, but you need to identify what exactly you want to change. If people's expectations of what can be solved is too high, then they'll think nothing has happened when issues across the board are only reduced by XX%. There's also the fact that without a clear goal, it's entirely possible to go too far and effectively neuter the police. That's not very likely to happen, but it's possible with enough people screaming loud enough.

The grand majority of police actions are individual on individual. What happens in each interaction depends on the mental competency of both the officer and the individual/criminal. No matter how many hoops and rules you implement, someone who is insane, incompetent, or a racist can still do something fucked up or outright murder someone. People get too hyperfocused on the extremes that they forget they are in fact extremes. Even taking every person shot by a cop, that is only 0.0003% of the population each year, less if you reduce it to unjustified. We should do all we can to reduce that number, but we're probably not going to see too much of a change if people focus on murders over general brutality.

If someone wants to claim X% of cops are actually bad, they need to present some kind of justification. Even if you take available data on police brutality and multiply it based on a realistic percentage to account for unreported or covered up cases, it's not a significant percentage of total police/police interactions on a yearly basis. If you look at maps showing the demographics, there are certain hotbeds that seem to account for a much higher percentage. Telling me "most cops in New York City are bad" is much more realistic than saying "all cops are bad." It's much easier for a precinct or station to grab up cops of certain mindsets to fill their ranks than it would be for every city in every state to somehow gather a ton of shitty people. New York alone has more incidents than the entirety of New England right next door. While the population density is one factor, the number of incidents seems to ohigh for that alone to be the only difference.

chilling speech

---

nemu posted...

The priority of actual goals is to sort through whiny internet slacktivists who don't have a damn idea of what they want changed, or possess unrealistic solutions that won't solve the issues. This is not much different then the gun debate. There are plenty of gun control laws that in general will help things, but they alone will not cut to the core of the mass shootings or areas with disproportionately high gun murder rates. Decent proposals get lost in the midst of "muh guns" and "ban all guns" insanity.

There are realistic and implementable changes that can be made to the current system to help overall, but you need to identify what exactly you want to change. If people's expectations of what can be solved is too high, then they'll think nothing has happened when issues across the board are only reduced by XX%. There's also the fact that without a clear goal, it's entirely possible to go too far and effectively neuter the police. That's not very likely to happen, but it's possible with enough people screaming loud enough.

The grand majority of police actions are individual on individual. What happens in each interaction depends on the mental competency of both the officer and the individual/criminal. No matter how many hoops and rules you implement, someone who is insane, incompetent, or a racist can still do something fucked up or outright murder someone. People get too hyperfocused on the extremes that they forget they are in fact extremes. Even taking every person shot by a cop, that is only 0.0003% of the population each year, less if you reduce it to unjustified. We should do all we can to reduce that number, but we're probably not going to see too much of a change if people focus on murders over general brutality.

If someone wants to claim X% of cops are actually bad, they need to present some kind of justification. Even if you take available data on police brutality and multiply it based on a realistic percentage to account for unreported or covered up cases, it's not a significant percentage of total police/police interactions on a yearly basis. If you look at maps showing the demographics, there are certain hotbeds that seem to account for a much higher percentage. Telling me "most cops in New York City are bad" is much more realistic than saying "all cops are bad." It's much easier for a precinct or station to grab up cops of certain mindsets to fill their ranks than it would be for every city in every state to somehow gather a ton of shitty people. New York alone has more incidents than the entirety of New England right next door. While the population density is one factor, the number of incidents seems to ohigh for that alone to be the only difference.

https://youtu.be/KRB-iHGHSqk
---

Why would you come back to continue your temper tantrum on a reply not even to you? Probably should just block me if you can't handle adult conversation.

nemu posted...

Why would you come back to continue your temper tantrum on a reply not even to you? Probably should just block me if you can't handle adult conversation.

https://youtu.be/KRB-iHGHSqk
---

Are we playing "get the last word in to feel smug?" Sure, I'll play.

what white supremacy?

---

nemu posted...

The argument is perfectly sensible. If you cannot quantify a problem, you cannot reliably fix it. If said problem deals with an extreme minority, then there's only so much you can do to curb the actions of that minority. If we're dealing with an extreme minority, then all these changes will turn it from 200 murders to like 135 murders. Every life saved is obviously good, but I think people are expecting way too much should that be the case. If we can quantify it as a much larger issue, we can better find common traits to seek out problem areas and problem traits that got us into this situation in the first place.

I dont think people are expecting way too much, I just think youve gone complacent.

---

nemu posted...

The priority of actual goals is to sort through whiny internet slacktivists who don't have a damn idea of what they want changed, or possess unrealistic solutions that won't solve the issues. This is not much different then the gun debate. There are plenty of gun control laws that in general will help things, but they alone will not cut to the core of the mass shootings or areas with disproportionately high gun murder rates. Decent proposals get lost in the midst of "muh guns" and "ban all guns" insanity.

There are realistic and implementable changes that can be made to the current system to help overall, but you need to identify what exactly you want to change. If people's expectations of what can be solved is too high, then they'll think nothing has happened when issues across the board are only reduced by XX%. There's also the fact that without a clear goal, it's entirely possible to go too far and effectively neuter the police. That's not very likely to happen, but it's possible with enough people screaming loud enough.

The grand majority of police actions are individual on individual. What happens in each interaction depends on the mental competency of both the officer and the individual/criminal. No matter how many hoops and rules you implement, someone who is insane, incompetent, or a racist can still do something fucked up or outright murder someone. People get too hyperfocused on the extremes that they forget they are in fact extremes. Even taking every person shot by a cop, that is only 0.0003% of the population each year, less if you reduce it to unjustified. We should do all we can to reduce that number, but we're probably not going to see too much of a change if people focus on murders over general brutality.

If someone wants to claim X% of cops are actually bad, they need to present some kind of justification. Even if you take available data on police brutality and multiply it based on a realistic percentage to account for unreported or covered up cases, it's not a significant percentage of total police/police interactions on a yearly basis. If you look at maps showing the demographics, there are certain hotbeds that seem to account for a much higher percentage. Telling me "most cops in New York City are bad" is much more realistic than saying "all cops are bad." It's much easier for a precinct or station to grab up cops of certain mindsets to fill their ranks than it would be for every city in every state to somehow gather a ton of shitty people. New York alone has more incidents than the entirety of New England right next door. While the population density is one factor, the number of incidents seems to ohigh for that alone to be the only difference.

You didn't address any of my five questions, instead went back to your theme of "We shouldn't act till we know more". You also seemed to add a new tangent of "We might neuter the police". It's interesting you reference the gun control debate, because that first statement definitely has been used to hold up any reform.

Since you stated "There are realistic and implementable changes that can be made to the current system to help overall", what would you state those are? Do any of UR's list fall in that category? (that's third time I've asked you about them specifically)