2 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

You posted a bunch of articles. What am I supposed to do with that? If you want to claim that policing is inherently racist, then defend your claim without simply pointing to other people's work. At the bare minimum, explain the articles

2 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Fatal police shootings, all police shootings, and wrongful police shootings are not synonymous.  

There are racist cops, corrupt cops, violence hungry cops out there...lots of good ones too, of course.  While there is no doubt that African Americans endure the brunt of the abuse from these bad cops, there is also the reality that they commit more crimes per capita and are having more indicated interactions with police.  It's a very politically incorrect and unpleasant factoid that needs to be somewhat acknowledged with some internal reflection as we also throw the cops under the bus here.  

Any time a weapon is discharged or physical harm is inflicted upon a detainee, there needs to be a very public and very transparent review by a panel of carefully selected individuals.  We sort of do it in medicine with morbidity & mortality conferences.  Those conferences are internally policed by our peers though.  We've reached a point where that obviously just won't do in this sector.  

That's all easier said than done.  No one on this board would be particularly thrilled if there were a public judgment tribunal looking down their nose at them after every one of their most difficult and dangerous days on the job.  And "efficient" or "affordable" are never words that can describe a public process that opens itself up to infiltration by Afans parasitic colleagues, who will certainly have a field day with this process.  

Best comment I've read on this board

1 minute ago, WentzFan11 said:

No, that's exactly how it works. If someone makes a claim, they should be able to defend it. Defense of a position isn't "go read this." 

32 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Fatal police shootings, all police shootings, and wrongful police shootings are not synonymous.  

There are racist cops, corrupt cops, violence hungry cops out there...lots of good ones too, of course.  While there is no doubt that African Americans endure the brunt of the abuse from these bad cops, there is also the reality that they commit more crimes per capita and are having more indicated interactions with police.  It's a very politically incorrect and unpleasant factoid that needs to be somewhat acknowledged with some internal reflection as we also throw the cops under the bus here.  

Any time a weapon is discharged or physical harm is inflicted upon a detainee, there needs to be a very public and very transparent review by a panel of carefully selected individuals.  We sort of do it in medicine with morbidity & mortality conferences.  Those conferences are internally policed by our peers though.  We've reached a point where that obviously just won't do in this sector.  

That's all easier said than done.  No one on this board would be particularly thrilled if there were a public judgment tribunal looking down their nose at them after every one of their most difficult and dangerous days on the job.  And "efficient" or "affordable" are never words that can describe a public process that opens itself up to infiltration by Afans parasitic colleagues, who will certainly have a field day with this process.  

If I follow you around long enough, I’ll eventually find something to stop you for. 

2 minutes ago, justrelax said:

No. Just no. A movement to curb police violence against black citizens is not segregationist. It is a movement toward equal justice before the law, hat the authors of Coddling would call Procedural justice.

Then why are the BLM saying it?

Just now, WentzFan11 said:

If I follow you around long enough, I’ve eventually find something to stop you for. 

So some fantasy scenario is your response

2 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

Then why are the BLM saying it?

So some fantasy scenario is your response

Fun fact. There’s a google scholar. Dig in.  

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=police+presence+in+minority+communities&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

6 minutes ago, WentzFan11 said:

If I follow you around long enough, I’ve eventually find something to stop you for. 

Do you believe that systemic, targeted racism within the police and legal system accounts for the entire disproportionate rate of arrests and incarcerations?

Just now, WentzFan11 said:

Fun fact. There’s a google scholar. Dig in.  

https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=police+presence+in+minority+communities&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

Again, don't be afraid. Defend your position. You can't provide a link and say that I need to do the work to disprove your claim.

Just now, Giddyunc said:

Again, don't be afraid. Defend your position. You can't provide a link and say that I need to do the work to disprove your claim.

Not calling him out but just in general i think people are more prone to doing that now. I tend to write things like I am writing a paper and I have to prove it to you why I believe what I do. It’s why i tend to be more wordy then i probably should.

 Giving you my thoughts along with facts behind my how i got to my conclusion. It’s like you’re writing a paper and use the origins of the source and say well it’s in here you go find it but it’ll prove what i am say. You wouldn’t do that when you’re writing an essay. you would take the points from the source and put it in your paper and then give your rationale behind why it strengths your point and interpret what it means or you think it means 

6 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

Again, don't be afraid. Defend your position. You can't provide a link and say that I need to do the work to disprove your claim.

Ive already given you my position, provided a couple sources, AFan gave you a bunch of sources. If you don’t agree with my position then do the research, I’m not writing you a thesis. 

1 minute ago, e-a-g-l-e-s eagles! said:

Not calling him out but just in general i think people are more prone to doing that now. I tend to write things like I am writing a paper and I have to prove it to you why I believe what I do. It’s why i tend to be more wordy then i probably should.

 Giving you my thoughts along with facts behind my how i got to my conclusion. It’s like you’re writing a paper and use the origins of the source and say well it’s in here you go find it but it’ll prove what i am say. You wouldn’t do that when you’re writing an essay. you would take the points from the source and put it in your paper and then give your rationale behind why it strengths your point and interpret what it means or you think it means 

Yeah, it's a real problem today

1 minute ago, WentzFan11 said:

Ive already given you my position, provided a couple sources, AFan gave you a bunch of sources. If you don’t agree with my position then do the research, I’m not writing you a thesis. 

I'm not asking for a thesis. I'm asking for you to defend your position. Calling a person, a group of people, or an institution racist is a bold proclamation. The least you could do is support it. 

Ok, I've highjacked this discussion long enough. If anyone wants to continue any discussion, regardless of the topic, feel free to DM. 

Also...

The non-science based civil/social academia world of peer review is a pretty fixed left echo chamber (picture a room or zoom full of JustRelax and Afans) so it's not exactly the absolute truth.  Even in the scientific community, dozens of COVID papers have been redacted in the last few weeks alone simply because journals were pushing an agenda following certain hype.  Hundreds of scientific and medical papers from China have been redacted in the past year after it was discovered that they were completely fabricated.  

The world of peer-review is a complex one.  A very bright mentor once told me..."when you come up with something brilliant, they won't publish it because you are wrong.  Once you prove it, they won't publish your evidence because it is old news and no longer noteworthy."

 

 

4 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

Don't most college coaches say that about most of their players that move on? Now if Jerry Rice sent out a message saying the same thing, Id buy into it. 

3 minutes ago, ManuManu said:

 

I think of Watkins, Goodwin (despite his age), and Hightower as one collective lottery ticket.  I don't care to re-check the facts at this point, but I posted a while ago that they were obtained for the total cost of (IRRC) a late 4th round pick.  I think that's a fantastic gamble....I feel like there is a much better cumulative chance of one of them emerging as a real deep threat than any one guy available at that point in the 4th round.  You might be able to say the same for even much higher spots in the draft.

 

The nfl  has no idea the damage it’s doing to itself by becoming totally political now and there isn’t going to be a China audience to supplement the loses like with the NBA.

i think they lost something like 12% in ratings during the kneeling stuff the last time. This toxic environment is going to produce way more than a 12% audience decline. 

45 minutes ago, Giddyunc said:

When adjusted for rates of violent crime, black americans are less likely to be shot than white americans

Actually it's a bit more complex than that, what you're parroting is a right wing take on Roland Fryer's work, by someone who didn't understand what he was reading.

Fryer doesn't make any definitive conclusions, because while he's put together an ingenious data set, he's the first to admit its limitations.

What he found was that Black Americans weren't more likely to be killed, when all factors are considered, probably because of the consequences of killing civilians (high level of review), though when you look at different cities, there's a wide range of the rate of police killings, i.e., some departments are definitely "trigger happy." But the numbers vary depending on the functional form, i.e., the results aren't as robust as you'd like.

Fryer also found very strong statistical evidence of systematic policy brutality against black Americans, because cops are far more likely to get away with such behavior, as the Minnesota police force demonstrates.

One problem with the debate is that many of the commentators on the Left and the Right simply aren't competent to understand the numbers.

We need evidence based policing, not based on stories but careful analysis of what reduces police killings, what reduces crime, etc. We know some departments have reformed and reduced both crime and police violence, but that should not be taken at face value. Police statistics are notorious for being subject to massaging (see The Wire), homicide is the most trustworthy stat b/c it's hard to hide a dead body. Rape has increased the last few decades, not because more women are getting raped, but more police departments are actually taking women seriously instead of suppressing incidents of rape. Property crime is problematic b/c of insurance, many people don't bother to report it.

The fact that there is no national database, collecting and checking all these stats so we have good information, is a national tragedy, and reflects the ability of the police to prevent strong oversight - such a data base would help identify the departments doing a good/bad job.

21 minutes ago, eagle45 said:

Also...

The non-science based civil/social academia world of peer review is a pretty fixed left echo chamber (picture a room or zoom full of JustRelax and Afans) so it's not exactly the absolute truth.  Even in the scientific community, dozens of COVID papers have been redacted in the last few weeks alone simply because journals were pushing an agenda following certain hype.  Hundreds of scientific and medical papers from China have been redacted in the past year after it was discovered that they were completely fabricated.  

The world of peer-review is a complex one.  A very bright mentor once told me..."when you come up with something brilliant, they won't publish it because you are wrong.  Once you prove it, they won't publish your evidence because it is old news and no longer noteworthy."

COVID papers got retracted because they hadn't gone through peer review, they were rushed out b/c in this environment there's a tradeoff between accuracy and timeliness. Not because of an agenda - the flood of COVID papers also means there are few reviewers with the time and expertise to review them.

Anyone who does extensive research knows there are a lot of "flaky" journals, and to avoid them for the most part. And never trust one paper, research is an on-going dialogue.

Though if you have good training in your field, you develop a "sixth sense" of when articles seem "too good to be true."

I write books, and I probably read 10+K articles for each book I write (and reject probably 75-90% as either irrelevant or just bad research).

 

1 hour ago, WentzFan11 said:

There’s a lot you can research on the subject. Here are statistics. 
 

https://www.statista.com/statistics/1123070/police-shootings-rate-ethnicity-us/

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

A word of caution. The statistical analysis of police shootings is quite complex. For example, the data you cite (police shootings per million people) should consider encounter rate. Even then not all encounters are equal. There are also effects owing to geography, race and gender of officers, age of suspects, etc.

It seems like everytime they remove "take the politcal crap to cvon" out of the thread title it comes back twice as strong lol

Alright....180 from the politics.  3 questions for everyone.

1.  Why are you an Eagles fan?

2. Why did you first join the original version of the boards?

3. Why do you still spend this much time posting on the boards?

 

 

My answers...

1.  Born in Philly.  Left at the age of 3.  Stuck with all 4 Philly teams while growing up in the NYC metro area out of loyalty to where my family came from.  Now, above all else, being an Eagles fan represents the shared experience with my Dad on countless Sundays over the years.

2.  I joined the boards in 2003 when I was in HS.  I was a DE/TE combo...good strength, good size, poor feet and below average times in all workouts (perhaps an interesting psych eval for my speed obsession?!?!).  I loved the Eagles and could not have a meaningful discussion with anyone else I knew about the team.  It was the first and only chance I had to actually talk Eagles football with other Eagles fans.  

3. I became interested, like the rest of you, in the science of roster construction.  I liked talking about the deficits the Eagles have and how to address them (the birth of my negative reputation).  I'm also stubborn and hate being wrong.  So when the Eagles diverge from my incredible, flawless plans...I have been known to pout just a tad.  And then it actually emerged into this dysfunctional little community we have.  Sharing the SB triumph was a real high point.  Electronic communities and relationships are an emerging trend in our society...never my thing.  I mostly just use those platforms to show off my wife to people who made fun of me in middle school.  But the unusual friendships we have on this board are my small foray into being a millennial and not getting trapped in my own echo chamber and dated world.  I'm really not that old to call my world dated though.....

6 minutes ago, Desertbirds said:

A word of caution. The statically analysis of police shootings is quite complex. For example, the data you cite (police shootings per million people) should consider encounter rate. Even then not all encounters are equal. There are also effects owing to geography, race and gender of officers, age of suspects, etc.

That's why I'd send you to Roland Fryer, a rising star in the Economics profession, who has written on this topic the last few years.

Very creative approach dealing with a paucity of good data.