Jump to content
Washington Football Team Logo
Extremeskins

Standing during the Pledge or National Anthem


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Predicto said:

Nice to see links to the white supremacist website Vdare on the Tailgate.  

 

 

I plead ignorance :kickcan:

and blame google ....and liberals :)

they are the FBI stats right?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Aireskoi said:

Truth is the truth regardless of where it comes from, especially when MSM is completely busted to anyone paying attention.

Is it not true?  Attack it with the facts, it means so much more than the silly name calling.

 

Can you link to the actual table at the FBI crime stats?

Specifically, what table specifically shows the ethnicity on ethnicity stats? I've looked at the link below and can't find it.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

Link to post
Share on other sites

One thing I'll note on crime data, and using it to back anything, is that you have to demonstrate it is sufficiently accurate for the purpose it is being used for.

I do not think the data is sufficiently good that we can decisively state anything with regards to race and crime rates.

Consider, briefly, that in 2005, only about 25% of robbery cases were "solved."  So when we see a statistic that among charged robbery cases, African Americans are disproportionately represented, will that hold through the remaining 75%?  We ultimately have no way of knowing.

However, acceptance of incomplete or bad data can lead to self-fulfilling prophecies.  Start with "blacks commit more crimes."   This leads to increased police presence in high black population areas, which leads to more blacks caught for crimes, which leads to statistics which back the idea that blacks commit more crimes.

Example, if you think blacks will drive drunk more often, and therefore set up all your DUI checkpoints in high minority areas, does the subsequent end of year totaling mean anything, really?  If police estimate they "solve" 10% of DUIs (this is a stat I just made up, btw), and their solved cases show disproportionately high black rates, but they are only checking high black areas, it would suggest an evening out over more "solved" cases.

Further, we have to check biases at other levels, like with charges.  Blacks are charged more often, okay, but that means any case where a suspect is identified but not charged isn't included.  If there's a bias to not charge whites, for example, that could bias the data.  And it can seem innocuous.  A cop pulls over two people in a night.  Both are two blocks from their house, and similarly drunk (we'll say .12, that is, over legal limit but not totally hammered).  Cop arrests only the black guy, while letting the white guy drive the last two blocks.  Suddenly the data is off.

Until we can ensure that the collected data is not biased at some level, we have to be very wary of it.  We don't need to totally discount it, after all, data is data; the USC Dornsife poll is consistently 6 points more in favor of Trump than the average, which looks bad but doesn't make it "bad," it just requires taking into account house effect.

Problem is, data is incomplete and biases have not been examined and controlled for.  We don't have tons of different data sets, we have one, with serious potential problems.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Can you link to the actual table at the FBI crime stats?

Specifically, what table specifically shows the ethnicity on ethnicity stats? I've looked at the link below and can't find it.

https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/violent-crime/violent-crime-topic-page/violentcrimemain_final

 I didn't post the original link I was just quoting it, I'll try to find the data if no one posts it before I get done hitting some golf balls.

Edit:

So it looks like the data comes from a DOJ report that has been revised since it was originally sourced in 2014. (see top of report)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf

Edited by Aireskoi
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dog-

i think you bring up some interesting points. 

i have a couple of questions- not necessarily for you, just more of the thinking out loud variety. first, i wonder if the 'caught vs no caught perpetrator' thing has been dissected already. i did a couple of quick searches having to do with accuracy in crime statistics and couldnt find anything, but theres gotta be something out there. also, i've seen studies that talk about victim reporting, where the victims give a description of the perp, rather than it being a crime with no witnesses, and how its obviously more accurate for this sort of thing. i wonder if the stats weve been looking at are of that variety.

second, i wonder if this is one of those things like a poll, where you get a certain random sampling of a small percentage of people, yet statistically it will be very close to what you would get if you were to survey an entire population. 

i have seen criticisms of studies, such as the roland fryer study, http://www.nber.org/papers/w22399?utm_campaign=ntw&utm_medium=email&utm_source=ntw which talk about police department reporting- since its voluntary, police departments are only potentially sharing what they voluntarily want to share. also, its only a few police departments- houston being the biggest one- so, is it representative of policing in the US as a whole?

anyway, good stuff. if anyone has any more info on this, please post. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Aireskoi said:

 I didn't post the original link I was just quoting it, I'll try to find the data if no one posts it before I get done hitting some golf balls.

Edit:

So it looks like the data comes from a DOJ report that has been revised since it was originally sourced in 2014. (see top of report)

http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/cv13.pdf

 

Maybe I'm dense but I still don't see the data that specifically counted the violent crimes committed by one ethnicity against another ethnicity. And that was what I was questioning... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Maybe I'm dense but I still don't see the data that specifically counted the violent crimes committed by one ethnicity against another ethnicity. And that was what I was questioning... 

 

my second link  has a link to the source data, but you need to break it down and contrast 

 

wonder why the govt doesn't.?....probably the same reason they lumped hispanics with whites till recently.

or we can blame La Raza.:kickcan:

Link to post
Share on other sites

https://www.buzzfeed.com/claudiakoerner/national-anthem-is-played-early-at-soccer-match-so-megan-rap?utm_term=.qiLm0MRGaA#.urpGPgy8l3

 

National Anthem Is Played Early At Soccer Match So Megan Rapinoe Can’t Protest

The Washington Spirit, which are owned by a veteran, said in a statement the team did not want anyone to “hijack this tradition that means so much to millions of Americans.”

Originally posted on  September 7, 2016, at 11:04 p.m.
Updated on  September 7, 2016, at 11:23 p.m.
Claudia Koerner
Claudia Koerner
BuzzFeed News Reporter
  •  
  •  
  •  

 

sub-buzz-26164-1473303000-1.jpg?resize=9
  •  
  •  
Don Ryan / AP

Seattle Reign’s Megan Rapinoe is shown during the national anthem before an NWSL soccer match against Portland in 2015.

Soccer star Megan Rapinoe took a knee last week during the national anthem and said she'd do it again to draw attention to racial issues within the US.

On Wednesday, the Washington Spirit didn't give her a chance.

Team officials decided to play the anthem early, before Rapinoe, a member of the Seattle Reign, was on the field.

"We decided to play the anthem in our stadium ahead of schedule rather than subject our fans and friends to the disrespect we feel such an act would represent," the team said in a statement.

 

...more at link.

Edited by Springfield
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Because she's an attention whore?

 

definitely not discounting that.

like, I could see if the owner of the Spirit said '4 days before 9/11, I don't want someone disrespecting the flag', but her bringing up 9/11 in response to her not getting the chance to protest is an odd thing.

maybe I'm missing something, like she was responding to the statement by the team or something.

Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, grego said:

why did she bring up 9/11? I don't get it.:unsure:

 

16 minutes ago, Kilmer17 said:

Because she's an attention whore?

9/11 was brought up by her because its Sunday.

The irony of both your confusion, and calling her an attention seeker is thats exactly whats been done to Kaepernick with the whole "support the troops" tangent the people who are against his protest have been spewing. Kaepernick never said he didnt support the troops.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, BenningRoadSkin said:

 

9/11 was brought up by her because its Sunday.

The irony of both your confusion, and calling her an attention seeker is thats exactly whats been done to Kaepernick with the whole "support the troops" tangent the people who are against his protest have been spewing. Kaepernick never said he didnt support the troops.

Huh?

People jumping to conclusions about Kaep is totally different.  In that situation, he never mentioned the troops etc.  In this situation, Rapinoe HERSELF made it about 9/11.

It's possible to support both Kaep and Rapinoe while also supporting the companies that are doing what they can in their own form of support of the flag, anthem, cops etc.

But in this case, Rapinoe should keep her mouth shut.  She sounds like a petulant child.  

 

Im reminded of Rick Monday preventing two guys from burning a flag, and Chris Gizzi running out with the flag after 9/11, and Whitney Houston performing the Anthem after the first Iraq war began.

 

All of that is now lost.  All of those people would be scorned by half the people in the US today.

 

Sad.

 

But go ahead Meghan Rapinoe, whine like a little kid because some mean owner took away your opportunity to grab the spotlight.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, grego said:

definitely not discounting that.

like, I could see if the owner of the Spirit said '4 days before 9/11, I don't want someone disrespecting the flag', but her bringing up 9/11 in response to her not getting the chance to protest is an odd thing.

maybe I'm missing something, like she was responding to the statement by the team or something.

You aren't missing anything.  She doesn't respect the anthem, so they respectfully didn't play it in front of her.  I assume the 9/11 reference came from her in response to the word "hijack".

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

 I assume the 9/11 reference came from her in response to the word "hijack".

 

Exactly. That was an unfortunate choice of words by the Spirit. Especially in conjunction with what is coming up this weekend. 

Edited by The Evil Genius
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

4 minutes ago, The Evil Genius said:

 

Exactly. That was an unfortunate choice of words by the Spirit. Especially in conjunction with what is coming up this weekend. 

 

17 minutes ago, TimmySmith said:

You aren't missing anything.  She doesn't respect the anthem, so they respectfully didn't play it in front of her.  I assume the 9/11 reference came from her in response to the word "hijack".

 

ok, I see the statement by the spirit now.  guess I didn't link the teams use of the word with 9/11.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...