White Lives Matter banner flew over football game

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201

Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

LoL. Of course saying "White lives Matter" is just racist, just like saying "All lives matter" is but "Black Lives Matter" is totally fine.

But nah, the leftists don't have any double standards at all. 🙄

Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201

Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

IOW, you have no real argument.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/football/53145201

Poor white people. So oppressed in the world today.

Really great to see people taking a stand for the most oppressed race, by police brutality, in the US. This is a movement everyone can comfortably get behind. No one would be blinded by incorrect ideas about police brutality statistics, right? They'd correctly pay attention to the facts and see that white people, specifically white men, are the most brutalized of any race demographic in the US especially when you control for violent crime.

Originally posted by Silent Master
IOW, you have no real argument.

Butthurt much?

Originally posted by dadudemon
Really great to see people taking a stand for the most oppressed race, by police brutality, in the US. This is a movement everyone can comfortably get behind. No one would be blinded by incorrect ideas about police brutality statistics, right? They'd correctly pay attention to the facts and see that white people, specifically white men, are the most brutalized of any race demographic in the US especially when you control for violent crime.

Not % wise.

It’s funny how people here others saying all lives matter or white lives matter whilst steaming for equity. I guess it boils down to not actually wanting equality and just want to be treated better than everyone else.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Butthurt much?

Yes, you certainly appear to be.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Not % wise.

Originally posted by dadudemon
...white people, specifically white men, are the most brutalized of any race demographic in the US especially when you control for violent crime.

White people are over-represented in police brutalities especially when you compare them to black people when you control for violent crime prevalence. When you control for violent crime prevalence, black people are under-represented compared to the all-race average.

Here's the problem America actually has: mentally ill lives matter.

Originally posted by Insane Titan
It’s funny how people here others saying all lives matter or white lives matter whilst steaming for equity. I guess it boils down to not actually wanting equality and just want to be treated better than everyone else.

Yup.

Originally posted by Silent Master
Yes, you certainly appear to be.

Yep. He's the one who obviously triggered by a WLM banner being flown. It's so cute him pretending like everyone else are the ones who're butthurt over it lol. That's some major level projection he has going on there.

Originally posted by dadudemon
White people are over-represented in police brutalities especially when you compare them to black people when you control for violent crime prevalence. When you control for violent crime prevalence, black people are under-represented compared to the all-race average.

Here's the problem America actually has: mentally ill lives matter.

Well it certainly wouldnt be inherent racism towards white people. Given the police brutality is mainly perpetrated by whites police.

So im still confused how any of this jumps to the notion of White Lives Matter.

Originally posted by dadudemon
White people are over-represented in police brutalities especially when you compare them to black people when you control for violent crime prevalence. When you control for violent crime prevalence, black people are under-represented compared to the all-race average.

Here's the problem America actually has: mentally ill lives matter.

Do you have this information and data handy? It's something you've mentioned before and I'm interested in seeing where you get the information from.

I'm not trying to imply that you don't have this information, mind you. It's just with so much intense back and forth on this, I'm curious where this type of info would come from.

Originally posted by Quincy
Do you have this information and data handy? It's something you've mentioned before and I'm interested in seeing where you get the information from.

I'm not trying to imply that you don't have this information, mind you. It's just with so much intense back and forth on this, I'm curious where this type of info would come from.

Originally posted by dadudemon

https://www.statista.com/statistics/585152/people-shot-to-death-by-us-police-by-race/

Originally posted by dadudemon
Use trending and the first year compared to current year.

On the trend, since we've already completed 5 months and 4 days, we are already behind for all races in all categories from last year to this year - except, perhaps, "other."

If you consider the start date of 2017 (Trump took office in Jan), all categories are down except for black and unknown with this year, on black, shaping up to be a sharp drop from 2017 and the year prior.

Overall, deaths are way down since 2017 even if you stop in 2019.

And it should be obvious why murder-by-cop numbers are trending down: crime is trending down, big time, since Trump took office.

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/preliminary-analysis-2018-fbi-uniform-crime-report

https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/10/10/us-violent-crime-rate-down-5-showing-president-trumps-combination-of-law-and-order-and-criminal-justice-reform-go-together-making-america-safer/#410034ba79cc

I made some charts to represent this data and I projected the homicides by police through the end of 2020.

I included the raw data, as well.

So here are all the charts redone with 2020 projected numbers and a linear trendline.

Originally posted by dadudemon
Yes. If you'd like to disagree with the data, you can go back in time and see little difference in the trend for this year (and there is a clear reason why: gun violence didn't change during lockdown). We were just simply getting that much better.

Full data disclosure so you don't have to rely on just my words (this bypasses the need to have to pay Statista money to see their old data and I don't feel bad about sharing this trick because this data should be made publicly available as it is important to changing policy):

Jan 29 snapshot

March 31 snapshot (in this snapshot, you can see that fatal police encounters are significantly down for the year for the first 3 months, year over year)

Data remained the same for Jan-Mar even 2 months later (because, sometimes, the data is updated when missing information comes about)

And, lastly, today's data which just got updated as of today, June 5th, gave us April's and May's data. Which is what you and I are talking about, now.

I'll break it down why it's still an accurate representation of reality:

1. Most people did not "lock down" and it was mostly placebo, according to GPS data collected on mobile devices. This, of course, is different for NY and CA where people really did "lockdown." Also, multiple states reopened on April 24th and continued to re-open through the second week of May. We would have seen an uptick and then a downtick and then an uptick again if what you said was accurate of the data. We didn't. That trend is not there.

2. Crime continued despite lockdowns with a -20% in most categories of crime except gun violence. In a study done of crime during lockdown, 18 of 30 cities saw crime go down and 12 of 30 saw crime go up during lockdown. Homicide rates remained fairly stable, however (year over year).

3. a. Gun violence was up during lockdown.
b. During police confrontations, being armedwith a gun constitutes a majority of the fatal police encounters.

This point is irrelevant since I broke all of them out by their own category and did a linear trend for each. You'd have a really damn good point if I combined all the totals into one graph (which I bet some white-supremacists would try to do to dishonestly make their point...sneaky data), by year. But I didn't, on purpose, because that chart would be dishonest. Yes, I'm telling you that so you'll be proud of me and pat me on the back (not kidding...I think this conversation is fun and I want you to see I was honest in my approach).

Your conclusion should be the opposite based on the data. It is significantly down for all races except "other." The exact opposite conclusion should be made from the available data that we have. But I digress a bit on take 2, below.

Here are 2 alternatives Takes:

Take 1: An alternative take is from Washington Post. They track death-by-police data (but there is a bias in it because it is Washington Post) and they see little year over year difference in death-by-police. Since the population is growing, year over year, this constitutes a reduction in fatal police encounters per 100,000.

Take 2: Also from WaPo's data - since violent crime is going down and population is going up, this means we are killing more people, per violent crime, per 100,000 people. This means my entire point is wrong and the exact opposite would be true. When you have conflicting data like this, what do you believe? Statista's data best fits the narrative I want to be true so I present that and put time and energy into best modeling that data. Statista also has a bias because they put a disclaimer on their data stating the US has a major police-on-people violence problem.

Second to last item that I feels needs to be talked about. All these places, when talking about fatal police encounters, dishonestly represent that black people are twice as likely to be shot and killed by police. But that doesn't match with the fact that black people are 7 times more likely to murder than white people because they only represent 13% of the population but commit a majority of all the murders. One study looked into fatal police shootings and found that crime rates by ethnicity in a city was a very accurate predictor for fatal police encounters for that particular ethnicity. To put it more simply using made up data:

City A: Black people kill 100 people a year in City A. Black people average 1 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City A.
City A: Black people kill 200 people a year in City A. Black people average 2 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City A.

City B: White people kill 600 people a year in City B. White people average 3 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City B.
City B: White people kill 900 people a year in City B. White people average 9 fatal police encounter(s) a year in City B.

Their study had two findings about fatal police encounters:

1. Crime by race is a highly accurate predictor of fatal police encounters - more crime, more fatal police encounters. Less crime, less fatal police encounters.

2. Population of race in the city also had significant but weak correlation with odds of a fatal police encounter. In other words, yet again, the "population is population" trend was found in data. There's an odd trend you can find in almost all data related to populations. Generally, it goes like this: more population, more variable x. We rediscover it over and over and over again in all sorts of studies and it gets very annoying after a while. You can almost predict anything with it and it doesn't just stop at raw numbers - you can see population data trends in population growth and densities - still the same trends more or less of those population variables results in more or less of the population stat you're studying.

Okay, last item, I promise.

None of this stuff I'm talking with you about matters much. Sure, it looks like we are trending down for the year, significantly so, since 2017. But it's not trending down nearly fast enough for my tastes. Why does the UK have FAR less fatal police encounters per 100,000 people than the US? Even if you divide their numbers by 4 (which is too much because the UK's homicide rate per 100,000 is not 4 times lower than the US's), we still cannot account for how many people die per 100,000 people in the US. Our police just kill their citizens more often per violent crime compared to the UK. We need to change it and it starts with federally mandated policing standards.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2017/crime-in-the-u.s.-2017/tables/table-43

Hey thanks I'm going to read through all of this

^ Dadudemon your tables seem to be showing approximately twice as many white people killed by police as black people.

But the % of the African American poulation of the U.S. is around 12-14% of the population. Whilst the % of White people in the U.S. is 70%+.

IOW you are far more likely to be killed by police as a black person than a white person, which is what I meant by %'s.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
^ Dadudemon your tables seem to be showing approximately twice as many white people killed by police as black people.

But the % of the African American poulation of the U.S. is around 12-14% of the population. Whilst the % of White people in the U.S. is 70%+.

IOW you are far more likely to be killed by police as a black person than a white person, which is what I meant by %'s.

You didn't read my post, then, if you conclude that.

Black people should be killed at 3.5 times the amount they are being killed by police if they are to match the numbers for white people.

Because they commit, proportionally, 7 times the amount of violent crime yet they only represent a double proportion of fatal encounters with police meaning they are underrepresented in fatal police encounters.

Originally posted by Quincy
Hey thanks I'm going to read through all of this

Good! 😄

And there is one error in my post that I have yet to correct. If you find it, you win the internet.

Originally posted by dadudemon
You didn't read my post, then, if you conclude that.

Black people should be killed at 3.5 times the amount they are being killed by police if they are to match the numbers for white people.

Because they commit, proportionally, 7 times the amount of violent crime yet they only represent a double proportion of fatal encounters with police meaning they are underrepresented in fatal police encounters.

That's a very specific way of looking at the data. Which doesn't count homicides committed without any violent crime involved. George Floyd for instance wasn't committing a violent crime. It also doesn't count for stop and searches.

Also when you say black people commit 7 times the amount of violent crime, what that actually means is 7 times as many black people are charged for violent crimes.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's a very specific way of looking at the data.

It really isn't. That's how the data breaks down when using predictive analysis and that's covered quite thoroughly in my post.

The fatal police encounters varies very strongly and directly with the amount of violent crime.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Also when you say black people commit 7 times the amount of violent crime, what that actually means is 7 times as many black people are charged for violent crimes.

While you perform mental gymnastics to get away from uncomfortable facts about black violence in the US, we still have mountains of dead black bodies.

Sometimes, taking the hardline SJW stance is actually the racist stance and it harms the victims. This is why I do not tolerate black violence blindness and call out the dishonest takes on the topic - black lives really do matter. Trying to perform mental gymnastics to avoid the mountain of dead young black men doesn't help black lives.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That's a very specific way of looking at the data. Which doesn't count homicides committed without any violent crime involved. George Floyd for instance wasn't committing a violent crime. It also doesn't count for stop and searches.

Also when you say black people commit 7 times the amount of violent crime, what that actually means is 7 times as many black people are charged for violent crimes.